Freethought & Rationalism Archive

luvluv · 04-07-2002, 04:51 PM

I might ask you the same question.

04-07-2002, 05:22 PM

LuvLuv... have you forgotten about our discussion? I thought we were approaching a point where one of us would have to holler 'calf rope!'

Where did you go?

luvluv · 04-07-2002, 05:24 PM

Which one?

luvluv · 04-07-2002, 05:26 PM

Oh this one! (I actually went clicking around to try to find some argument I had forgotten!) Hold on I'll read what you said and respond...

Brad Messenger · 04-07-2002, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv:
<strong>Jerry answer me this question, what exactly, do you want God to do?

a) stop all evil.

b) stop all occurances of certain types of evil (i.e. child abuse)

I don't think God could do a) and leave us with any type of meaningful free will. To ask God to stop all evil would eliminate even self-inflicted evil, which would effectively divest us of all of our moral decisions both to harm others and ourselves.

If your answer is b) then you and I both conceed that there would still be evil left in the world. There would still be victims of their loved ones committing suicide, having eating disorders, abusing drugs, mutilating themselves, etc.

So my question is, even if God were to do b) above, your question would still stand. God doing b) would not solve the problem of evil. There would still be people who were made to suffer by the actions of others. </strong>

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you made an unwise concession that greatly supports the evidentiary argument for evil. The quantity of evil that exists in this world is inconsistent with a God that is all-good.

For the free will theodicy to work, you need to say that for God to eliminate any evil would compromise free will and thus is not allowable. By saying he could stop some kinds of evils (the worst kinds, I'm supposing) without infringing upon meaningful free will, then why didn't He stop them? What was His new reason for letting that evil occur?

If there is not another reason, then I think the free will theodicy fails, unless you want to retract your statement that less evil and meaningful free will could coexist. If God had actually made the world so that there was that "perfect" balance of evil in the world in which the elimination would infringe on meaningful free will, then the theodicy would work (granted the controversial premise that free will is a good thing). This balance, as you admitted, does not exist, so the theodicy, I believe, fails. God should do b), and it would have been done if he was all-good.

God, if He is actually all-good, eliminates evil not because it will stop people from complaining about evil but because it is what all good people strive to do.

[ April 07, 2002: Message edited by: Brad Messenger ]</p>

luvluv · 04-08-2002, 12:49 PM

Well, its a matter of degree Brad. It's the difference between God undoing all free will, as would be the case in a), or some free will, as would be the case in b). I was conceeding to Jerry that God could intervene in some circumstances and not totally eliminate free will, but he would be eliminating free will in the case of the particular actor in cases of, for example, child abuse. So b) does eliminate free will, but not for everyone, only for the perpetrators of certain crimes. But it is my opinon that God is morally opposed to any intervention in the free will of any of his creatures. It was a hypothetical concession just to point out that the problem of evil in total would not be solved by Jerry's idea that God just stop certain kinds of evil.

For the purposes of my own thinking, independant of my argument with Jerry, I find it hard to believe that God considers there to be a massive difference between child abuse and rape in general, or between rape and a man hiring a prostitute who is only selling her body beause of the pressures of poverty, and so on and so on. As I said before, we may feel there are huge demarcations between these issues, but God might not think so, and God might be right. Therefore, just because we might feel that the worst type of evils exist, does not mean that the evils that exist are actually the worst kind. There may be possible evils that God does not allow and which we are not even aware of.

[ April 08, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

04-08-2002, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv:
But it is my opinon that God is morally opposed to any intervention in the free will of any of his creatures. It was a hypothetical concession just to point out that the problem of evil in total would not be solved by Jerry's idea that God just stop certain kinds of evil.

But the kinds of evil do not matter, as I pointed out over and over before. There is no real problem of "evil" except the problem for the theist: the problem of how God can refuse to do the things that are at least morally necessary - and still be called Good. The existence of evil does not necessarily enter into it.
God may allow evil in those cases where it is not morally necessary for Him to intervene.
The fact that God refuses to intervene where it is not morally justifiable to stand by without intervening is the only "problem" of "evil".

Evil may (conceivably) exist with a Good God, but the world as it DOES exist cannot exist with a Good and All Powerful God.

Quote:

Therefore, just because we might feel that the worst type of evils exist, does not mean that the evils that exist are actually the worst kind. There may be possible evils that God does not allow and which we are not even aware of.

I hope you realize that this is a pretty lame cop-out. God allows innocent people to experience rape and torture, but there are some WORSE things that he protects us from - we simply can't conceive of them. If we can't conceive of them, who would be doing them that God needs to protect us from them?
Satan? If God constrains Satan's free-will, then why does He allow Satan any influence on Earth at all?
If it is people God is protecting us from, then surely people can conceive that kind of evil. It is a sad and certain fact that every kind of evil that people can conceive of has been perpetrated on someone.

I remind you again. God could constrain our free-will in every other way, but still allow us free-will to choose for or against love for him and other people.

lpetrich · 04-09-2002, 01:49 AM

I notice that luvluv has not bothered to comment on the remarks I had made in page 2 of this thread.

