So how do Christians respond to this Epicurean question?
Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?”
And especially for Dave the “suffering version of this =:
Either God wants to abolish suffering, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish suffering, and God really wants to do it, why is there suffering in the world?”
{P.S. This was not the blog entry that I’ve been working on. I will post that shortly.}
ALERT: The above blog entry is now posted at: http://crossexamined.thehuntercreative.com/?p=57 Click to go there.
Just to clarify that the epicurean riddle is only unsolvable if you consider your god omnibenevolent, omniscient and all-powerful (or if, imho, you engage in mental gymnastics). Take one of these three characteristics away and the problem goes away as well.
Unfortunately, since all versions of the Abrahamic God follow this pattern, they have to face the problem of evil.
PS; I was disappointed that this was not your actual reply, I await your refutation.
Neil,
Thanks for seeking clarification first (kinda). The most important thing I should clarify, I suppose, is that I’m not asking a question. I’m making an argument. If you want a clear statement of it, then here it is:
1) If God exists, then he is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving.
2) If an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving being exists, then suffering does not exist.
3) Suffering exists.
4) Therefore, an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving being does not exist.
5) Therefore, God does not exist.
Bonus points if you can avoid punting to mystery
db0, I think you’re asking for too much! Of course he’s going to punt to mystery. That is the only way out!
I think I should throw in that the suffering, according to Christianity, is not limited to this world, which could be argued one way or the other. But since the suffering extends to eternity through the doctrine of hell…. Well, make sure you realize the full extent of suffering. That’s all I wanted.
Neil hasn’t responded yet. Much as my ego would like to think it’s because I’ve flabbergasted him, the most likely explanation is that he simply has a life. Good for him.
db0 and Josh,
What the logical PoE does is deduces a logical contradiction between a set of propositions, and you can’t make that go away by punting to mystery, any more than you can make a math error go away by saying “Well, it’s a mystery how it works, but nevertheless….”
The logical PoE hasn’t received a lot of treatment in recent decades because a guy named Plantinga came along and defeated the version of the argument offered by a guy named Mackie — and although several people (including Mackie himself before he died) demonstrated the problem with Plantinga’s response, nobody really listened because Plantinga’s move was a huge coup at the time. But the logical PoE is sound, as I’ll likely have a chance to demonstrate during the course of this thread.
I’m waiting with baited breath
Why does having an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving God mean suffering does not exist? I am not following that jump. I would argue that premise number 2 is false.
As for:
Either God wants to abolish suffering, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish suffering, and God really wants to do it, why is there suffering in the world?”
If God can abolish suffering (which an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving God can do) and really wants to do it, why is there suffering in the world?
My response to this is that God is giving time for people to make a choice of their own free will to either turn and follow God or not. If he now at this very moment abolished all suffering from the world, who would choose him based solely on that manifestation of power and not love?If God manifested himself to such an extent it would be overwhelming! Thus leaving no option to decide based on love alone.
Suppose the reason an all-loving God is allowing suffering for a time is to allow people to freely choose how they want to spend their eternity either with God or without God. By not intervening on that large of a scale it allows more people to choose eternity experiencing the love of God.
As for the doctrine of Hell… Hell was actually made for Satan and his angels:
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
(Matthew 25:41)
If a person decides to not want anything to do with God this is the only place left for them. The suffering experienced here is the separation from God and his love. I tend to think of it this way. If I a created being with an eternal spirit were to reject the creator of everything. The being that created time and space as we know it. The being who created emotion, life, clarity, love, relationships, universes, etc. What would should be the consequence?
The bible even says that God will abolish suffering in the world:
Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”
(Revelation 21:1-4)
Knowing God will abolish all suffering in the world the real question is what is he waiting for. The answer to that question is in the Bible for people who are willing to read it.
Ah, I was expecting the “free will” argument.
How is God giving time to make a choice when he makes a natural disaster kill and main thousands of people (even true believers in him)?
How is God giving time to make a choice when he makes a baby born with a deadly disease/defect?
While your reply may, briefly, touch the aspect of human caused suffering, it does not explain all suffering.
Premise 2 is false. It is not a logical necessity that if an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving being exists, then suffering (or evil) does not exist.
If one examines the purpose of the universe, something the poets call “a vale of soul making” or simply “soul forge” then the universe was created perfect for that purpose. Rather than judge according to some silly human idea of utopia, we should understand why God made us, what purpose is served in this universe. What reason could there be that an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, all-good God have for letting evil (and suffering) exist, even flourish in this universe?
The answer is that evil is allowed to exist for fulfilling the purpose of the universe…to forge the souls of men.
That real, objective evil can be said to exist at all, which all of you have implicitly admitted, is to prove that God does in fact exist. Here is the proposition:
If real, objective moral wrong, that is to say evil, exists, then God exists.
Real, objective moral wrong, that is to say evil, exists.
Therefore God exists.
If it is not real, objective moral wrong/evil, then evil is simply a subjective concept beholden to the perspective of men. None can say that evil truly exists because what you might consider evil, I might consider good.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
This is just the “free-will” argument in mystical clothes.
The points I made against it still stand.
I am not certain what you’re arguing here but it looks like a red herring. The existense or not of Objective morals do not defeat the PoE.
You may try to argue for the existence of God through objective morality but, by the definition of the PoE, that God cannot be omnibenevolent, all-powerful and omniscient.
“If God manifested himself to such an extent it would be overwhelming!”
Incorrect. Just look at Satan. God was fully manifested to him, was he not? And yet Satan still exercised his free will and turned away.
Sorry, that free-will argument just isn’t consistent with your own theology.
~~~~db0 said:
This is just the “free-will” argument in mystical clothes. The points I made against it still stand.~~~~
There is nothing “mystical” about what I said. Perhaps a bit more flowery or eloquent, but not mystical.
