Why doesn't God take free will away from Bad people?

[MonteRCMS]

Sometimes, God gets well and truly p*ssed off at some of us who should know better.

One day, an Anglican bishop preached some doubts about Jesus and his resurrection.

So, that night, there was no wind, and a cloud “drifted” in and hovered over the cathedral and a lightning bolt came down and blew off the roof of the cathedral.

So, yes, sometimes He does suggest and display His Displeasure.

 

[Mary888]

Have you ever fallen in love with someone? You want them to love you back, for sure, you want this so much that it hurts not knowing. But this is real love, not fake love. Like if someone drugged the objection of your affection and offered them to you, this wouldn’t be what you really wanted. You want the real thing because you know what you feel is the real thing. So you want them to freely love you.
Free will and struggle within it is one proof of God’s intense love for us.
Jesus said “those who WISH to follow me, give themselves up and…”
In the Old Testament it is said (and this usually scares people away from God) “because, yes I am jealous God.” (in the context of worshiping other gods).
About the people who do harm - they are also loved. They were not created to do harm, they chose to do harm. This is when we have to give ourselves up, abandon our own desperation and anger in suffering, to see God again.

 

[Scowler]

Sometimes, God gets well and truly p*ssed off at some of us who should know better.

One day, an Anglican bishop preached some doubts about Jesus and his resurrection.

So, that night, there was no wind, and a cloud “drifted” in and hovered over the cathedral and a lightning bolt came down and blew off the roof of the cathedral.

So, yes, sometimes He does suggest and display His Displeasure.

And let’s not forget that - according to Pat Robertson - God directed a hurricane a few years ago to punish the gays and lesbians in the North, and spared (some of) the faithful Southern Baptists.

 

[MonteRCMS]

“You know not the hour …”

“Be afraid … be very afraid …”

“Pray always…”

 

[Scowler]

“You know not the hour …”

“Be afraid … be very afraid …”

“Pray always…”

Now I am scared. Well, not really.

 

[HarryStotle]

Now, let’s take your approach and use your definition - as a hypothesis. There is STILL a contradiction in it. You say that every instance of pain and suffering MUST be logically necessary IF your definition is correct. So if we can present at least ONE instance of pain, which is NOT logically necessary, then your hypothesis collapses.

I don’t remember making such an extravagant claim as pain is “logically necessary.” We wouldn’t have that kind of privileged access to the moral landscape to know whether pain or suffering are “logically” necessary or not. We can’t know that they are and, by the very same token, we cannot know that they are not. That is why your claim that some pains or suffering can be known to be unnecessary or gratuitous simply fails. You cannot justify your claim, so you cannot use it as an argument against the existence of the very Being, the only Being, who could possibly determine the “logical” necessity in any meaningful sense. We are in no position to do so – that was my claim. Ergo, you cannot sustain any kind of certainty that pain or suffering are unnecessary or gratuitous in any logically cogent sense.

Absent God and, therefore, absent any absolute MORAL determinations, the necessity or lack of necessity of anything gets reduced to simple brute fact and any talk of logical necessity becomes meaningless.

So to add the additional burden on me that I am making anything like a claim that pains are “logically necessary” is just plain shell game rhetoric.

 

[Gorgias]

You need to bring up some actual arguments that the sufferings are “valuable” on their own right. To say that some alleged “positive” events would not be possible without the obviously negative events needs to be proven.

It really, really hurts to get into shape after an extended period of couch-potato sedentary life. I mean, you really suffer when you get back into exercise.

And yet, exercise is good. Its effects are healthy. It’s valuable and positive to be in good physical shape.

(Glad I could give you the counter-example you were looking for, @Scowler… )

 

[Scowler]

I don’t remember making such an extravagant claim as pain is “logically necessary.”

You did, implicitly, even if you did not realize it. In the definition of omnipotence there is one caveat: Omnipotence is the ability to do anything and everything that is not logically contradictory or logically impossible. As such God (the alleged, but unproven omnipotent entity) could remove / eliminate any kind of pain and suffering, except the ones which are logically necessary.

