Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jabbersnacky · 04-30-2002, 08:25 AM

Hi. I don't post much because I feel a little intimidated by the intellect here. but I read frequently. I have gotten into a debate on another BB that reminded me allot of stuff I have read being debated here.

I immediately wondered what the brains here would have to say on this. I'm not quite as up on religion, and it's arguments, and tactics so my responses tend to be some what uninformed with less intellect. but I try my best to be a voice of reason on a BB that has more than it's fair share of Christians. Though I should mention it's less confrontational and nasty than some I've looked in on. I thought someone here might find what was being said kind of interesting.

I guess I'm also hoping that I can learn about debating against this kind of logic too

Quote:

Topic: All powerful God - All pervading evilposted April 30, 2002 07:59 AM

Just some points, thoughts, and reflections.

The deductive problem of evil is usually stated as a contradiction in the Christian view of God. If God was really good, He would want to get rid of all evil. If God was really powerful, He would be capable of getting rid of all evil. Since we do have evil, either God is not good or He is not powerful, either of which sound the death knell for Christianity. But does this have anything to do with either God's goodness or His power? Perhpas it isn't a problem of power that there is evil. And perhaps it isn't a problem of goodness, that there is evil. And in fact, goodness requires evil and power doesn't have anything to do with getting rid of it.

Since I understand this objection on Christianity is the problem of evil, I want to point out the problem by asking a series of very simple questions. Someone raises to me the deductive problem of evil. How could a good God and a powerful God allow evil in the world? My response is that I actually think that most people know the answer to that but they haven't really put it together for themselves. So for this, I want to ask four very quick questions that will TRY to bring it all into perspective.

First point: "Would you like to see laws prohibiting a person from choosing an abortion?" Keep in mind that I am presuming that I'm speaking to a person who is fairly liberal and feel they have the right to do whatever they want with their body if they are a female or a male who feels a female should have that right. If they happen to be pro-life, I could change the question to "Would you like to see laws passed prohibiting premarital sex?" Or "prohibiting homosexual behavior?" Now I suspect that when I ask them if they want to have laws passed on any of those things, they would say "no". My question, "Why?" Chances are, their answer is going to be, "Because I think people ought to be allowed to choose." Now there's the key. If you ask a question that beckons the response that people ought to be allowed to choose between moral alternatives, that's the whole key.

Second point: "So, it's a good thing that you have freedom to make moral choices, is that right?" "Yes, of course."

Third point: "Would it be fair to say that it's part of the nature of moral freedom to be possible to choose either good or evil? In other words, how can you say you are morally free if you can only choose good? You say it's a good thing to have moral choices and that entails that one can choose either good or evil, correct?" "Yes."

Last point: "Can raw power make it possible to have genuine moral freedom, but no possibility of doing evil?" The answer there is "No." Having genuine moral freedom entails the notion that you might choose evil, as we just said. And being strong can't change that. You can have all the power in the entire universe and you can't create a being who has moral freedom and at the same time has only one thing he can choose: good things, not bad things. Moral freedom requires that a person be capable of choosing evil and having moral freedom is a good thing.

That was the fourth question and here's how it comes together. Moral freedom requires that we can freely choose either good or evil; therefore, the possibility of choosing evil is a good thing, because moral freedom is a good thing. The fact that evil is possible is a good thing. Do you see that? Evil isn't good; but the fact that it's possible is a good thing because it means that you have genuine moral freedom.

Let's get back to our original question. A good God would want to remove the possibility of evil. False. Based on our little discussion we just had, a really good God would make evil possible. He wouldn't make evil impossible. Because a really good God would allow men the moral freedom which is a good thing. Moral freedom requires at least the possibility of doing evil. So, when you talk about the goodness of God, the goodness of God doesn't argue against the possibility of evil. That would be a bad God that made evil impossible because that would mean that we would not have something good: moral freedom. A good God would give us moral freedom which means that evil is possible.

What about the second point? If He was powerful enough, He would get rid of evil. But how does having more power allow God to have a world of true moral choices where the only choice is to do good? Do you see that is contradictory? A world in which human beings have true moral choices means that they have true moral choices. Not just the choice to do good, but the choice to do good and evil. And no matter how strong God is, He cannot create a morally free creature for whom it is impossible to do evil. That is a contradiction of terms. So, in answering our question about the good God and the powerful God allowing evil, His goodness doesn't work against the possibility of evil, His goodness demands the possibility of evil as been essentailly admitted earlier. If I told you that I was going to pass laws that would force you to always do good, you would think that's a bad thing. You think moral freedom is good. God seems to think so, too. He agrees with you. You agree with Him, but that entails the possibility of evil. It can't be otherwise, no matter how powerful God is. Because power has nothing to do with the equation. Pumping more power into it doesn't change it one bit.