~~~~db0 said:
How is God giving time to make a choice when he makes a natural disaster kill and main thousands of people (even true believers in him)? How is God giving time to make a choice when he makes a baby born with a deadly disease/defect?~~~~
As one who believes in the sinlessness of children I do not have a problem with this question of “time”. Young children, babies, and the mentally retarded will go to heaven if they die.
Those who are of an age to make moral choices and have the capacity to understand moral consequences have the time given to them. If they are killed before what we might consider a full life (they live to old age and die peacefully in their sleep), the limited time cannot be blamed on God.
What it ultimately comes down to is that you blame God for things that He should not be blamed for. You say that suffering is caused by God. Suffering is the result of man’s sin. Adam chose to sin and it was necessary to force him out of Eden. The wicked of Noah’s day chose to sin and it was necessary to destroy them to save humanity (through Noah). The Flood broke the “very good” world that was and our world is harder, man must do more work, and now the world has natural disasters. This is beCAUSE man sinned.
You will no doubt ask why these things were necessary.
If Adam were allowed to remain in Eden, faced no hardship because of his sin, was able to eat of the tree of life, faced no punishment or consequence for his sin, Adam would have learned that he could sin and God would do nothing. What kind of parent lets a child touch an oven, or an electrical socket, or play with dangerous tools and does not meet out any punishment for those things? I hope that you would say “a bad parent” because death is the end result if the child keeps playing with those things. Instead, the child is taught not to handle those things until he can be taught to handle them carefully (when he is strong enough) and responsibly (when he is old enough). So to, Adam and Eve were made to leave Eden, to work for a living, to teach them to do what was beneficial for them (obey God).
What of the Flood? Same thing. Humanity had reached a point where every thought and act was evil continually, except for Noah. Humanity had become the rebellious teen. If God had meted out no harsh punishment, had set no limits (in this case a harsher world where man had to work harder to live so had less time to think on and do evil), what would humanity have come to? The image of the drugged up, jobless, thief (or perhaps murderer) comes to mind. Or maybe think gang member.
These are the reasons for the necessity of the expulsion from Eden, for the Flood. Humanity brought those consequences on himself, needed them. So if you, as an individual, must blame someone, blame those humans. Blaming God is like being a petulant child who gets mad at his parents for swatting his hand or behind when he does something dangerous and the parent, being the loving, responsible parent they are corrects the behavior.
Now if you see the reason of these points, I imagine your only argument will be one of extent or degree of punishment. But I’ll let you make that argument before I answer it.
~~~~I am not certain what you’re arguing here but it looks like a red herring. The existense or not of Objective morals do not defeat the PoE.
You may try to argue for the existence of God through objective morality but, by the definition of the PoE, that God cannot be omnibenevolent, all-powerful and omniscient.~~~~
You are right. My proposition belongs in a different thread. I’ll leave it at that.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
It occurred to me that you may not have found my posts satisfactory in directly answering ALL suffering.
First, to touch on the suffering of animals (and plants?), all that needs to be said is that they are part of creation which was created for man. If they suffer because of being prey, that is simply part of life, of the natural order of things, and is a tool to teach men. If they suffer because of natural disasters, disease, etc. That is a result of the Flood and therefore a result of man’s choice to disobey God.
As for all HUMAN suffering…you either have human suffering because of specific human choices to do wrong (murder, theft, evil rulers not giving their people food, etc) or because of choices of man in the past (natural disasters, disease, other massive environment concepts) which resulted in the Flood and in further degeneration of our world and our kind (humans), or man’s current choices (an owner “cruelly” beats a dog).
If I have left a kind of suffering out that cannot be attributed to either man’s sin in the past or man’s direct choice to sin today, please ask about it and I will consider it.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
What about the suffering they have during their life? Do they deserve it? Is god making the child suffer (horribly in many cases)because he wants to punish the parent? Does this seem moral to you.
If God is all-powerful, why doesn’t he just cure the child instead of letting it suffer and die?
Certainly not, but then, I would not call a God who allows people – who are in his power to save from natural causes – to die, omnibenevolent. Certainly if he wishes the “forge the souls of men” he could have saved them from natual causes and let them have their chance from human interraction where their free-will will be tested.
Really? So let me give you an analogy:
if I were to have a child that is very naughty and then my child had three other grandchildren, all of them little angels of morality. Once my child died I take my grandchildren and place them in a dungeon full or traps.
If one of them complains why I did this, then I explain that his father was naughty. I should not be blamed for all the hazards that he is facing. He should instead praise me and love me with all his heart.
Am I acting moral then?
This reminds me of Falwell claiming that Katrina was caused because of Gays…
Tree of Knowledge. This is important.
Or God, like any sensible parent, could escalate his punishment. Instead of, you know, kicking him out of paradise and making him suffer in earth, he could explain why he should not be eating the fruit of knowledge (honestly, why?) and undo all the damage (he’s all powerful is he now. He can even take back time)
Also, do not forget that free will was given to Adam and Eve by God. If he wanted them not to obey his every order, then why did he give it to them?
Finally, why are we discussing Genesis? Do you believe that what genesis is saying really happened?
I would say that what God is doing is not “swatting his hand behind his back” but rather nuking the whole neighborhood…
Use appropriate analogies.
No, other than disputing that Genesis or the story of the Ark are true events (they are not).
My argument is already in the first and second reply of this comment but to reiterate.
According to you:
God is all-powerful, omnibenevolent and omniscient
God created the world as it is, including the natural disasters
God knows that evil and good men alike are suffering.
God considers that some people (apparently random) deserve to suffer more than others for the sins of Humanity’s great-great-…-great forefathers.
People who do not believe in this God, see this apparent random suffering as a powerful proof of his non-existence. Many people who do believe in this God, are convinced by this random suffering otherwise.
How exactly does this help God’s cause again?