I stand on my claim that my competence in being a creator of computer programs gives me some competence in testing hypotheses of the existence of other supposed creators.

And I wonder what is supposed to be so great about free will? As I'd pointed out earlier, if free will leads to wicked behavior, then it might be best to be rid of it, or at least the ability to freely choose wicked behavior. In fact, I'm surprised that luvluv had not flamed me about my quoting parts of the Bible that imply that troublesome body parts ought to be removed, which I think is a good analogy with the free-will question.

An omnipotent being that wanted all of Its creations to behave would have a simple way of doing so -- programming them to always behave virtuously. That is what I try to do with my creations, even though I am far from being either omnipotent or omniscient, and I'm not going to claim that I'm completely benevolent.

And if there's a God, then why be so sure that that being is male? Why not female? Or neuter?

Why doesn't the Bible criticize the idea of a god with a gender? It's full of attacks on other religions for allegedly being '"idolatry"; why no really serious criticisms, such as of their gross anthropomorphism, including deities with genders?

And I don't see how masturbation is suppposed to be so wicked. That seems to me to be an extremely stupid belief.

And I agree on finding the Christian Heaven very unappetizing. The idea of wearing a white robe and singing hymns all day turns me off. And one can't even get laid! By comparison, the Muslim Heaven seems much more fun, even though it must be conceded that it is grossly sexist. One can even get laid in it; there has been some debate among Muslim theologians about how long men can maintain erections in it.

In a way, the Christian Hell would be much more fun than the Christian Heaven; I'd get to meet all my friends and favorite people there.

luvluv · 04-10-2002, 10:34 AM

"God could constrain our free-will in every other way, but still allow us free-will to choose for or against love for him and other people. "

I don't really see how. Love is not simply an emotion or a decision, it is an action. Love is communicated throught the things you do to or for a person, if those actions were mandated, how could we be said to love them? If we had no choice about how much time to spend with our children, how would spending time with our children constitute love for them? If all of our actions were mandated and automatic, how could we be said to choose to love anyone? We would be FORCED to behave AS IF we loved them, whether we loved them or not... so what would be the difference?

Your choice to spend time with your children is only valuable to them because they know you have the option of not spending time with them. In your world, where parents are presumably mandated to spend a sufficient amount of time with their children, this expression of love would not be possible. All parents would be compelled to spend time with their children, so their children would not be able to draw any conclusion about their parents love from the time spent with them. This cascades out into every expression of love. Inasmuch as most of them would be mandated in your world, they would cease to be worth anything in the context of love. Giving love is dependant upon the ability to choose how one spends their time, their money, etc. If none of those things are availiable to us, it cripples our ability to express our love to others. But again, perhaps this is the world you want.

I still contend that the world you want is not possible without extreme sacrifices in personal freedom. I think the universe your idea of a good God would create is a demonstrably less free and less enjoyable universe than the one we currently inhabit.

Love can only be exhibited in a world of free agents whose choices have consequences. How can love be expressed in a world where commitments are mandated, in which I do not have the choice to be faithful or not, to buy you flowers or not, to say I love you or not, etc.

"The fact that God refuses to intervene where it is not morally justifiable to stand by without intervening is the only "problem" of "evil". "

The more I type this, the more you ignore it, but I'll give it another shot anyway. God's defition of morally justifiable and yours might not be the same. God may consider it to be moraly unjustifiable to allow someone to watch pornography. Many of your theories only work if you are allowed to be the ultimate judge of what is morally justifiable. It appears to us that God has allowed us total moral freedom, inasmuch as He himself will not directly intervene to prohibit us from making certain choices. God may consider the only morally injustifiable act to be forcing His children to do anything. It depends on what you define as being an unjustifiable evil. Again, your definition might differ from God, and you have no reasonable expectation that God would be subject to your standards of what is unjustifiable. He may disagree with you, and He may be right.

lpetrich · 04-10-2002, 04:36 PM

Luvluv has argued that love has to be freely-willed if it is worth calling love. That seems to me to be incredibly childish and dumb. Who cares if something is done automatically as long as it is done correctly? I don't see luvluv griping about how automated his/her computer is or how automated the Internet is.

And luvluv, did you read the parts of the Bible that recommend removing body parts that cause one to sin?

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

04-07-2002, 04:51 PM	#121
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	I might ask you the same question.

04-07-2002, 05:22 PM	#122
Jerry Smith Guest Posts: n/a	LuvLuv... have you forgotten about our discussion? I thought we were approaching a point where one of us would have to holler 'calf rope!' Where did you go?

04-07-2002, 05:24 PM	#123
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	Which one?

04-07-2002, 05:26 PM	#124
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	Oh this one! (I actually went clicking around to try to find some argument I had forgotten!) Hold on I'll read what you said and respond...

