luvluv

Apology accepted. Me, on page five of this very thread, answering Hobbs:

K

luvluv:

I brought up the heaven example to see if you really believed that it was impossible for God to create a world with free will and no suffering. I have to say that at least you appear to be consistent. I don't know of many Christians who believe that those in heaven can be hit in the head with a falling tree branch. But, your view does show that you believe that type of suffering is necessary for free will to exist.

wordsmyth

luvluv:

There is textual support in the bible for Calvanism (i.e. no free will) too and that is also a long-standing xian philosophical response. Are you going to make an appeal to numbers now, or are you finally going to support your assertion with something substantive.

No, I don’t doubt that the Trinity is a part of the xian tradition. Nevertheless, because the Trinity is never mentioned in the Bible and because it took a few centuries of early xian apologetics to even arrive at the conclusion of a Trinity, it is also a poorly supported assertion. That however, is another debate and irrelevant to this thread. If you would like to debate the validity of a belief in the Trinity, feel free to start another thread, but try to stay on topic here.

Suppose every person in the history of the world believed that leprechauns were real, would leprechauns suddenly be real.

Your response is to continue repeating the assertion without providing any reasoning for it, so you have not answered my or any one else’s objections. Since you cannot provide any logical reasoning to support your assertion, I will just assume you are parroting something you’ve heard/read, but have not thought through. That’s ok, I’ve come to expect that from most theists.

You continue to assert this, but provide no logical reasoning to support it. Repeating an assertion over and over and over, does not make it valid.

Unfortunately, it seems only conceivable, and noncontradictory in your (and other xians) own befuddled and illogical imagination.

Textual support would be nice, but since I know you can not provide any, I would have been willing to accept any logical reasoning, but instead all I get is you repeating your assertion and refusing to support it with anything even remotely resembling a rational thought.

Calvanism (i.e. no free will) is also a very old position of xians, so your claim that the free will response is a position of xianity (implying all xians) is fallacious. It is a response of xians, but not xianity.

The reason I termed it your own personal philosophy is because it seems you are apt at asserting the philosophy itself, but totally ignorant of any supporting arguments for it.

Ok, I agree so far.

I would say that each choice of action has an effect and that some effects are better than others. However, the effects (consequences as you put it) need not be necessarily good or evil.

Example: One farmer decides to plant his crop early and another decides to plant late. Due to an early drought and a late rainy season, the first farmer has only a poor crop to harvest while the second has a good one.

This analogy demonstrates free will without moral good or evil as a necessary part.

A person may choose an option that has a poor effect. I would agree with that. However, you still have not shown why the effect must necessarily be morally good or evil.

Ok, I see where your problem is now. Suffering the consequences of a poor decision is not the same as suffering the debilitating effects of disease. People do not choose to contract disease, be murdered, raped, tortured, etc. So your explanation fails to show any correlation between free will and the necessity of moral evil and/or suffering.

In my example of the two farmers above both made choices (i.e. exhibited free will to choose) yet neither suffered from any moral evil because of their decision.

Suffering in this context is a bit of a misnomer. Suffering the effects of a poor decision is not the same as suffering from torture for which the victim would have no choice.

[edited for grammar]

[ August 30, 2002: Message edited by: wordsmyth ]</p>

luvluv

wordsmyth:

The Problem of Pain is a philosophical question that can be phrased thusly:

God is good and all powerful. There is evil in the world. If good were perfectly good he would want evil out of the world, if God were all powerful, He could take evil out of the world. But evil is in the world. Therefore, God either lacks power, or goodness, or both.

If a God can be conceived of that is good and all powerful and yet would allow suffering, and if this God's characteristics are not in contradiction with his goodness or his power, then there is no problem of evil.

If such a good can be conceived, then the apparent contradiction between the existence of a good, all-powerful God and suffering does not exist.

I have expressed that a God who desires free will could be both good and omnipotent and allow evil.

Your response has been to ask me how I know God has these characteristics and asking me for textual support. This is entirely irrelavent.

