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

[nearlycatholic]

maybe because outside of Christ we are no better. It is a mystery. But He surely loves them as much as He loves me. They may still come to repentance. Let’s pray so! God bless you.

 

[MonteRCMS]

No need to be scared, really or not.

We can change ourselves.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

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. )

Ahh, I remember the days of “single-sided” disks and hole punches fondly…

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”.

So, here’s the problem: unless you have the whole of history arrayed before you, so that you can assess how many “beans of suffering” were necessary to bring about a particular good, then your thought experiment is useless. At best, you can make assumptions based on the part of history that you do know about (or, you can ‘play God’ and try to judge Him based on your limited knowledge and perspective). Neither are sufficient in order to make the analysis that you say that you want to make.

So… although the process that you describe has intuitive appeal, it is nevertheless impossible to carry out. Therefore, there is no recourse to using it to prove (or disprove) that God is omnibenevolent. Sorry.

a vigorous exercise routine - with some discomfort or what the heck, let’s call it “suffering” (I happen to enjoy my daily exercise routine).

You enjoy it now. The example was the start of an exercise program.

For God (with his stipulated omnipotence) the same result could be achieved by snapping his virtual fingers.

However, would that be just? Would it achieve the goals God has in mind for us in the way He wishes us to experience them?

If Jesus had come to earth, snapped his fingers, and given us salvation, then I’d be inclined to be more open to this tack. However, Jesus – that is, God – himself suffered. I’m more inclined to believe in God’s providence given that He was willing to get down in the muck and shoulder the load with us.

continued…

 

[Gorgias]

continuing…

Scowler:

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.

I’m still not seeing this as an “end justifies the means” argument. Suffering is painful… but you haven’t identified that it’s evil. (I know, that sounds odd. Yet, is suffering (that is, not the infliction of suffering, but suffering itself) “evil”? That’s what you’d have to prove in order to qualify this as an “end justifies the means” scenario.

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.

Again, having not seen the good effects, and without knowledge of the evil avoided as a result of the suffering, you can’t reasonably make that claim.

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.

He could, but then this life would be meaningless. Followed to its extreme, that setup would mean we’d be essentially robots. God wants people who love him and choose him. That implies that this world must have impact and meaning…

 

[Scowler]

So, here’s the problem: unless you have the whole of history arrayed before you, so that you can assess how many “beans of suffering” were necessary to bring about a particular good, then your thought experiment is useless.

No, it is not. Never, under any circumstances can we be aware of ALL the ramifications through all “eternity”. And that is not necessary for making a value judgment. Yes, our judgment is always “provisional”, contingent upon what we know. As long as we are open and willing to change our judgment, there is nothing wrong with this approach. Unfortunately, God suffers from some kind of a “lockjaw” and does not communicate the alleged “positive” effects, and you (the apologists in general) are unable to speak for God… so our assessment stands.

And then we use the age-honored duck principle: “if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and tastes like a duck… then it is a duck and not an elephant”. This is the principle we ALL use every time when it comes to judge human actions. You would just like to make an exemption for God. Will not happen. Can you imagine the brouhaha if the defense attorney would say: “Your honor (or members of the jury), there is absolutely no evidence that would speak on behalf of the accused, but since we are NOT omniscient, we have no “right” to deliver a guilty verdict.”

Now, the problem does not stop here. In most of the instances the actual sufferer definitely does not benefit from the suffering - in THIS existence. The possible “defense” that MAYBE he will be rewarded in the hereafter is invalid, because you cannot provide any kind of evidence that the suffering HERE is logically necessary to get the reward THERE.

Theoretically, you could take another line of thought. You might argue that the sufferer does not get rewarded, but his suffering is logically necessary for someone ELSE to get the reward. But that would declare that the sufferer is “innocent”, and he is being used as a “tool” to on behalf of someone else.

You enjoy it now. The example was the start of an exercise program.

It was enjoyable back then, since I started in a gradual fashion.

<Will be continued below. The interface “hides” the Reply button.>

 

[Scowler]

However, would that be just?

We are talking about gratuitous suffering. There is nothing “just” about having anyone suffer uselessly. As for the alleged suffering of Jesus, there is no logical reason for it. God’s omnipotence could have “bypassed” the whole crucifixion. Another example of useless suffering.

Suffering is painful… but you haven’t identified that it’s evil.