04-08-2002, 12:49 PM	#126
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	Well, its a matter of degree Brad. It's the difference between God undoing all free will, as would be the case in a), or some free will, as would be the case in b). I was conceeding to Jerry that God could intervene in some circumstances and not totally eliminate free will, but he would be eliminating free will in the case of the particular actor in cases of, for example, child abuse. So b) does eliminate free will, but not for everyone, only for the perpetrators of certain crimes. But it is my opinon that God is morally opposed to any intervention in the free will of any of his creatures. It was a hypothetical concession just to point out that the problem of evil in total would not be solved by Jerry's idea that God just stop certain kinds of evil. For the purposes of my own thinking, independant of my argument with Jerry, I find it hard to believe that God considers there to be a massive difference between child abuse and rape in general, or between rape and a man hiring a prostitute who is only selling her body beause of the pressures of poverty, and so on and so on. As I said before, we may feel there are huge demarcations between these issues, but God might not think so, and God might be right. Therefore, just because we might feel that the worst type of evils exist, does not mean that the evils that exist are actually the worst kind. There may be possible evils that God does not allow and which we are not even aware of. [ April 08, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

04-09-2002, 01:49 AM	#128
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	I notice that luvluv has not bothered to comment on the remarks I had made in page 2 of this thread. I stand on my claim that my competence in being a creator of computer programs gives me some competence in testing hypotheses of the existence of other supposed creators. And I wonder what is supposed to be so great about free will? As I'd pointed out earlier, if free will leads to wicked behavior, then it might be best to be rid of it, or at least the ability to freely choose wicked behavior. In fact, I'm surprised that luvluv had not flamed me about my quoting parts of the Bible that imply that troublesome body parts ought to be removed, which I think is a good analogy with the free-will question. An omnipotent being that wanted all of Its creations to behave would have a simple way of doing so -- programming them to always behave virtuously. That is what I try to do with my creations, even though I am far from being either omnipotent or omniscient, and I'm not going to claim that I'm completely benevolent. And if there's a God, then why be so sure that that being is male? Why not female? Or neuter? Why doesn't the Bible criticize the idea of a god with a gender? It's full of attacks on other religions for allegedly being '"idolatry"; why no really serious criticisms, such as of their gross anthropomorphism, including deities with genders? And I don't see how masturbation is suppposed to be so wicked. That seems to me to be an extremely stupid belief. And I agree on finding the Christian Heaven very unappetizing. The idea of wearing a white robe and singing hymns all day turns me off. And one can't even get laid! By comparison, the Muslim Heaven seems much more fun, even though it must be conceded that it is grossly sexist. One can even get laid in it; there has been some debate among Muslim theologians about how long men can maintain erections in it. In a way, the Christian Hell would be much more fun than the Christian Heaven; I'd get to meet all my friends and favorite people there.

04-10-2002, 10:34 AM	#129
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	"God could constrain our free-will in every other way, but still allow us free-will to choose for or against love for him and other people. " I don't really see how. Love is not simply an emotion or a decision, it is an action. Love is communicated throught the things you do to or for a person, if those actions were mandated, how could we be said to love them? If we had no choice about how much time to spend with our children, how would spending time with our children constitute love for them? If all of our actions were mandated and automatic, how could we be said to choose to love anyone? We would be FORCED to behave AS IF we loved them, whether we loved them or not... so what would be the difference? Your choice to spend time with your children is only valuable to them because they know you have the option of not spending time with them. In your world, where parents are presumably mandated to spend a sufficient amount of time with their children, this expression of love would not be possible. All parents would be compelled to spend time with their children, so their children would not be able to draw any conclusion about their parents love from the time spent with them. This cascades out into every expression of love. Inasmuch as most of them would be mandated in your world, they would cease to be worth anything in the context of love. Giving love is dependant upon the ability to choose how one spends their time, their money, etc. If none of those things are availiable to us, it cripples our ability to express our love to others. But again, perhaps this is the world you want. I still contend that the world you want is not possible without extreme sacrifices in personal freedom. I think the universe your idea of a good God would create is a demonstrably less free and less enjoyable universe than the one we currently inhabit. Love can only be exhibited in a world of free agents whose choices have consequences. How can love be expressed in a world where commitments are mandated, in which I do not have the choice to be faithful or not, to buy you flowers or not, to say I love you or not, etc. "The fact that God refuses to intervene where it is not morally justifiable to stand by without intervening is the only "problem" of "evil". " The more I type this, the more you ignore it, but I'll give it another shot anyway. God's defition of morally justifiable and yours might not be the same. God may consider it to be moraly unjustifiable to allow someone to watch pornography. Many of your theories only work if you are allowed to be the ultimate judge of what is morally justifiable. It appears to us that God has allowed us total moral freedom, inasmuch as He himself will not directly intervene to prohibit us from making certain choices. God may consider the only morally injustifiable act to be forcing His children to do anything. It depends on what you define as being an unjustifiable evil. Again, your definition might differ from God, and you have no reasonable expectation that God would be subject to your standards of what is unjustifiable. He may disagree with you, and He may be right.

04-10-2002, 04:36 PM	#130
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Luvluv has argued that love has to be freely-willed if it is worth calling love. That seems to me to be incredibly childish and dumb. Who cares if something is done automatically as long as it is done correctly? I don't see luvluv griping about how automated his/her computer is or how automated the Internet is. And luvluv, did you read the parts of the Bible that recommend removing body parts that cause one to sin?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.