What I sit back and think, no matter how hard it is to digest sometimes, is to affirm that moral freedom is an objectively good thing. So what I did in the begining was try to choose something that is kind of a hot button with people nowadays...something people will immediately disagree with in terms of moral force because it is an inappropriate restriction of moral freedom. Regardless of what you might think about abortion, the view might be, "It is up to me, I should be allowed to make the choice." Or regardless of what one happens to think about premarital sex, it is up to the individual to make the choice. Therefore affirming the objective goodness of moral free agency is what I am looking to point out. The illustration is really irrelevant. It's just a simple way to get a first question that really hits the mark right off the bat. I could ask, "do you think that the government should always force you to do what the government thinks is right in every single thing?" That probably would be the safest way to put it. "Do you think it is good that there is no possibility of moral choice?" is another way of asking the question. They are going to say, "No it is not good." Because being able to choose between good and evil is a moral good in itself. If you took away that choice, you'd being doing something bad. The reason this is such an important step is because some people are basically asking God to take away the possibility of moral evil and they are claiming that would be a good thing and not a bad thing on the one hand. But, on the other hand, when you really get down to the nitty gritty of life -- the way some people really believe life ought to be lived and that freedom ought to be allowed -- they believe just the opposite of what they are claiming. They don't want to live in a world where God makes their doing evil (which might be good, enjoyable, self satisfying to us) impossible. What they really want is to live in a world where they can do whatever they want, but nobody else can do bad towards them. People probably already know the answer to this, but they just haven't worked it out this way. So when they ask "Why doesn't a good God make evil impossible?", they have just agreed that if someone were to do that, it would not be a good thing, it would be a bad thing.

If some reply that there is no good or evil, that it is all relative, then their objection vanishes. You see, their objection depends for its force on the fact that objective evil exists, not merely subjective evil. If evil is subjective, that means it is merely a way of us assessing external things, but the assessment is subjective and internal to me. It is in here, it is not out there. The only way you can construct a problem of evil for the existence of God is if evil is out there objectively. If it is just subjective and evil is just a matter of tastes, that's like saying, I can't believe God exists. Why not? Because of brussels sprouts. Why would brussels sprouts cause you not to believe in God? Because I hate those things, they are disgusting. And my response is, I happen to agree with you but there are a lot of people who like them. Why do you think God can't exist just because there are things that don't appeal to your tastes? You see. This becomes a non-issue at that point.

Matt · 04-30-2002, 09:08 AM

Same old boring reasoning.

How is it a free choice if god is going to punish you for eternity if you choose it?

Eric Roode · 04-30-2002, 09:25 AM

The Christian in your post is discussing moral choices and free will from a freethinker's point of view, which is a bad place to start from.

Back the question up a bit: Why would a theist, one who believes in God and in God's morality, want people in general to be free to choose evil? Why on earth would that be considered a good way to create humans?

The bit about "would you want a law passed to prevent people from choosing to do X" is disingenuous. I suppose that laws against rape, murder, theft, etc are wrong because that takes people's moral choice away? Silly.

Finally, if God had control over all this when He (It) created humanity, why should one person's choice to be evil affect a moral person's life? If you are a fine upstanding moral citizen, by God's definition, whatever that may be, why should you be beaten or raped or killed if some other person chooses to be evil? Where's the justice in that?

The whole argument sounds pretty, but it's a house of cards.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas · 04-30-2002, 09:51 AM

Matt,

Quote:

Originally posted by Matt:
Same old boring reasoning.

How is it a free choice if god is going to punish you for eternity if you choose it?

This statement is non-sensical.

Consequence of choice in no way diminishes ones ability to choose.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

sandlewood · 04-30-2002, 09:57 AM

I�m not one of the brains here, but I�ll tell you what I think. Eric already made one of the points I was going to make regarding the laws against such crimes as murder and rape.