There is a cute expression: “no pain, no gain”, meaning that to achieve some positive result, sometimes one must go through a painful process. And that would be the good defense against the problem of evil. If there would be some very desirable outcome, which can only be achieved via a painful process. That would be a justification.

Now, from omnipotence it follows that God could eliminate all pains, except the logically impossible ones. All the other pains and sufferings could be eliminated. However there are many of them, which are allowed by God, but we, even without omnipotence can eliminate them just fine. Therefore they are not logically necessary, in other word, they are unnecessary, gratuitous. And that concludes the proof that God allows gratuitous pains, and as such he is NOT omnibenevolent.

You commit another error: our lack of omniscience does not mean that we cannot know anything, that we are totally ignorant. Your trick, that “since we are not omniscient, we are not qualified to make claims about logical necessities” - simply does not work.

Absent God and, therefore, absent any absolute MORAL determinations, the necessity or lack of necessity of anything gets reduced to simple brute fact and any talk of logical necessity becomes meaningless.

Brute facts cannot be overlooked and logical necessities are not contingent upon God’s alleged existence.

 

[Scowler]

It really, really hurts to get into shape after an extended period of couch-potato sedentary life. I mean, you really suffer when you get back into exercise.

And yet, exercise is good. Its effects are healthy. It’s valuable and positive to be in good physical shape.

Close but no cigar. This would be a good example of the incorrect principle: “the end justifies the means” - which both of us disagree with. It is not logically impossible to get into good shape, even after spending your life as a couch potato. What is possible is contingent upon the available “technology”. And God’s “technology” makes everything possible, except those pesky logical inconsistencies. Better luck next time.

 

[Gorgias]

Close but no cigar.

You’re gonna have to do better than that, unless you just want to shrug off my counter-example and pretend it’s not out there.

This would be a good example of the incorrect principle: “the end justifies the means”

Not seeing what you’re thinking. “End justifies the means” applies when you are trying to say that a virtuous end is justified by an evil means. Here’s your clue-by-four: exercise isn’t morally evil. It just involves physical suffering – which is what you were asking about in the first place.

It is not logically impossible to get into good shape, even after spending your life as a couch potato.

We’re not engaging in a discussion of “what’s possible”. Rather, you asked for an example where suffering leads to greater good. I gave you one. Now, you’re trying to move the goalposts, as well as giving a really weak rejection of the counter-example.

Better luck next time.

You too.

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

The question is what happens when free will butts up against God’s will. Sure, people have free will but God also has a will for what happens on this earth “thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”

So it is God’s will that Children be Sexually Molested and the Fetus be aborted? Is it truly God’s Will in Heaven?

 

[HarryStotle]

You did, implicitly, even if you did not realize it. In the definition of omnipotence there is one caveat: Omnipotence is the ability to do anything and everything that is not logically contradictory or logically impossible. As such God (the alleged, but unproven omnipotent entity) could remove / eliminate any kind of pain and suffering, except the ones which are logically necessary.

Even if that were the case – and I am not even close to granting that – the question of logical necessity isn’t the same as the question of moral necessity, even if you want to equivocate the two. So even if pain and suffering were not logically necessary, that does not imply that they are also not morally necessary or morally unnecessary, take your choice.

Now, from omnipotence it follows that God could eliminate all pains, except the logically impossible ones. All the other pains and sufferings could be eliminated. However there are many of them, which are allowed by God, but we, even without omnipotence can eliminate them just fine. Therefore they are not logically necessary, in other word, they are unnecessary, gratuitous. And that concludes the proof that God allows gratuitous pains, and as such he is NOT omnibenevolent.

So even if omnipotence means God could easily remove logically unnecessary pains, that does not mean his omnibenevolence or omniscience would require that he remove morally necessary pains, even if they are logically unnecessary.

Merely because pains and sufferings are not logically necessary, that does not imply that they are MORALLY unnecessary or even gratuitous, necessarily.

