zutroy

Hello Everyone,

As you can see this is my first post - I've been lurking around the boards for a couple weeks and learning tons of new things. An idea just popped into my head so I thought I would share it with all of you, and maybe get some feedback. Maybe this argument has no relevance or grounding, but we all have to start somewhere, eh?

Alright, first, I consider myself an atheist, though I have not yet determined which type (before I visited these boards, I didn't even know there were types of atheists). However, I was brought up Roman Catholic from birth, and believed in the teachings until around age 14 or 15.

Now for my argument: If God (the Christian God) is all-powerful, that is omnipotent, then he has the power to remove all suffering from the world and make us into perfect human beings. Now, many a times in Catholic school I would hear teachers and priests say that God would not do this because he wants us to have the freedom of choice - freewill. But, if God is omnipotent, could he not remove all suffering from the world AND still give us freewill in some awesome way that is above our reasoning? He is God, he could do it - right? And, if he could give us both perfection on Earth and the freedom to choose, why wouldn't he?

If this is a dumb argument and doesn't evoke much discussion, or if nobody cares, please forgive me.

-zut

Steven Carr

It is Catholic dogma that God created beings with freewill that have behaved perfectly and never been kicked out of Heaven.

zutroy

Angels?

lenrek

Hello and welcome to IIDB.

I think, it is because of our "sin" that causes our suffering. At least, this is what I came to understand. Thus, it is not the choice of god, it is our choice.

If this god does indeed exist, then to it, our experiences (whether joy or suffering) is meaningless. Since, it can, by its will change our experiences, or even our memories to fit its plan. For all I know, it has a plan, how would it play out is something we do not know. At least, this is what I understand from theists.

It did that... Remember, it is we that betrayed this god (at least, if I understand correctly). It is our betrayal that leads to our imperfect living.

zutroy

Thank you.

But this god is supposedly benevolent. Why would our experiences not matter to it if it cares about us?


For the sake of argument, I will suppose that the Christian creation story is actually true. Going off of that assumption, I never betrayed this god personally, so why must I suffer for the sins of two individuals? Wouldn't a fair and just god give everyone a chance?

lenrek

If this is not benevolent, we are all burning in hell now. At least, this is what I came to understand.

From what I understand, the day we "doubt" this god, is the day we betrayed this god.

According to my Christians friends (or those who are familiar with their teachings), this god already given us all a chance, however, it requires faith.

Hot_ice72

This is a good argument for the problem of evil. I don't remember what theists respond with, but from memory it isn't a very solid counterargument.

Also, if God could give us freewill, this would only prevent moral evils, or evils commited by people, and would still leave natural evils to destroy many human lives (such as floods, diseases, etc.).

From what i remember about the significance of the New Testament is that Jesus died for our sins, so Original Sin is now ineffective.

Also, to take original sin seriously, and remembering that God is all-powerful, if you knew someone was going to betray you when you gave them a command, is it just to blame them? And their kin for eternity?

Stumpjumper

It's not a dumb argument. It is however a topic that has been addressed in many different ways in varying theodicies for about 2000 years... The Free Will Defense to the PoE addresses your objection in a few ways...

I don't believe that free will defenses go quite far enough into considering natural evil though... A process theodicy takes free will into account and is more consistent overall, IMO.

This is the best I have been able to find online:
http://www.quodlibet.net/stein-theodicy.shtml

Atheos

If we quit discussing topics because they had already been discussed before then there would be no need for discussion boards. The spirit of discovery is best sampled fresh and hot for each individual. Hopefully there will always be those who wish to engage in thoughtful dialogue on these and other often discussed subjects.

The FWD (or Free Will Defense) is arguably one of the most often used apologies for an all-good, all-powerful and all-knowing god. The problem of evil is quite compelling:

• Does god not know that suffering exists? Then god is not all knowing.
• Can god not prevent suffering? Then god is not all powerful.
• Does god know that suffering exists and god can prevent suffering but chooses not to do so? Then god is not all good.

The FWD gives god a pass by claiming that suffering is the end result of a "greater good" (i.e., Free Will). Just like a square circle or the old "rock so heavy" paradox, apologists claim that god's omnipotence is not compromised just because god cannot produce a world in which free will exists without gratuitous suffering.

The problem with this line of thinking is that the same apologists will then turn around and claim that such a world exists: Heaven. If free will does not exist there then why call it "heaven"? If suffering exists then why call it "heaven"?

At that point the apologist will claim that people only get to heaven after they make the free will choice to "be good" (whatever that means). So somehow their "proving time" on earth prepares them to go to heaven and exercise free will without causing gratuitious suffering.

There are several problems with this line of reasoning.

• It does not account for babies who die before becoming sentient enough to make choices -- what if Charles Manson had been stillborn?
• It doesn't account for "angels that sinned" according to the same myths that produced heaven itself.
• It doesn't account for "deathbed conversions" -- most christian ideaologies allow someone to change their ways even moments before dying.
• It doesn't account for "relapsing sinners" who are good for awhile, act bad for awhile, come back, go out, etc.

The reality (and absurdity) of the doctrine of "heaven" when measured against the free will defense is that:

• Everyone is going to have free will -- the ability to do something "evil" while in heaven
• Everyone is going to have an eternity in which to exercise that free will
• Eventually someone will exercise their free will and bring suffering in heaven
• It is a mathematical certainty that eventually every inhabitant of heaven will exercise their free will against the will of "god".
• If god casts those who exercise their free will from heaven into hell then it is a mathematical certainty that at some point god will once again be alone and everyone else will be partying in hell.

Stumpjumper

Atheos

I wasn't suggesting that it shouldn't be discussed but that it just not exactly a novel topic..

Anyway, the free will defense is only a defense to the PoE... It is not a theodicy. Plantinga does have a free will theodicy and Ireanean Theodocies (like that of John Hick) take the free will defense into account... In and of itself, though, the FWD is incomplete.

It does show that the logical PoE, however, does not disprove the existence of an omnimax God... In regards to heaven, I would probably agree with a lot of what you say but I really don't believe that heaven is just a continuation of temporal existence in an eternal manner.

Eternity is not temporality stretched out indefinitely. Since the concepts that I would consider best represent "heaven" do not include many of the aspects of our current existence that generally lead to "sinning", I would say that your comparison between this life and the "world to come" are not really representative of what Christianity teaches..

Of course, we are venturing into the realm of eschatology so we're really just guessing anyway...