What you should be doing is showing me how valuing free will is contradictory to omnipotence or omnibenevolence. If you can't... bye-bye Problem of Pain.

If my response satisfies the problem of pain, it doesn't matter what my references are.

If my response does not satisfy the problem of pain, it doesn't matter what my references are.

If our debate is going to be fruitful at all, you need get to work showing me how a God who desires the free will of his subject is incompatible either with his goodness or his omnipotence.

Anything else you say is a waste of time because it has nothing to do with the point. I have posited that a God who desires our free will could be omnipotent and omnibenevolent and still admit the possibility of suffering. You need to show me that this is not the case. Accusing me of parroting or not having textual support completely avoids the issue of whether or not I'm right.

In your discussion of the farmer, you are heavily and arbitrarily substituting suffering for evil and vice versa. The Problem of Pain and the Problem of Evil are basically the same problem. The topic of this thread is why is there suffering, not why is there evil. If evil is defined as immoral action, it should be pretty obvious why moral freedom pre-supposes the possibility of moral evil. If you are discussing suffering, it should also be pretty obvious that the farmer who planted at the wrong time is suffering for his decision. The Problem of Evil is much easier to dismiss than the Problem of Suffering.

You keep accusing me of not offering any textual support, this is somewhat ironic since I have actually not failed to mention The Problem of Pain by C.S. Lewis in a single post I've made to date. You should start there if you're looking for answers to this question because the more I read the more I believe you really aren't familiar with the history of this debate.

Instead of asking me for sources, pick an argument I've made and ask me a question about it.

I'll even start you off, how about asking me why stable and consistent natural laws are necessary for moral freedom? That would be a good question.

The bottom line is I DON'T NEED A LICK OF TEXTUAL SUPPORT TO ANSWER THE PROBLEM OF PAIN. Everyone else here seems to understand that. I have offered logical positions for why this is the case (the necessity of a stable environment, the impossibility of absolutely zero excess suffering without divine intervention, my objections to the "less pain" argument). You have not responded specifically to a single one of my responses, but only persist in ad hominem questioning about my references. Why is this such a sticking point for you? I am not trying to convince you here, that the Christian God exists, only that his attributes are not contradictory.

[ August 30, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

wordsmyth

luvluv:

This implies that inflicting pain and suffering on others must be an option for all decisions. Lets see… will I mow my lawn today… tomorrow… nah, I’ll just torture my wife and kids to death.

Are you implying that God(s) cannot alter the laws of the material universe as they see fit? (i.e. not omnipotent) Parting the Red Sea and halting the suns movement across the sky doesn’t seem to fall in line with your reasoning here. In fact, there are many examples in the Bible of Yahweh altering the laws of the material universe for the sole purpose of causing pain and suffering.

Or, are you implying that God(s) simply unwilling to prevent needless suffering. (i.e. not omni-benevolent) Yahweh was quick to alter the laws of the material universe to cause pain and suffering, why then is he unwilling to alter those same laws to prevent it.

A man decides to go for a walk in the dark and stubs his toe. Another man has his toe sliced off in a torture session. Big differences here.

Pain can exist without necessarily being caused by moral evil. There are varying degrees of pain and suffering, the worst of which need not exist for free will to exist.

This also implies that pain and suffering are a possible outcome whenever there is a choice to be made. Surely you can think of choices in which pain and suffering is not a possible outcome.

On what do you base this opinion? Is this also a common xian philosophical response? How is the ‘quality’ of suffering different in heaven? Why would the ‘quality’ of suffering be different in heaven?

Most xians would posit heaven as a peaceful place where none suffered. According to your assertion though, this would make anyone in heaven a mindless slave who lacks free will.

I can safely say that xians, as a whole, remain the most inconsistent of all theists. I can't think of any other religion that has as many distinct sects and I've never met any two xians that hold entirely identical philosophies.

wordsmyth

I’ve already conceded that you don't have any textual support, but have asked you repeatedly for sound reasoning. Still I see none.