It is logically possible to remove, say the pain of childbirth, but that does not mean it could be done with no moral implications at all, even though logical constraints are removed. Perhaps there are strong moral reasons for pains and sufferings that we might think are gratuitous. It may be very possible to remove them because it is logically possible for God to do so, but that does not mean that removing the pain or suffering is without moral implications, and those implications could very well be very good moral reasons for not removing the pain or suffering, even though there are no logical impediments for God to remove them.

By changing the parameters from morality to logic, you are, once again, playing a rhetorical shell game.

 

[Scowler]

“End justifies the means” applies when you are trying to say that a virtuous end is justified by an evil means.

That is simply not true. If there is a desired outcome, which can be achieved by several means, and the means chosen is not the best one, then the process is inferior, even if it leads to the desired outcome. See the example below.

We’re not engaging in a discussion of “what’s possible”.

But we are. It is not just enough to get the desired result, it is imperative to evaluate the method to achieve it. You could save the life of someone, whose leg has been bitten by a poisonous snake by two methods:

1. apply an antidote or
2. grab an axe and chop off the leg.

No one would say, that only the end result matters, and the means is irrelevant. If that alleged omni-benevolent being does not choose the least intrusive method, then he does not deserve the label of “benevolent”.

 

[Scowler]

Even if that were the case – and I am not even close to granting that – the question of logical necessity isn’t the same as the question of moral necessity, even if you want to equivocate the two. So even if pain and suffering were not logically necessary, that does not imply that they are also not morally necessary or morally unnecessary, take your choice.

The definition of omnipotence only speaks of logical possibilities. Not to mention that the “morally necessary” is just a meaningless, empty word salad. How do you plan to measure what is “morally necessary”?

So even if omnipotence means God could easily remove logically unnecessary pains, that does not mean his omnibenevolence or omniscience would require that he remove morally necessary pains, even if they are logically unnecessary.

Baloney. Again, the definition of benevolence is that no unnecessary pains are allowed. You are getting more and more irrational. First, you tried to castrate the “omnipotence” and now you attempt to castrate the benevolence. Poor God, soon he will be like the emperor in tale of the “Emperor’s new clothes”, stark naked, and only the street urchin has the courage to proclaim: “The emperor has no clothes!”.

Perhaps there are strong moral reasons for pains and sufferings that we might think are gratuitous.

Ah, the good old “perhaps” raises its ugly, but ridiculous head again. If you have some REAL arguments, let’s see them. But “perhaps” is just an attempt to hide the fact that you have no arguments.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

“End justifies the means” applies when you are trying to say that a virtuous end is justified by an evil means.

That is simply not true. If there is a desired outcome, which can be achieved by several means, and the means chosen is not the best one, then the process is inferior, even if it leads to the desired outcome. See the example below.

Ahh… you’re not talking about “the end justifies the means”, then. You’re talking about proportionality.

Scowler:

We’re not engaging in a discussion of “what’s possible”.

But we are.

No, we’re not. Here’s what you asked for:

You need to bring up some actual arguments that the sufferings are “valuable” on their own right. To say that some alleged “positive” events would not be possible without the obviously negative events needs to be proven.

I rose to the challenge and provided the counter-example that you requested. (Perhaps you just aren’t pleased that there actually are examples of sufferings that lead to good?)

No one would say, that only the end result matters, and the means is irrelevant.

No one is claiming that.

If that alleged omni-benevolent being does not choose the least intrusive method, then he does not deserve the label of “benevolent”.

Two responses:

• first off, “least intrusive” is not the definition of omnibenevolence. Rather, the definition is “all good”, or, more to the point “all morally-good”.
• second, your assertion isn’t useful. In order for you to make that claim reasonably, you’d have to be able to prove (or at least demonstrate) that the events of this world aren’t necessary for the sake of goodness. In order to do so, you’d have to have the complete set of historical events in all time as the (name removed by moderator)ut to your claim. Since you cannot have these (name removed by moderator)uts, you cannot make your claim.

 

[HarryStotle]

The definition of omnipotence only speaks of logical possibilities. Not to mention that the “morally necessary” is just a meaningless, empty word salad. How do you plan to measure what is “morally necessary”?