I would also ask the theist about Heaven. Is Heaven a place without evil? Does a person have a choice to do evil there? One possible response to this is that the only people who are let in to Heaven are those that would always choose to do good. But then that makes our life on Earth a kind of testing ground, or filtering process. Only people who will choose a particular way are let into Heaven to live eternally. But how is this any different than creating only those humans that will choose good in the first place? You may say that going through the process of learning to choose good over evil is the whole point of Earth. But why can�t God just immediately create humans in a state such that they have a fully invented history behind them of having learned to choose correctly. (In fact, some theists will say that God is outside of time and sees all points of our time simultaneously. This means that from God�s point of view, we are already at our final state the instant the universe was created. So He has essentially created us with that learning process already)

I found it strange that this theist would bring up the controversy of abortion in this context. In my experience, most Christians come down on the side of anti-choice. Is this one pro-choice?

[ April 30, 2002: Message edited by: sandlewood ]

DarkBronzePlant · 04-30-2002, 10:12 AM

This paragraph is just wrong:

Quote:

First point: "Would you like to see laws prohibiting a person from choosing an abortion?" Keep in mind that I am presuming that I'm speaking to a person who is fairly liberal and feel they have the right to do whatever they want with their body if they are a female or a male who feels a female should have that right. If they happen to be pro-life, I could change the question to "Would you like to see laws passed prohibiting premarital sex?" Or "prohibiting homosexual behavior?" Now I suspect that when I ask them if they want to have laws passed on any of those things, they would say "no". My question, "Why?" Chances are, their answer is going to be, "Because I think people ought to be allowed to choose." Now there's the key. If you ask a question that beckons the response that people ought to be allowed to choose between moral alternatives, that's the whole key.

If god created the world, then he created one in which abortions are sometimes necessary (or seen as the better of two difficult options.) So the questions wouldn't become one of "Would we want the ability to choose an abortion to be eliminated?" but rather, "Why did god create a world in which abortions are seen as a viable option?" More specifically, why are some people unable to care for children? Why do pregnancies last 9 months? Why is raising children as difficult as it is? Or as costly? etc...

"Would you like to see laws passed prohibiting premarital sex?" Or "prohibiting homosexual behavior?" Again, these acts are not evil. These are just innate human desires that, if god exists, he gave to us. The only thing "wrong" with them is that god then allegedly turned around and said "oh, by the way, you can't act on these impulses that I gave to you." So again, the question is not "Would you want to be prohibited against performing these 'immoral' acts?" but rather, "why did god create these desires and then declare them 'immoral'?"

I know that the person who wrote this is most likely just using those specific questions as examples to illustrate a broad point. But the question always remains... why did god create a world in the first place in which the range of options includes "evil" things?

free12thinker · 04-30-2002, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Eric Roode:
The Christian in your post is discussing moral choices and free will from a freethinker's point of view, which is a bad place to start from.

Back the question up a bit: Why would a theist, one who believes in God and in God's morality, want people in general to be free to choose evil? Why on earth would that be considered a good way to create humans?

The bit about "would you want a law passed to prevent people from choosing to do X" is disingenuous. I suppose that laws against rape, murder, theft, etc are wrong because that takes people's moral choice away? Silly.

Finally, if God had control over all this when He (It) created humanity, why should one person's choice to be evil affect a moral person's life? If you are a fine upstanding moral citizen, by God's definition, whatever that may be, why should you be beaten or raped or killed if some other person chooses to be evil? Where's the justice in that?

The whole argument sounds pretty, but it's a house of cards.

Whatever Roode just said. By using the argument that an all powerful/all good god must let people decide whether evil or good deeds is their forte, we are also saying that this same good/powerful god is evil as well. Why is he evil? Because by allowing evil to occur, he is allowing for good to be crushed. Example if you please: Roode is good, I am evil. Free will allows me to walk behind Roode as he is walking into a convenience store and hold a gun to him. Now Roode was going into the convenience store to buy sodas for a picnic he has every Saturday for the unfortunate kids on his block. But by God allowing me evil (since he created us, knows what's going to happen, and is powerful enough to stop it), he is halting Roode's goodness. Correct?

Just a thought from another thinks-too-much atheist with too much time on his hands to ponder the existence of a god with too many mysteries and supposed's to toss around.

free12thinker · 04-30-2002, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkBronzePlant:
This paragraph is just wrong:

If god created the world, then he created one in which abortions are sometimes necessary (or seen as the better of two difficult options.) So the questions wouldn't become one of "Would we want the ability to choose an abortion to be eliminated?" but rather, "Why did god create a world in which abortions are seen as a viable option?" More specifically, why are some people unable to care for children? Why do pregnancies last 9 months? Why is raising children as difficult as it is? Or as costly? etc...