Read on.

It only satisfies it in your befuddled imagination. Your response lacks any sound reasoning to support it.

Its possible that a leprechaun built the pyramids with the help of a magical djinni, but is it probable?

No, if our debate is going to be fruitful you need to get to work showing me why needless suffering and moral evil must exist for free will to exist.

You are wasting time by not supporting your assertion. Any and all assertions are possible; the purpose of a debate is to show their probability.

I can assert that God is really an evil leprechaun and that solves the problem of pain too, but since I haven’t provided any reasoning to back it up why should anyone believe it is probable. Have you ever even heard of Occam’s Razor?

I don’t need to show you anything. You made the assertion that pain and suffering are necessary for free will.

Yes, because you implied that one possible consequence of any decision must invariably be suffering. I simply showed that that is fallacious.

You still have not shown why suffering must exist for free will to exist.

If you’ve been parroting C.S. Lewis to this point, why stop now. Why should I go out and read the book, when I have you to parrot it for me.

The miracles described in the bible would seem to be inconsistent with natural laws, so obviously they are not necessary for moral freedom.

I HAVE ALREADY CONCEDED THAT YOU DON’T HAVE A LICK OF TEXTUAL SUPPORT TO ANSWER THE PROBLEM OF PAIN. I have repeatedly asked you to give some reasoning to your assertions probability. As yet, you have provided none.

I’ve read the entire thread and you have not offered a single logical reason for anything.

Which doesn’t explain anything. Simply another assertion without any reasoning behind it.

In my second post on this thread I conceded that you do not have any textual support for your assertion and have since asked ONLY for sound reasoning. You still have not given any.

Once again, the purpose of debate is to demonstrate probability not possibility.

The question is whether or not the xian deity can be omni-benevolent and allow excessive suffering.
God(s) most common attributes are omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence.
Omnipotence: All powerful. (to be omnipotent is to lack any weakness)
Omniscience: All seeing; All Knowing. (to be omniscient is to lack any ignorance)
Omnibenevolence: All good. (to be omnibenevolent is to lack any malevolence)
Malevolence: 1. Having or exhibiting ill will; wishing harm to others; malicious. 2. Having an evil or harmful influence: malevolent stars
dictionary" target="_blank">www.dictionary.com/search?q=malevolent]dictionary[/url]</a>

If malevolence is wishing harm (suffering) to others, then benevolence would be wishing no harm to others.

If harm (suffering) comes to others, then it would be against the wishes of an omnibenevolent deity.

If said deity is unable to prevent harm (suffering) to others, then he/she is not omnipotent. note: The inability to do anything is inconsistent with omnipotence.

If said deity is unwilling to prevent harm (suffering) to others, then he/she is not omnibenevolent. note: An unwillingness to prevent harm is inconsistent with wishing no harm to others and possessing the ability to prevent it. also note: If said deity is the omnipotent creator of the universe, then everything that exists is per his/her wishes including suffering.

luvluv,

I posit that for free will to exist, Yahweh cannot be omnipotent, omniscient, and/or omnibenevolent. At least one of those remains inconsistent with free will. Judging by the scriptural evidence of the xian deity altering the laws of the material universe for the specific purpose of causing harm to others, I would say that it is omnibenevolence that must go.

[edited to fix link]

[ August 30, 2002: Message edited by: wordsmyth ]

[ August 30, 2002: Message edited by: wordsmyth ]</p>

Thomas Metcalf

Consider the being McEar. McEar can only scratch her ear. That is the only action she can perform. She cannot fool herself, because it is a logical contradiction for a being who can't fool herself to fool herself. She can't tie her shoes, because it is a logical contradiction for a being who can't tie her shoes to tie her shoes. She can't do any number of actions. But she is omnipotent, if God is omnipotent by your definition.