And here I presumed you were making a moral argument all along by claiming it is “morally wrong” for the omniscient and omnipotent God to permit unnecessary suffering. Well then, I suppose if there is nothing morally wrong because moral necessity is simply an “empty word salad” that cannot be measured, then God would be under no moral compulsion whatsoever to add or remove any suffering or pain whatsoever. I mean how could word salad ever be considered compelling, morally or otherwise?

What the heck were you complaining about then, that God cannot be omnibenevolent (I.e., all-good, MORALLY speaking) if morality is only meaningless word salad and cannot be measured? You have no grounds to complain about anything unless you can provide grounds for why suffering is bad in some non-arbitrary and morally important way. Why should God be troubled by necessary or unnecessary pain or whether some suffering is gratuitous or not because it is all, in your words “world salad” any way?

Why didn’t you warn us that you weren’t really offering an argument against God but had something far more innocuous in mind by presenting a frivolous romp through your limpid culinary imagination? So you weren’t seriously offering any kind of moral critique of God to begin with, just prancing us? Well played, you!

Baloney. Again, the definition of benevolence is that no unnecessary pains are allowed.

There is nothing morally compelling about the “word salad” called “benevolence” that you want to squirrel back in after declaring words such as “good,” or “bad,” “moral” or "immoral, “benevolent” or “malevolent,” to be “meaningless, empty, word salad.”

You are getting more and more irrational. First, you tried to castrate the “omnipotence” and now you attempt to castrate the benevolence.

Nice try! I am attempting to “castrate” benevolence when you just declared all moral considerations to be “meaningless word salad.” I expect by implication that the word salad formerly called benevolence will be a decidedly limp castrati, as well.

How does benevolence retain any meaning whatsoever when morality and good, in general are meaningless and empty?

Poor God, soon he will be like the emperor in tale of the “Emperor’s new clothes”, stark naked, and only the street urchin has the courage to proclaim: “The emperor has no clothes!”

Trying to have your empty word salad and eat it, too, I see.

Why would courage or stark naked embarrassment have any meaning or import whatsoever, absent any standard for good or bad?

Continued…

 

[HarryStotle]

Ah, the good old “perhaps” raises its ugly, but ridiculous head again. If you have some REAL arguments, let’s see them. But “perhaps” is just an attempt to hide the fact that you have no arguments.

Careful, you are beginning to scare the babies and old ladies again!

Besides, you’ve just abdicated any grounds you had for making any argument against God by throwing out all moral considerations, and have thereby taken the force out of any objection you might have against God permitting pain or suffering. And, yet, you claim I am the one with “no arguments?”

Why should God be held morally suspect for permitting unnecessary or gratuitous suffering and pain, if there is no standard for morality; and moral good and bad are only empty, meaningless word salad? All the gratuitous suffering in the world is, in that case, indistinguishable from all the equally gratuitous pleasantry and well-being, since they are all part of the meaningless, gratuitous word salad we have the audacity to call morality or goodness.

 

[memes]

Free will comes with its good and bads. But the point of having it was that we could make our own decisions, and would suffer the consequences for our actions. If God took it away every time we were going to do something bad, then it would make no sense to have it in the first place. Obviously, it would have been good for something like the Holacaust to be prevented simply by God taking away Hitlers good will. But thats not what God intended for us when he gave us this sacred power.

 

[HarryStotle]

Baloney. Again, the definition of benevolence is that no unnecessary pains are allowed.

Okay, let’s go with your definition of benevolence as allowing “no unnecessary pains” and see how far we get.

My suspicion is that you are burying or hiding any moral considerations in the term “unnecessary pain” because you are making pain the sole criterion for what constitutes benevolence. A benevolent agent would then always opt to prevent any pain, or where that is not possible would opt for lesser amount of pain, quantitatively speaking, over more. Yet that cannot be the sole or even most important consideration.

Take, for example, life in a community without any anesthetics or any other way of controlling pain. If the option is enduring intense pain for a prolonged period of time, your metric would only and always permit a quick bullet to the back of the head (or similar remedy) because that would eliminate all unnecessary pain, given that no other standard – not the value of life itself, not putting up with pain in the pursuit of other goods, not letting the experience of pain lead to a more profound sense of human empathy – are to be included in your benevolence calculus.