"Would you like to see laws passed prohibiting premarital sex?" Or "prohibiting homosexual behavior?" Again, these acts are not evil. These are just innate human desires that, if god exists, he gave to us. The only thing "wrong" with them is that god then allegedly turned around and said "oh, by the way, you can't act on these impulses that I gave to you." So again, the question is not "Would you want to be prohibited against performing these 'immoral' acts?" but rather, "why did god create these desires and then declare them 'immoral'?"

I know that the person who wrote this is most likely just using those specific questions as examples to illustrate a broad point. But the question always remains... why did god create a world in the first place in which the range of options includes "evil" things?

I agree with everyone it seems, but Dark Bronze is right on the money. Homosexuality and abortion are not evil's, they are not sins. They are victimless acts which garner mixed results. Mixed, unlike say...rape, murder and molestation. These are all evils, as agreed upon by the 99.99 percentile of the world, because they have direct negative impacts on the world.

If god exists, and he gives us free will, he must understand that with free will comes choices. And with choices comes consideration. And if consideration for others is acted, and no harm no foul is the result, than shunning homosexuality and casual/pre-marital sex is unwarranted. Not only that, but, as DarkBronze responded, if god exists and created us, than he gave us these feelings, these hormones, these.....

It's like the argument from conservatives that women are good for child bearing, and knitting and other jobs that require little authority and thought; yet they score higher on aptitude tests than men.

Was it gods intention to create women with ambition, smarts and the like, only to have her sit back and watch? But...I've strayed form the topic at hand.

Bottom line: If God finds that allowing good must equate to allowing evil, than God cannot be dissapointed with the state of humanity (or lack thereof) that exists in today's world.

Jayhawker Soule · 04-30-2002, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas:
This statement is non-sensical. Consequence of choice in no way diminishes ones ability to choose.

To slide from a discussion of free choice to a discussion of choice is non-sensical (at best). The "consequence of choice" can easily diminish the freedom to choose.

free12thinker · 04-30-2002, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas:
Matt,

This statement is non-sensical.

Consequence of choice in no way diminishes ones ability to choose.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Satan,
You can make this statement in a literal sense, but consequences do diminish someone's ability to choose. If someone want's to do A, but doing A will lead to something bad, than are REALLY free to do A? Think outside of a "literal" sense. Of course they can do whatever they want, but when doing what they want can lead to something they don't want, than there's not really freedom to choose, at least not in the context that we all like to think of when we say freedom.

True freedom is choice without fear of retaliation.

04-30-2002, 09:57 AM	#5
sandlewood Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: San Jose, CA, USA Posts: 264	I�m not one of the brains here, but I�ll tell you what I think. Eric already made one of the points I was going to make regarding the laws against such crimes as murder and rape. I would also ask the theist about Heaven. Is Heaven a place without evil? Does a person have a choice to do evil there? One possible response to this is that the only people who are let in to Heaven are those that would always choose to do good. But then that makes our life on Earth a kind of testing ground, or filtering process. Only people who will choose a particular way are let into Heaven to live eternally. But how is this any different than creating only those humans that will choose good in the first place? You may say that going through the process of learning to choose good over evil is the whole point of Earth. But why can�t God just immediately create humans in a state such that they have a fully invented history behind them of having learned to choose correctly. (In fact, some theists will say that God is outside of time and sees all points of our time simultaneously. This means that from God�s point of view, we are already at our final state the instant the universe was created. So He has essentially created us with that learning process already) I found it strange that this theist would bring up the controversy of abortion in this context. In my experience, most Christians come down on the side of anti-choice. Is this one pro-choice? [ April 30, 2002: Message edited by: sandlewood ]</p>

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

04-30-2002, 09:08 AM	#2
Matt Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Indianapolis Posts: 146	Same old boring reasoning. How is it a free choice if god is going to punish you for eternity if you choose it?

04-30-2002, 09:25 AM	#3
Eric Roode New Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Philadelphia, PA Posts: 3	The Christian in your post is discussing moral choices and free will from a freethinker's point of view, which is a bad place to start from. Back the question up a bit: Why would a theist, one who believes in God and in God's morality, want people in general to be free to choose evil? Why on earth would that be considered a good way to create humans? The bit about "would you want a law passed to prevent people from choosing to do X" is disingenuous. I suppose that laws against rape, murder, theft, etc are wrong because that takes people's moral choice away? Silly. Finally, if God had control over all this when He (It) created humanity, why should one person's choice to be evil affect a moral person's life? If you are a fine upstanding moral citizen, by God's definition, whatever that may be, why should you be beaten or raped or killed if some other person chooses to be evil? Where's the justice in that? The whole argument sounds pretty, but it's a house of cards.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.