You just wonderfully stated why Christianity is so much to blame for our environmental problems…
This would explain why the person causing the suffering deserves to suffer, but it is the other way around. The victim is the one who does.
Sins of the father. I get it. It just so happens that “sins of the father” would make God either sociopathic or wicked. Remember that you believe in absolute morality so God’s morality is our own morality as well.
One more thing. Why does this fair and just god punish (or allow to suffer) random people instead of the ones who are actually wicked?
Wouldn’t it be a bigger proof for his existence if the actual wicked were the ones to suffer? Why does he go into so much trouble to obscure his existence?
JAMES:
Why does having an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving God mean suffering does not exist? I am not following that jump. I would argue that premise number 2 is false.
DAVE:
Then do so. So far you’ve only asserted it.
ERNIE:
That real, objective evil can be said to exist at all, which all of you have implicitly admitted, is to prove that God does in fact exist. Here is the proposition:
If real, objective moral wrong, that is to say evil, exists, then God exists.
Real, objective moral wrong, that is to say evil, exists.
Therefore God exists.
DAVE:
I have said nothing at all about evil. My argument relates only to suffering, and does not pass judgment upon it as good or evil. This is something that Neil, at least, seems to have grasped.
ERNIE:
The answer is that evil is allowed to exist for fulfilling the purpose of the universe…to forge the souls of men.
DAVE:
Again, my argument has nothing to do with evil. If you meant suffering, then I would respond that “forging souls” is logically compatible with the absence of suffering.
ERNIE:
What it ultimately comes down to is that you blame God for things that He should not be blamed for. You say that suffering is caused by God.
DAVE:
My argument takes no position on who or what is the cause of suffering. It states only that if God existed, suffering would not.
ERNIE:
You say that suffering is caused by God. Suffering is the result of man’s sin.
(…..)
As for all HUMAN suffering…you either have human suffering because of specific human choices to do wrong (murder, theft, evil rulers not giving their people food, etc) or because of choices of man in the past (natural disasters, disease, other massive environment concepts) which resulted in the Flood and in further degeneration of our world and our kind (humans), or man’s current choices (an owner “cruelly” beats a dog).
If I have left a kind of suffering out that cannot be attributed to either man’s sin in the past or man’s direct choice to sin today, please ask about it and I will consider it.
DAVE:
It seems db0 was right — your argument really is just the free will defense dressed up in mystical (or “eloquent,” if you prefer) clothing.
The free will defense does not refute the problem of suffering. The explanation is a bit long and technical; I’ll post it in a couple hours when I have more time, and that will also give Neil a chance to respond if he chooses.
db0,
You still have a few problems with your position.
1. You are blaming God for things that is not His blame.
2. You are arguing degree.
3. You are arguing that Genesis is not true while trying to argue against the God of Genesis.
I’ll deal with point 3 first. I believe the events of Genesis really happened, as stated. Since we are discussing the God of the Bible here, then part of the definition of the God you are arguing against is of the Bible. If you are going to argue that Genesis is not true then you are changing the definition of the God you are arguing against and we are arguing past each other. If you want to say that the God I worship is not true, then part of the definition you need to argue against is the God of a true Genesis. I’ll not let you redefine my God to suit your arguments. If you can prove my God does not exist, then you will have proved that Genesis is not true. If you want to argue against a different God, then a discussion between us is pointless since I believe no other God but the God of the Bible, Jehovah, exists.
As for point 2, the matter of degree…
Do you agree that it is right for a parent to punish their child at all for doing what the parent does not want them to do or for not doing what the parent wants them to do (granting that the parent is a loving parent who has the best interest of the child in mind)?
Similarly, do you agree that it is right for a Creator to punish their creation at all for doing what that Creator does not want the creation to do or for not doing what the Creator wants them to do (granting that the Creator is a loving Creator who has the best interest of the creation in mind)?
Lastly, we deal with the blame game. You keep talking about God “making” a child to suffer (through disease, calamity, abuse) but how is this God’s responsibility? How is God the cause of this suffering? Are you saying, for instance, that I am claiming that God reaches down with a proverbial finger and stirs up a hurricane, and sends it towards cities when He believes those cities have reached a certain level of evil? (Falwell’s Katrina because of gays example). Because if you are, this is not what I believe God does. Hurricanes are a NATURAL event that occur in our world because of the current state of the atmosphere. This current state is imperfect, harsher, than before the Flood (which was “good” according to Genesis 1). This current state is a result of that Flood which was a consequence of man’s sin. Now, you may argue that God went too far in His punishment of men and that the consequences of that punishment are too far reaching (every generation that followed the evil one who is to blame for the Flood), but then that is just a matter of degree and we are back to point 2.
The child that suffers abuse. Is that God causing the abuse or the evil of man? If you say God, how is God the CAUSE of that suffering?
So man, not God, is the ultimate cause of suffering in the world. What you take issue with, as I knew you would, is the degree of God’s punishment and consequences for sin.
You also must separate punishment and consequences. The infant child that suffers from disease or calamity is not being punished for anything (God is not a sociopath or wicked). He is suffering the consequences of the choices of other humans. Same goes for the suffering (not punishment) of “random” (read innocent) people. Of those who are truly innocent, which is relatively few and mostly young, their suffering cannot be attributed to punishment. It is like the child who suffers birth defects because the mother and/or father was a drug addict. That child’s state is not a punishment of the child, but the consequences of evil choices by the parents. Hurricanes are just a consequence many generations removed…a matter of degree.
Let me know if you wish to deny the existence of my God and we will continue. If you wish to argue against the existence of some other God, I’ll not bother you again.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
db0,
I meant to respond to this above:
~~~~According to you:
God is all-powerful, omnibenevolent and omniscient~~~~
True.
