Freethought & Rationalism Archive

bling · 10-27-2005, 06:19 AM

James Lazarus did a great job of stating some of the issues with there being a God, but I do not think he addressed all the options.

Quote:

James said: William Rowe’s argument from evil can be presented as follows:

(1) There exists evils in the world that God could have prevented, and had God prevented them, the world as a whole would have been a better place.
(2) God would have prevented the occurrence of any evil God could prevent, such that God had prevented it, the world as a whole would have been a better place.
(3) There was no prevention of the evils that exists, evils such that if they did not exist, the world as a whole would have been a better place.
(4) Therefore, God does not exist.

This assumes God objective is to make a better place. What if the objective was to make a better person, people like Himself? This world may be ideal for that.
What if the objective of humans is to develop a free will godly type love for God and God’s objective as it relates to humans is to help humans all He can to fulfill their objective. What if this Godly love was not something God could just implant in humans, because it required humans acting out of free will, to think about what they are doing, really understand and have true choices, and not be robots.

Quote:

James went on to add:
(1) If God existed, we would not see multiple serious instances of bad form in the universe.
(2) There are multiple serious instances of bad form in the universe.
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.

There again it assumes God’s objective is to make a perfect place with a perfect system. If that perfect place is heaven and earth is the perfect short term place for humans to develop Godly type love, then maybe it is ideal.

the fonz · 10-27-2005, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bling

This assumes God objective is to make a better place. What if the objective was to make a better person, people like Himself? This world may be ideal for that.

This doesn't explain how some people have gone through so much suffering so as to be drawn away from God. If God knew X amount of suffering was ideal for bringing this person to Himself, then he would have reduced the amount of suffering so the person wouldn't have rejected Him.

Quote:

What if the objective of humans is to develop a free will godly type love for God and God’s objective as it relates to humans is to help humans all He can to fulfill their objective. What if this Godly love was not something God could just implant in humans, because it required humans acting out of free will, to think about what they are doing, really understand and have true choices, and not be robots.

The Free Will Defense does not work. Does God himself have free will? If so, doesn't he also not do anything wrong? Isn't he also not a robot?

So, God could have created humans with free will, who did nothing wrong, and who weren't robots.

And of course, if "doing nothing wrong" entails "developing love for God," then God could have created humans with free will that all developed a love for God. Hence, the existence of free will is compatible with humans never committing any wrongdoing.

John A. Broussard · 10-27-2005, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bling

There again it assumes God’s objective is to make a perfect place with a perfect system. If that perfect place is heaven and earth is the perfect short term place for humans to develop Godly type love, then maybe it is ideal.

Welcome aboard.

Sorry, but your argument doesn't demonstrate the non-existence of god. There's an alternate and much more plausible answer. Leprosy, malaria, hurricanes, polio, earthquakes, as you've indicated, are hardly examples of acts by an all-powerful god demonstrating thereby infinite love of mankind.

What they do demonstrate is that--if god exists--god is malevolent, enjoys watching human suffering, and is going to dish out more of the same.

bling · 10-27-2005, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by bling
This assumes God objective is to make a better place. What if the objective was to make a better person, people like Himself? This world may be ideal for that.

The Fonz said:

This doesn't explain how some people have gone through so much suffering so as to be drawn away from God. If God knew X amount of suffering was ideal for bringing this person to Himself, then he would have reduced the amount of suffering so the person wouldn't have rejected Him.

People are drawn away from God by being showered with physical blessing, more then suffering. Suffering in it self may have a positive effect on drawing people to God or maybe a neutral effect. The real positive that comes from suffering is when God loving people step up and use the opportunity to show others who God is. You are probable familiar with the parable of the Good Samaritan, in it the only God like person was the Good Samaritan and if there was no needy person on the side of the road you might have thought the other religious people were being like God on earth. The needy person created the opportunity for him and all others to see God in action and the Good Samaritan will grow in his love experiencing giving. The X amount of suffering needed in this world for you personally, and God is concerned about you personally, is the level that gives you the full opportunity to do good and start giving or to not do good and be selfish is it there yet for you to make that decision. How bad does it have to get and how close does it have to come?

Quote:

Quote:
What if the objective of humans is to develop a free will godly type love for God and God’s objective as it relates to humans is to help humans all He can to fulfill their objective. What if this Godly love was not something God could just implant in humans, because it required humans acting out of free will, to think about what they are doing, really understand and have true choices, and not be robots.

the Fonz said:
The Free Will Defense does not work. Does God himself have free will? If so, doesn't he also not do anything wrong? Isn't he also not a robot?