So is a quick “relief” of pain by terminating any life that may be in for a prolonged state of pain ALWAYS the benevolent option, since benevolence only considers unnecessary pains and ALWAYS opts to remove the unnecessary quantity? Think about it. Putting someone out of their misery by quickly and painlessly euthanizing them will always be the “benevolent” option if removing unnecessary pain is the sole consideration. Nothing like being dead to make all pain unnecessary. Why wouldn’t that be your goto option? Why even go on living because pains and suffering will always be a frequent aspect of any life.

This, by the way, presumes that death is it, and that an end to life is just a complete cessation of all experience for the deceased individual. What if that isn’t true? What if there are definitive consequences upon death and nobody gets away so easily from facing the moral repercussions of their actions?

So the question that seems to come up about now is: Which pains are actually necessary and how are these weighted to determine the precise moment when it is better to end life than put up with any “unnecessary pains.”

Furthermore, who decides at what point the quantity of pain trumps life itself? Someone with a low pain threshold may consider even the slightest discomfort a justification for ending it all, but someone else may be able to tolerate the worst possible suffering because life is always worth it for them. Are you going to decide that such a person is just acting insanely and because benevolence is, by definition, getting rid of unnecessary pain, you are justified in putting him out of his misery in a painless way?

Something wrong with this picture, no? I mean since you are setting your definition of benevolence as the de facto moral one, since all other moral considerations are “baloney” and mere empty meaningless word salad?

 

[Scowler]

Ahh… you’re not talking about “the end justifies the means”, then. You’re talking about proportionality.

SSDD - if you know what I mean. (And no, it is not single sided, double density. ) The question is about the “greater good defense” pertaining to the problem of evil. It says that allowing or inflicting pain and suffering is justified, IF the pain and suffering is LOGICALLY necessary to achieve that greater good. This entails that lessening the pain and suffering would remove that good. Every bit of that suffering is necessary for the good to emerge.

Here we must be “bean counters”. Suppose that X unit of pain is necessary to achieve that “good”. If there would be only X-1 units of suffering then the good would not manifest itself. If there is X+1 units of pain (caused or allowed) then that extra unit of pain is unnecessary or gratuitous. And even one unit of gratuitous suffering makes God “evil”. Yes, a mathematical analysis is in order. (Just ponder, what kind of a greater good emerged from the Holocaust? And how is it possible that if even one victim could have escaped the concentration camps and the gas chambers, then that good would have disappeared, too?)

Now comes the question of technology. What amount of pain is NEEDED is contingent upon the power of the of the one who administers the “treatment”. You brought up the exercise and the couch potato. For US the only way to transform that couch potato is a healthy diet and a vigorous exercise routine - with some discomfort or what the heck, let’s call it “suffering” (I happen to enjoy my daily exercise routine). For God (with his stipulated omnipotence) the same result could be achieved by snapping his virtual fingers.

I rose to the challenge and provided the counter-example that you requested.

Don’t pretend to be THAT naïve. It is obvious that the whole conversation is about the “necessary suffering” caused or allowed by God.

In order for you to make that claim reasonably, you’d have to be able to prove (or at least demonstrate) that the events of this world aren’t necessary for the sake of goodness.

That is easy, even though I don’t really know what “goodness” you have in mind. All the suffering in this world CANNOT be necessary for that assumed good to materialize. Not just because God is supposed to be omnipotent, but we (lowly humans) can and do eliminate more and more sufferings. And if there is some suffering that we can eliminate, then it cannot be logically necessary. So it is PROVEN that there are unnecessary sufferings in this world, and no omniscience or omnipotence is needed.

And one more observation. Let’s use the Catholic greatest good - to get to heaven and enjoy the beatific vision (whatever that could be). God could simply “lift” us into heaven, if he wanted to - without going through this vale of tears. This existence is not logically necessary to achieve that “greatest good” of all.