~~~~God created the world as it is, including the natural disasters~~~~
God created a “very good” world for the purpose of soul forging. Man chose to sin and the punishment for that was destruction in the Flood. The consequence of the Flood was the world as it is now, including natural disasters.
~~~~God knows that evil and good men alike are suffering.~~~~
True. Note that the category of “good men” is relatively small and includes: faithful Christians, adults who have never sinned, young children (including unborn children), and the mentally retarded.
~~~~God considers that some people (apparently random) deserve to suffer more than others for the sins of Humanity’s great-great-…-great forefathers.~~~~
False. Decision implies an active hand in this suffering. The suffering is simply a consequence of events that took place in the past. God does not look down on individuals and say “I think I’ll wipe out db0 because of X and let Ernie get off with only Y”. God simply allows the universe to proceed according to the natural laws established at the beginning of time. When appropriate He providentially answers prayer (a whole other topic).
~~~~People who do not believe in this God, see this apparent random suffering as a powerful proof of his non-existence. Many people who do believe in this God, are convinced by this random suffering otherwise.~~~~
The existence of God does not depend on the beliefs of men. These points are irrelevant to the discussion.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
~~~~`DAVE:
Again, my argument has nothing to do with evil. If you meant suffering, then I would respond that “forging souls” is logically compatible with the absence of suffering.~~~~
I will wait for your argument that proves this assertion.
~~~~DAVE:
My argument takes no position on who or what is the cause of suffering. It states only that if God existed, suffering would not.~~~~
But the cause of suffering is wholly integral to the existence of God. You cannot discard a discussion of the cause and make a reasonable argument against God because of the existence of suffering.
I understand that YOUR argument is only concerned with suffering. The argument concerning evil is for those like db0 who are subscribing to that particular argument. I’ll not hold you to the evil point unless you make it.
~~~~DAVE:
It seems db0 was right — your argument really is just the free will defense dressed up in mystical (or “eloquent,” if you prefer) clothing.
The free will defense does not refute the problem of suffering. The explanation is a bit long and technical; I’ll post it in a couple hours when I have more time, and that will also give Neil a chance to respond if he chooses.~~~~
I look forward to your post.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
This was only a minor point and not an actual argument. There are many Christians who consider Genesis as non-literal. The PoE affects both literalists and otherwise. I just consider the literal position even more absurd than usual but that’s another subject altogether so let’s not dally.
Depends on the punishment. Even for the most heinous thing a child might do, there are limits to what punishment might be meted to it. Parent are held accountable for cruel punishment.
God’s punishment is far beyond mere cruelty. Thus God is wicked of sociopathic.
- At the start, Human were without pain (lets say)
- Then, the first sin was done and humans were punished for their disobedience. Part of their punishment was being put in a worse environment.
- Eventually people became too wicked again and another punishment was meted out. This punishment worsened the world even more and allowed such things and natural disasters and birth defects to exist
Thus, a birth defective child is the direct result of God’s punishment. God punishes the child for the “sins of the fathers”, God is wicked
You also say, in a few words, that it is not God’s responsibility to alleviate suffering. Putting aside for a moment that suffering is the direct result of God’s action, let me give you another example to display the wickedness of God.
A person just walked through a desert without a drop of water. He is so dehydrated that he can barely move. He happens to find a bottle of water that will most certainly save his life. However the cap is tight enough that his limited strength is not enough to twist it open.
Seeing you stand next to the bottle, he asks you for the simple task of twisting open the cap for him.
You ignore him. He dies.
Are you not morally culpable? Shouldn’t you be condemnated? So is your God.
Your god as all-powerful, does not even extend 1/1000 of the energy you would to open the cap in order to have all the needless suffering, that is not caused by humans, to dissapear.
Make birth defects disappear. What is their purpose? To get more Cheruvims?
You claim that the purpose of natural disasters is to make men be less sinful. How is this achieved when the only way they are interpreted is as evidence against god.
If Natural disasters are not meant to make men less sinful, then this is like a parent punishing a child without any apparent purpose. Cruelty once more.
The birth defect is something that god created and god allows to happen. God is the only morally culpable.
Indeed, it can only be attributed to deliberate cruelty
Or more appropriately, like the child who suffers birth defects because the mother was injected with AIDS when she was a child, from her own father, because she stole a cookie.
You keep claiming that the argument from degree is not an argument. Quite the contrary, if we are to accept that suffering is caused as a punishment for the sins of humanity, then the degree makes all the difference between a lesson and deliberate cruelty.
Man only chose to do what God allowed him to do. God knew his was going to sin before man sinned. In essence he created humans flawed. Why?
Like a parent that hands a gun to his child and paints a target on his sister.
Laws created by him.
Also even though God knows that Db0 is more wicked than Ernie and capable of making the disaster happen to him without any effort, he still chooses to allow Ernie to suffer punishment instead. Even though Ernie is a devout believer and worshiper in him and Db0 is a always convincing people not to believe in him.
You have also not answered my question.
- Why do seemingly random people suffer instead of the more wicked?
- Does my analogy of the child in the dungeon make me moral?
Also
- Why doesn’t god remove suffering from the world that does not serve any purpose. Mortal birth defects for example could have never been introduced. Why did god create a problem that only serves to kill innocent babies and fetii? Doesn’t that make him the largest abortionist?
Okay, I’ve made this as un-technical as I could without sacrificing precision of statement, so here goes nothing . . .
In order to explain why the free will defense fails, we have to distinguish between two types of free will, call them A-type and B-type.
Let’s say that person P must, at time t, choose between either decision D or decision ~D (not-D). Under A-type free will, P has free will if and only if it is logically possible for P to either choose D or choose ~D at time t — that is, if his choice was not logically determined. (Note that logical determination is not the same thing as physical determination.)
Under B-type free will, that is not the case; P can have free will to choose either D or ~D at time t even if logical determinism applies.