So, God could have created humans with free will, who did nothing wrong, and who weren't robots.

And of course, if "doing nothing wrong" entails "developing love for God," then God could have created humans with free will that all developed a love for God. Hence, the existence of free will is compatible with humans never committing any wrongdoing.

The logic breaks down when we try to equate God with humans. God is eternal, which is really not comprehendible for me. God always totally loving. We are made by God the best He could make us and put in the best place He could design for us, to develop this Godly type love.
God does have free will, but will always do the best thing, this may not fit your definition of free will and we can call it something else if you would like. I am trying to use how I see God defining free will. God in relationship to man would be almost robotic, in that His reactions toward us would be very predictable. This does not mean God as not changing in time with us as we move through time. How God acts among the trinity could be as flexible as He wants, He can know what ever He wants to know or does not want to know. We really know very little about God’s relation with other beings and don’t need to know.
For humans to develop and grow in Godly type love, God has to release some power and knowledge about humans to give them personal power and personal decision making (free will) to chose to love. They can thus become like God.

bling · 10-27-2005, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

Welcome aboard.

Sorry, but your argument doesn't demonstrate the non-existence of god. There's an alternate and much more plausible answer. Leprosy, malaria, hurricanes, polio, earthquakes, as you've indicated, are hardly examples of acts by an all-powerful god demonstrating thereby infinite love of mankind.

What they do demonstrate is that--if god exists--god is malevolent, enjoys watching human suffering, and is going to dish out more of the same.

You might look at my post to Fonz. First off, death is not bad in and of itself, it is the way good people get to be close to God and the way bad people quit doing bad stuff. God really hates that all these things are happening, but He has to allow Satan to stay around to manipulate him in doing bad stuff, that will help good people develop (agape) Godly type love. It is really sad, but there are suffering needed people in this world for you personally, and God is concerned about you personally, is it bad enough so you have the full opportunity to do good and start giving or to not do good and be selfish, can you make that decision. How bad does it have to get and how close does it have to come?

John A. Broussard · 10-27-2005, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bling

You might look at my post to Fonz. First off, death is not bad in and of itself, it is the way good people get to be close to God and the way bad people quit doing bad stuff. God really hates that all these things are happening, but He has to allow Satan to stay around to manipulate him in doing bad stuff, that will help good people develop (agape) Godly type love. It is really sad, but there are suffering needed people in this world for you personally, and God is concerned about you personally, is it bad enough so you have the full opportunity to do good and start giving or to not do good and be selfish, can you make that decision. How bad does it have to get and how close does it have to come?

Got it.

God isn't all-powerful. "He has to allow Satan to stay around to manipulate him in doing bad stuff,"

No argument there. You believe in a good god and a bad god. That's an old religion still adhered to by a few people in the Middle East.

It explains suffering and makes a lot more sense than the Christian god does.

bling · 10-27-2005, 01:31 PM

The "him" is Satan. God minupulates Satan to do the bad stuff that will create good results, for good people.

Asimov · 10-27-2005, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bling

The "him" is Satan. God minupulates Satan to do the bad stuff that will create good results, for good people.

Why not manipulate Satan to do good stuff that will create better results, for all people?

EnterTheBowser · 10-27-2005, 07:32 PM

Regarding any possible defense of the "problem of evil" which somehow tries to make suffering necessary to some other purpose that God might have....

IT'S GOD FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.

That is, God is omnipotent. A loving, all-powerful, all-knowing God could (by definition) have found some other way which did not include horrendous suffering to acheive whatever purpose God had in mind.

John A. Broussard · 10-27-2005, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bling

The "him" is Satan. God minupulates Satan to do the bad stuff that will create good results, for good people.

It's rather pleasant to see some of that self-confessed old-time religion with a Satan around to prod people with his pitchfork.

Most mainline Christian churches are too namby-pamby to allow Old Nick to hang around.

Good for you, bling, for bringing back god's hit man.

When things go right, goddidit.

When things go wrong, it's that old demon Satan what's responsible.

PoE solved--almost.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-27-2005, 01:31 PM	#7
bling Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Dallas TX Posts: 90	The "him" is Satan. God minupulates Satan to do the bad stuff that will create good results, for good people.

10-27-2005, 07:32 PM	#9
EnterTheBowser Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,021	Regarding any possible defense of the "problem of evil" which somehow tries to make suffering necessary to some other purpose that God might have.... IT'S GOD FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. That is, God is omnipotent. A loving, all-powerful, all-knowing God could (by definition) have found some other way which did not include horrendous suffering to acheive whatever purpose God had in mind.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.