Philosoft

<strong>Quoth luvluv:

I was saying to wordsmyth, it simply doesn't matter. If ANY omnibenevolent and omnipotent God can be conceived of that would allow suffering, then there is no problem of pain REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT SUCH A GOD HAS EVER BEEN POSITED BY AN EXISTENT RELILGION.</strong>

This is your solution? That you can simply put the words, "there is an omnibenevolent God who also allows suffering" together in a sentence and claim that a conception of such a being now exists? Is this where you reanimate the unknown-purpose defense?

<strong>It is a non-contradictory answer to the question, and it is a logical answer to the question, whether we have good knowledge that such a God exists or not.</strong>

I'm lost. When did being able to put words together in a grammatically correct way ensure that serious philosophical problems will disappear?

<strong>You ask how can a good God allow suffering, I answer because of certain aspects of his character, and then you say how do we know God has the characteristics. It doesn't matter. If it is possible that He does have these characteristics, and these characteristics are not contradictory either to his omnibenevolence or omnipotence, then there is no problem of pain.</strong>

Jebus H. Krishna, luvluv. This is as bad as "the bible is true because the bible says so" illogic.

"God is all-good but also allows suffering."
"How is that possible?"
"Because of certain aspects of his character."
"How do you know those character aspects are accurate in lieu of his non-benevolence?"
"It doesn't matter. I can just say that those character aspects are compatible with suffering and benevolence and it makes it possible. And since we know God is benevolent, that makes this the only possible scenario!"

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

MrDarwin

Ah, but this omniscient and omnipotent deity not only allows suffering. This deity is also the creator, and created the world knowing in advance exactly what kind of suffering would happen. This is the problem of omniscience: God knew all the results, both direct and indirect, of his/her/its actions. The word "omnibenevolent" must have an interesting definition, if it is to be applied to a being that intentionally causes suffering.

God's actions caused not only suffering like stubbed toes and head colds, but suffering such as the many plagues that have devastated mankind. Not only suffering like waiting in line at the DMV, but such suffering as the holocaust. Not only suffering like worrying about your child who's late coming home from school, but such truly depraved suffering as a psychopath torturing, raping, and murdering a child.

luvluv insists that this suffering must be necessary, that free will demands it, but what of the free will of the child? The child is being allowed to be robbed of its free will so that the free will of the murderer can be uncompromised.

Despite all the luvluv has said, I remain unconvinced that a deity that knowingly brings such suffering into existence can be considered omnibenevolent. Above all, I find the free will argument especially unconvincing.

luvluv, here is one of the questions I eventually ask of all theists: is it possible for anything God does to have unintended consequences?

[ September 01, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>

Clutch

luvluv,
It certainly is an interesting question how a 4-omni god could allow any suffering -- the interest mainly consisting in deciding what content there could be to concepts like omnibenevolence. But it is a dodge from the outset to speak of this as the problem of pain or evil. What it is, is the version of the problem that Christians feel they have the best shot at, via the magic rhetorical wand of free will. Hence they like to restrict their attention to it.

More pressing than the question of why a 4-omni God allows any suffering is the question of why it allows so much. And not suffering caused by other humans, but that caused by animals, by earthquakes, by typhoons, landslides. Naturally caused suffering takes the free will of the perpetrator out of the equation, and considering only the suffering inflicted upon innocents (say, infants) similarly factors out the free will (ie, the desert) of the victim. So, then: why do so many infants suffer so horribly from purely natural causes?

This, of course, is precisely what the doctrine of the fallen nature of humans is supposed to head off: really, even babies deserve the most excruciating agonies imaginable. And this, contrary to a claim made earlier, is the most common exit strategy from the problem, for Christians. Rather than denying omnipotence or omnibenevolence, they usually resort to Orwellian redefinition. Even infants deserve to die in prolonged pain and fear, trapped in landslide rubble -- that's an expression of perfect justice.

This is what I find one of the great ironies of Christian apologists. They love to claim that only theism can ground an objective morality, while the Problem of Evil reveals Christianity's infinitely permissive, utterly nihilistic morality.