If God exists, then God, being all-knowing, knows that P will choose (let us say) D at time t, and this knowledge is infallible. Thus, it is necessarily true that P chooses D, and necessarily false that P chooses ~D. Now, under B-type free will, this doesn’t matter at all — P was still free in choosing D. But under A-type free will, P was not free in choosing D, by virtue of the fact that it was logically impossible for him to choose ~D.
The free will defender states that God cannot actualize a state of affairs wherein P would freely choose D at time t, because if God actualizes a state of affairs wherein P chooses D at time t, then P’s choice was not a free will decision.
The question is, which type of free will is the defender referring to, A-type or B-type?
If the defender is referring to A-type free will, then the defender is correct, God cannot make P freely choose D. In fact, God cannot make, or even allow, anyone to freely choose at all. A-type free will is impossible if God exists, because it is logically impossible for anyone to do anything other than what God already knows he will do. And, by modus tolens, if A-type free will exists, then God does not.
“Ah,” I hear you say, “but God didn’t cause that person to do what he did; even though he knew it would happen, that person was still free to make that choice or not.”
In that case, you’re referring to B-type free will, wherein P is free to choose D in spite of God already knowing that he would do so.
But that means that P is also free to choose ~D in spite of God already knowing that he would do so; God would simply have that knowledge instead. So, antecedent to God having knowledge that P would choose D or that P would choose ~D, there is a possible world in which P freely chooses D (call it W1) and a possible world in which P freely chooses ~D (call it W2). God, being all-powerful, can actualize either of those worlds, and he would know which is which.
“Wait a minute,” you might retort. “that means that P is not free, because God, in choosing either W1 or W2, determined whether he would choose D or ~D.”
Granted, God made it logically impossible for P to choose other than what God knew P would choose in the world that God actualized. But other than having been logically determined, P’s decision was uncoerced. So if it is your position that P nonetheless does not have free will, then you’ve gone back to A-type free will. See above.
So therein lies the dilemma. It doesn’t really matter whether you choose A-type or B-type free will, but you must choose one or the other, and whatever choice you make, you’re stuck with it. You can’t switch back and forth.
If you choose A-type, then the free will defense fails because free will and God are logically incompatible; if one exists, the other does not. If you choose B-type, then the free will defense fails because there is a set of possible worlds in which all choices are freely made and suffering nonetheless does not exist, and God, if he existed and desired free will, would actualize one of those worlds.
Whatever your choice, the free will defense fails.
You are thinking in time. As the bible explains God exists outside of time. God watching you make a decision is different than forcing you to make a decision based on his foreknowledge. God can see all time at the same time. So, even though you have free will he has already seen you make that choice, because he can see till the end of time and the beginning of time at the same time.
Dave,
You mentioned that I asserted your premise two was false. I did. The burden of proof is actually on you to prove that suffering exists therefore God does not exist. I have given plenty of reasons why an All-knowing, All-powerful, All-loving God can exist while suffering is present in the world. It is now your responsibility to explain how none of the options I presented above are accurate.
db0,
~~~~Depends on the punishment. Even for the most heinous thing a child might do, there are limits to what punishment might be meted to it. Parent are held accountable for cruel punishment.
God’s punishment is far beyond mere cruelty. Thus God is wicked of sociopathic.~~~~
I did not ask about extent. I simply asked about the right to punish at all. Extent is a different question. Please answer the question I asked. Does a parent/Creator have any right to punish (to even a minimal extent) a child/creation?
~~~~- At the start, Human were without pain (lets say)
- Then, the first sin was done and humans were punished for their disobedience. Part of their punishment was being put in a worse environment.
- Eventually people became too wicked again and another punishment was meted out. This punishment worsened the world even more and allowed such things and natural disasters and birth defects to exist
Thus, a birth defective child is the direct result of God’s punishment.~~~~
No. The birth defect is a consequence of the punishment which is meted out because of man’s wickedness.
~~~~God punishes the child for the “sins of the fathers”, God is wicked~~~~
You are still stuck on active punishment versus passive consequence. God is not punishing the child. The child is enduring a consequence which ultimately was caused by man’s sin. Therefore man is wicked and God is possibly just (which will be determined by a discussion of extent).
~~~~A person just walked through a desert without a drop of water. He is so dehydrated that he can barely move. He happens to find a bottle of water that will most certainly save his life. However the cap is tight enough that his limited strength is not enough to twist it open.
Seeing you stand next to the bottle, he asks you for the simple task of twisting open the cap for him.
You ignore him. He dies.~~~~
This analogy does not hold. God does not “ignore” those who suffer. It does not serve the higher purpose of why the universe was created for God to fix every problem, to end all suffering.
The parent who does everything for their child all that child’s life does a disservice to the child. A Creator that fixes all the problems caused by His creation does a disservice to that creation.
It is only your limited perspective coupled with a few other things that causes you to see things the way that you do.
~~~~Make birth defects disappear. What is their purpose? To get more Cheruvims?~~~~
Just an fyi, Cherubims are heavenly angles, not humans, and they are not made by the spirits of dead baby humans. I know of no Christian faith that teaches what you have suggested.
The “purpose” of birth defects is to teach humanity of the consequences of sin. A child with a fatal defect will ultimately go to heaven so the suffering is temporary and serves the purpose while actually being easy on the child in the long run (doesn’t have to contend with sin in their own life…ever). A child with a defect that prevents maturation ultimately faces the same end, heaven, while still providing a necessary lesson to the whole of humanity. A child with a defect that is not debilitating teaches the lesson, eventually makes all the same choices as any other adult (to do good or evil), and has the added benefit of an additional trial to focus on defeating which will help keep them from temptation to do evil. (This is why the poor, the maim, the diseased, and the physically “ugly” are considered more likely to receive the gospel than the rich, healthy, and physically “beautiful”). Their perceived suffering is short term and has its benefits. Ultimately that kind of suffering is a consequence, not a punishment.