The “evil” is in allowing the useless suffering. Show me some example of some suffering that cannot be avoided even for an omnipotent agent. So far no one could. The “no pain, no gain” concept is just another example of “sour grapes”.

He could, but then this life would be meaningless.

And our life in heaven - enjoying the beatific vision would be meaningful. And no, we would not be “robots”, we would be just like the zygotes (you consider them human beings), who would be flushed out by the menstrual flow. In our heavenly “Monopoly” this would be the field: “Go directly to heaven. Do not pass GO, do not collect 200 dollars.” What you say “God wants” is just empty speculation without any evidence. My line of reasoning has the physical evidence of suffering, here and now.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

So, here’s the problem: unless you have the whole of history arrayed before you, so that you can assess how many “beans of suffering” were necessary to bring about a particular good, then your thought experiment is useless.

No, it is not. Never, under any circumstances can we be aware of ALL the ramifications through all “eternity”. And that is not necessary for making a value judgment. Yes, our judgment is always “provisional”, contingent upon what we know.

Correct. And, as long as our judgment is based on incomplete data, it risks being inaccurate. So, as a proposal, yours is necessarily espousing that we make a potentially inaccurate judgment. In other words… it asks us to “play God”, without the requisite knowledge. It’s a bad approach.

so our assessment stands.

Correct. Your invalid assessment stands as such. I agree.

And then we use the age-honored duck principle: “if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and tastes like a duck… then it is a duck and not an elephant”. This is the principle we ALL use every time when it comes to judge human actions.

Thank you for this. You’ve shown the inapplicability of your whole premise: you’re judging God as if He were a human. Completely inappropriate. But hey… many quacks throughout history have made the same error…

Can you imagine the brouhaha if the defense attorney would say: “Your honor (or members of the jury), there is absolutely no evidence that would speak on behalf of the accused, but since we are NOT omniscient, we have no “right” to deliver a guilty verdict.”

And, if this were a court of law, you might have a point. It isn’t. Instead, you’re attempting to assess God’s actions on incomplete data. It’s not that there’s “absolutely no data”, it’s that there’s no absolute data, and therefore, any conclusions are hasty and not valid.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

However, would that be just?

We are talking about gratuitous suffering.

That’s the whole point: unless you have the whole of history at your fingertips, you cannot logically conclude “gratuitous” suffering. “Suffering”, sure. But not “gratuitous”.

As for the alleged suffering of Jesus, there is no logical reason for it. God’s omnipotence could have “bypassed” the whole crucifixion. Another example of useless suffering.

Again, your opinion and offered without substantiation. Quod gratis asseritur gratis negatur.

Suffering is painful… but you haven’t identified that it’s evil.

The “evil” is in allowing the useless suffering.

And you haven’t demonstrated “uselessness”. Sorry.

What you say “God wants” is just empty speculation without any evidence.

No… plenty of evidence. You just cover your eyes and refuse to accept it. It’s not our fault if you blithely ignore the eyewitness evidence, nor do we then have to accept the conclusions you draw when you ignore it.

My line of reasoning has the physical evidence of suffering, here and now.

Thank you for agreeing with me. All you have is “physical evidence of suffering”, and nothing more. Therefore, you cannot logically reach the conclusions you claim are valid. So glad we could agree on that.

 

[MonteRCMS]

We, the creations, have the freedom to act … to take actions.

And that means we also have the freedom to act as a community to restrain our fellow creations to prevent them from performing bad actions.

So, we can band together with our God-given intelligence to form judges and juries and bailiffs and jailers and sheriffs and police officers so that WE can take freedom away from Bad people.

 

[Scowler]

Thank you for this. You’ve shown the inapplicability of your whole premise: you’re judging God as if He were a human. Completely inappropriate.

Of course I do. When the goddess of Justice is depicted, she wears a blindfold, indicating that the identity of the “accused” is irrelevant. It does not matter, if a genocide was committed by humans or by God, we condemn either one. Your only defense could be to bring forth some evidence / proof that the genocide committed or allowed by God is really a “blessing in disguise”, that preventing the genocide would lead to some even “worse” outcome. But you have no such proof. Instead you try reiterate the weakest “argument” of all: “we believe that there is justification, but we are not privy to it”. How did you say?

But hey… many quacks throughout history have made the same error…

Yep - “quacks” - thanks for supporting my case.

And you haven’t demonstrated “uselessness”. Sorry.