~~~~You claim that the purpose of natural disasters is to make men be less sinful. How is this achieved when the only way they are interpreted is as evidence against god.~~~~
This is a false premise. Natural disasters are far from being ONLY interpreted as evidence against God. They are only viewed that way by a relative few.
If men saw the real, ultimate cause of natural disasters was sin, then the natural disaster would have the effect of humbling man and being a cause for repentance and submission to God’s will. To some, natural disasters are one of many reasons to believe in God.
~~~~The birth defect is something that god created and god allows to happen. God is the only morally culpable.~~~~
Birth defect is not a result of active creation. It is a consequence of punishment which is a direct result of man’s sin. You are still playing the blame game. When will you acknowledge that the ultimate cause of most of suffering is man’s sin.
What you need to do is discuss whether God has the right to punish His creation and to what extent. Everything flows to that. If God does not have the right, or does not have the right to the extent recorded in scripture, then you are right and God would be evil, which is a logical contradiction and therefore He does not exist.
~~~~Indeed, it can only be attributed to deliberate cruelty~~~~
Or consequences ultimately attributed to man’s sin.
~~~~Or more appropriately, like the child who suffers birth defects because the mother was injected with AIDS when she was a child, from her own father, because she stole a cookie.~~~~
*shrug* That fits the description of consequences I am trying to express. No matter how far removed, the individual child suffers from the consequences of some ancestor’s evil. Father, grandfather, great-great-as far as you want to go-great grandfather (or you can substitute mother for father in every place). It doesn’t matter. The ultimate cause of suffering is man, not God.
~~~~You keep claiming that the argument from degree is not an argument. Quite the contrary, if we are to accept that suffering is caused as a punishment for the sins of humanity, then the degree makes all the difference between a lesson and deliberate cruelty.~~~~
Then let us speak of degree instead of blame. Please answer the original question asked about whether a parent/Creator has the right to punish.
~~~~Man only chose to do what God allowed him to do.~~~~
This sentence does not make sense to me. Could you elaborate?
~~~~God knew his was going to sin before man sinned. In essence he created humans flawed.~~~~
This is a false premise. Free will is not a flaw. Foreknowledge is not the same as predestination (which I do not believe happens in the case of individuals — I am not a Calvinist). God created man. Man chose to sin. Yes, God knew that man would sin. But He also knew that some would choose righteousness. You are still playing the blame game. God is not to blame for man’s sins.
~~~~- Why do seemingly random people suffer instead of the more wicked?~~~~
In those cases people suffer because of a consequence of sin, not as a punishment. I have discussed the purpose of such suffering above.
~~~~- Does my analogy of the child in the dungeon make me moral?~~~~
I don’t understand this question. How could an analogy make you moral. God made you a moral creature. You choose to be morally good or evil.
~~~~- Why doesn’t god remove suffering from the world that does not serve any purpose.~~~~
Because the suffering serves a purpose, even if you do not see that from your perspective.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
JAMES:
You are thinking in time. As the bible explains God exists outside of time. God watching you make a decision is different than forcing you to make a decision based on his foreknowledge. God can see all time at the same time. So, even though you have free will he has already seen you make that choice, because he can see till the end of time and the beginning of time at the same time.
DAVE:
So you subscribe to B-type free will. I don’t have a problem with that. But it means that God can actualize a world where I freely choose to do this instead of that — and a world in which everyone freely makes choices in ways that do not lead to suffering.
JAMES:
You mentioned that I asserted your premise two was false. I did. The burden of proof is actually on you to prove that suffering exists therefore God does not exist.
DAVE:
That’s what I did in my argument. If you mean that the burden is mine to make a prima facie case for premise 2, then here it is: If there exists a rational entity E which has the power, all things considered, to bring about a given situation S, the necessary knowledge to do so, and the desire that S obtain, then there it is impossible for S not to obtain.
JAMES:
I have given plenty of reasons why an All-knowing, All-powerful, All-loving God can exist while suffering is present in the world. It is now your responsibility to explain how none of the options I presented above are accurate.
DAVE:
As far as I can tell, the only “reason” you gave that pertained to my argument was the free will defense, addressed above. If you gave a defense to my argument which I overlooked, please accept my apologies and bring it to my attention.
A punishment is only acceptable when the child is needs to be taught a lesson it would not understand in any other way.
To answer your question. No an all-powerful, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator should not be punishing his creation for a something he knew would happen but didn’t take preventative measures against.
To paraphrase the PoE a bit.
- If he knew what would happen but couldn’t stop it. Then he is impotent
- If he did not know what would happen (as seems to be the case from the story or Adam and Eve), he is ignorant.
- If he knew it would happen and had the power to prevent it but didn’t. Then that is his choice. If however he also punishes the creation for this, he is wicked.
Then the birth defect is the indirect result of God’s punishment? Not much difference from what I said. Still, God is the cause of this suffering. Thus he cannot be omnibenevolent and all-powerful by definition as he would then not allow it to happen.
I pretty much know what your subsequent reply will be now as you’ve already started with it…
B00m! Punt to mystery.
There is not much point in continuing this as you seem to have reached the classic christian escape tactic. I will not be able to argue much more than this but I may end up providing you with some links.
Right. So, do you claim to know the higher purpose of why the universe was created?
Helping a man open a bottle of water to save his life is not “fixing all the child’s life”. All I am asking is why the all-powerful, omniscient and omnibenevolent deity would not do the most simple thing to allow an innocent person to suffer when it will serves no purpose in educating man of his sins.
Sorry, but if an omniscient and all-powerful god figured out only this way to teach humanity of the consequences of disobedience then he pretty much sucks as a teacher. If anything, this way serves as a much more powerful way to convince people that he does not exist instead of teaching them sinfulness. I’m pretty certain I could have found something clearer, instead of mutilating innocent babies, as a lesson.
Relative few?! Man, the PoE is one of the leading apostasy reasons…
Sure, there are ways to excuse the PoE, as you are trying to do but you’ve already started with supreme mental gymnastics (suffering is not punishment but the consequence of punishment?) and punted to mystery.
You’re going for the gold metal. Birth defect did not exist when man was created. You said it yourself that it was introduced when man sinned. How was it introduced? Sure it cannot be “created” per se so the only alternative is that God made his creation inferior. Still an active hand.
Only, you missed the metaphor where God is the father who gave the AIDS injection.
Dave pretty much nailed it.
Again, Dave went into more detail on what it would mean for God to know and to provide “free will”.
Let me pose my example again:
—
if I were to have a child that is very naughty and then my child had three other grandchildren, all of them little angels of morality. Once my child died I take my grandchildren and place them in a dungeon full or traps.
If one of them complains why I did this, then I explain that his father was naughty. I should not be blamed for all the hazards that he is facing. He should instead praise me and love me with all his heart.
—
Just answer me if in this example you would judge me as moral or not.
In order to see it from your perspective, I will need to jump through mental hoops. I rather use the Occam’s Razor and see it as proof that the Christian god does not exist. If this god’s purpose was to make me realize I was sinful and repent (because he loves me and does not want to torture me eternally) then he either is incompetent nincompoop or he does not really love me enough to give me even a small argument that my critical mind could remotely accept.
~~~~DAVE:
If there exists a rational entity E which has the power, all things considered, to bring about a given situation S, the necessary knowledge to do so, and the desire that S obtain, then there it is impossible for S not to obtain.~~~~
This is the flaw in your A-type free will argument. You equate foreknowledge with predetermination. You make God’s foreknowledge an active participant in the choice of P which is a false definition of foreknowledge. From your previous post:
“But under A-type free will, P was not free…”
Either P’s will is free or not free. It is illogical to be both free and not free at the same time (Law of Excluded Middle).
Your argument asserts a logical contradiction. An argument that asserts a logical contradiction is, by definition, illogical.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
~~~~db0 said:
A punishment is only acceptable when the child is needs to be taught a lesson it would not understand in any other way.
To answer your question. No an all-powerful, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator should not be punishing his creation for a something he knew would happen but didn’t take preventative measures against.~~~~
You are still adding terms to the question that I have not asked about. You assert that parents have the right to punish at least to some extent, but a Creator has no right to punish at all. That is inconsistent.
I did not punt to mystery. I defined the purpose of the universe quite clearly.
In your analogy of the man in the desert, you are only thinking of the thirsty man. The suffering or in most cases the death of an individual does not teach that individual anything (once dead, it is too late to make a choice). But the individual serves as a lesson for the rest of us.
~~~~Sorry, but if an omniscient and all-powerful god figured out only this way to teach humanity of the consequences of disobedience then he pretty much sucks as a teacher. If anything, this way serves as a much more powerful way to convince people that he does not exist instead of teaching them sinfulness. I’m pretty certain I could have found something clearer, instead of mutilating innocent babies, as a lesson.~~~~
You are certainly entitled to your purely subjective and limited perspective opinion. I am not subject to your whims, though, and the Creator of the universe certainly is not.
db, your job here (as far as I understand your intent) is to convince me that God is somehow illogical from the attributes of God and as they relate to the existence of real, objective evil. So far you have only blamed God for things man has caused and then held God up to your personal standard and found Him wanting, which any atheist is going to do. I’m actually waiting for you to present a sound argument for why God cannot logically exist based on the definition of God and the existence of real, objective evil.
~~~~Birth defect did not exist when man was created. You said it yourself that it was introduced when man sinned. How was it introduced? Sure it cannot be “created” per se so the only alternative is that God made his creation inferior. Still an active hand.~~~~
Man sinned (first cause).
God punished man for sin to the extent He saw necessary in His infinite nature.
If God did not punish man, then God would be unjust.
The altered environment, including harmful UV radiation amongst other things causes birth defects.
What was the cause? Man sinned.
The only thing that is left is for you to challenge the extent to which God has the right to punish man…as I have said all along.
~~~~Only, you missed the metaphor where God is the father who gave the AIDS injection.~~~~
Yes, I missed the part where God is the Father in the analogy.
It still comes down to the extent to which God has the right to punish His creature. If the child in your analogy stole a cookie, the Father has the right to punish his child. Your only problem is with the extent that the Father went to in punishing the child for stealing (infecting with AIDS), is it not? THAT is a question of extent, which I have said all along and am waiting for you to acknowledge.
~~~~Just answer me if in this example you would judge me as moral or not.~~~~
Oh, now I understand. Thanks for clarifying.
No, you would not be moral according to God’s law since God says that the child does not bear the guilt of sin of the father and will not bear the punishment of the father (Ezekiel 18).
~~~~In order to see it from your perspective, I will need to jump through mental hoops. ~~~~
That’s because you had to jump through mental hoops to get to the perspective you have now.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
ERNIE:
This is the flaw in your A-type free will argument. You equate foreknowledge with predetermination. You make God’s foreknowledge an active participant in the choice of P which is a false definition of foreknowledge.
DAVE:
Foreknowledge is not defined as being actively predetermining, but infallible foreknowledge would entail a logically determined state — otherwise it wouldn’t be infallible foreknowledge. For any possible world W, God would know prior to creating W exactly what would happen within W, and had the choice whether to create W or some other possible world.
ERNIE:
From your previous post:
“But under A-type free will, P was not free…”
Either P’s will is free or not free. It is illogical to be both free and not free at the same time (Law of Excluded Middle).
DAVE:
Entirely correct.
ERNIE:
Your argument asserts a logical contradiction.