Sure I did. God’s omnipotence is the proof. There is not one instance of suffering that cannot be eliminated by omnipotence. Omnipotence could not eliminate logically necessary sufferings. But since we, humans can eliminate many sufferings, that God kept in place, those could not have been logically necessary. This is as clear a proof as it can be. But as you were wont to say:

But hey… many quacks throughout history have made the same error…

Yep - quacks!

 

[Scowler]

And, if this were a court of law, you might have a point.

Actually, it is an informal court of law. Elie Wiesel and his fellow prisoners in the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp held an informal court and convicted God (in absentia…) for breaking his covenant with the Jews. God is on trial here, and you (along with your fellow apologists) are the self-appointed defense attorneys. Unfortunately, you are not “competent” and you are unable present any defense. Presumably God could take a witness stand and present a valid defense. But he refuses, and as such we are within our rights to deliver the verdict based upon the available evidence. And the verdict is “God is not benevolent”.

 

[davidv]

Actually, it is an informal court of law. Elie Wiesel and his fellow prisoners in the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp held an informal court and convicted God (in absentia…) for breaking his covenant with the Jews. God is on trial here, and you (along with your fellow apologists) are the self-appointed defense attorneys. Unfortunately, you are not “competent” and you are unable present any defense. Presumably God could take a witness stand and present a valid defense. But he refuses, and as such we are within our rights to deliver the verdict based upon the available evidence. And the verdict is “God is not benevolent”.

And like a jury missing all of the facts, will render a wrong verdict, so have you.

 

[rcwitness]

Because He would have to take it away from everyone, starting with Adam and Eve.

I think we all need to know what we are capable of. And we need to take the sins of others with forgiveness just as He suffered Himself.

Our trespasses have shown how great our Lord truly is. We would not be able to know Him and His mercy without knowing how much we have sinned against Him. And some would never turn to Him without knowing how lost we are without Him.

 

[Scowler]

And like a jury missing all of the facts, will render a wrong verdict, so have you.

We have all the pertinent facts. God does not remove or prevent a whole lot of pain and suffering. That is beyond dispute. The only excuse would be that all those instances are logically necessary to achieve some goods because God could remove all the pain and suffering, except the ones which are logically necessary for some greater goods. Omnipotence can deal with all the other pains and sufferings.

But for that you would be required to show exactly what those “missed” goods are and why they need some pain and suffering. That you are unable to do. So you try to go into attack, and present the cop-out by saying that the jury is not omniscient, so it cannot know about the unrevealed “goods”. You say that “MAYBE” there are some goods we cannot know about. That is another fallacy, called argumentum ad ignoratiam.

In other words, you ask the jury to give the benefit of the doubt and render the verdict not based upon the know facts, rather on unsubstantiated assumptions. Your “motion” is denied. You must base your defense on facts.

Your next attempt could be to assert that the pain and suffering MAY be logically necessary, so that even God with his omnipotence cannot eliminate them. That attempt is also futile. We are able to eliminate lots of sufferings, and as such they are not logically necessary. So the verdict stands: “God is not benevolent”.

 

[davidv]

We have all the pertinent facts.

Presumed without adequate evidence.

The only excuse would be that all those instances are logically necessary

Another presumption. No need address the rest as it is based on questionable premises.

 

[Scowler]

Presumed without adequate evidence.

Hehe. As if you would have adequate evidence for God’s benevolence. Or any adequate evidence for any of your assumptions pertaining God. Or any evidence at all, except some “hearsay” stuff. At least we have more than adequate evidence for all the pain, misery, suffering we can see in the world. You could Google “famine in Africa” and check all the horror there. How can anyone maintain God’s benevolence after looking at those pictures, is beyond comprehension.

Another presumption.

I guess you are not familiar with the concept of omnipotence.

 

[davidv]

Presumed without adequate evidence.

Hehe. As if you would have adequate evidence for God’s benevolence. Or any adequate evidence for any of your assumptions pertaining God. Or any evidence at all, except some “hearsay” stuff. At least we have more than adequate evidence for all the pain, misery, suffering we can see in the world. You could Google “famine in Africa” and check all the horror there. How can anyone maintain God’s benevolence after looking at those pictures, is beyond comprehension.

Another presumption.

I guess you are not familiar with the concept of omnipotence.

This does not address the points made. Defend the claims made.

 

[Scowler]

This does not address the points made. Defend the claims made.

I already did, in the post (#156) above.