DAVE:
Entirely incorrect. Under A-type free will, P would not be both free and not free, but merely not free. Please read my posts a bit more carefully.
~~~~DAVE:
Foreknowledge is not defined as being actively predetermining, but infallible foreknowledge would entail a logically determined state —~~~~
This is a contradictory statement. In essence you are saying “Foreknowledge is not determination, its determination.”
~~~~DAVE:
Entirely incorrect. Under A-type free will, P would not be both free and not free, but merely not free. Please read my posts a bit more carefully.~~~~
Then “A-type [b]free will[/b]” is a misnomer.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
ERNIE:
This is a contradictory statement. In essence you are saying “Foreknowledge is not determination, its determination.”
DAVE:
I don’t know how to say it any more clearly, so I’ll just repeat it in the hopes that you’ll read it more clearly the second time around:
Foreknowledge is not defined as being actively predetermining, but infallible foreknowledge would entail a logically determined state.
ERNIE:
Then “A-type [b]free will[/b]” is a misnomer.
DAVE:
I’m not certain what you’re saying here. Are you saying that A-type free will does not exist? If so, then insofar as you regard free will to exist you must regard it as B-type, and I’ll refer you to my post to James above.
If, on the other hand, you’re simply quibbling over terminology, then whatever — a rose by any other name, et cetera.
Not inconsistent at all.
A parent is not omniscient, omnibenevolent (although we assume he has his child’s best interest in mind) and all-powerful. Your creator is. The same rules do not apply. to both.
Were the parent to have the power to have the child understand his error without punishment and yet, he still punished it, even though that punishment would be totally ambiguous, then this would be immoral as well.
Once again, here’s the Paraphrased PoE for this purpose
—
- If he (the creator) knew what would happen but couldn’t stop it. Then he is impotent.
- If he did not know what would happen (as seems to be the case from the story or Adam and Eve), he is ignorant.
- If he knew it would happen and had the power to prevent it but didn’t. Then that is his choice. If however he also punishes the creation for this, he is wicked.
—
Since you insist of regressing back to the story of genesis for your defense, I am showing you how the PoE (in a different form) still applies there.
So answer me. How can you argue for the three traits of your god and escape the Riddle above?
Yes, and the purpose of the universe is unknown to us humans right?
That’s pretty much a punt to mystery.
My analogy was just to show you if God is wicked or not based on his willingness or help people.
I can still change it to fit what you say:
Say that in my example above, I had my grandchild with me (that also could not twist the bottle open). Would I be moral or immoral if I had left the man to die in order to teach the child a lesson. keep in mind that the lesson I wanted to teach would not necessarily be related to deserts and/or water.
The fact that birth defects happen is not my subjective opinion.
The fact that, as far as lessons go, this is an unusually cruel and useless lesson is not my subjective opinion. By the definition of your God, he could have done better.
You are attempting to ignore me.
Oh, I’m not attempting to convince you
As far as I’m concerned this is an interesting theological sparring and it gives me a chance to argue from the PoE. I’m not expecting to convince anyone over the intertubes.
The best I might do is plant the seed of doubt in your mind which in a few years might bloom and help you discard irrational beliefs.
Well, sucks to be human with a mind doesn’t it? Just because I was supposedly created by him does not give excempt him from criticism, the same way that being a parent does not allow you to be abusive.
If he wanted me not to criticise him then he should have damn well given me appropriate morals shouldn’t he?
Of course, since he doesn’t exist that’s a moot point….for me.
See above my PoE on Genesis.
Punt, punt, punt!
God was unjust because God created man wired to sin. God knew this. God did not care. God just wanted someone to punish obviously
Not only. The second problem is that the metaphorical father, or in our case, God, does not perform a punishment that is supposed to teach anything. Indeed, his punishment is failing miserably to teach the lesson you say. Unless you want to punt to mystery again, you cannot dispute this.
Right. So God does not follow his own laws
If you believe what you just said, then morality is not objective. Barring more mental gymnastics, you cannot get out of this reasonably.
God apparently works by the “Do what I say, not what I do” motto. Something that is considered immoral.
You are assuming I started from somewhere else other from where I am now. Of course you are wrong.
Lets look at this from afar.
In order for someone, who is not familiar with the concept of the Christian God, to accept the PoE as a proof of his existence, he must
- Accept that the scripture is infallible and correct. (This has already been proven to be wrong on both counts)
- Accept the story of Genesis as literal (This has already been empiricaly disproven)
- Accept that morality is subjective (ok, that’s easy)
- Accept that a god who is punishing someone without really needing to can still be benevolent
On the other hand, all they need to do in order to accept the PoE as disproof for the existense of an all-powerful, omnibenevolent and omniscient god is start from the premise:
- Does God exist?
I’ll leave it to you and the readers to decide which of those two requires the biggest leap.
Perhaps this is the part where Ernie will punt to some of the standard “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist” talking points. Should he do so, I will interpret that as his concession that, all other things being equal, the problem of suffering is compelling. We can then continue the discussion with James or Neil if they wish, or terminate it and move on to another topic, such as whether the aforementioned IDHEFTBAA talking points are all that good or not.
db0,
can i ask what it is that your angry about? whatever it is, it has nothing to do with the arguments you are making. so why dont you tell us the real point that your trying to make?
Dave – “If you choose B-type, then the free will defense fails because there is a set of possible worlds in which all choices are freely made and suffering nonetheless does not exist, and God, if he existed and desired free will, would actualize one of those worlds.
Whatever your choice, the free will defense fails.”
Sorry I have not been back to the board in a while. My schedule is rather busy. I have also been thinking about this statement that Dave made. Your were right in that I did not give any other reason beside the free will argument in my previous post. I combined thoughts and only wrote one down. My apologies.
Given God has all knowledge of both present and future and can see all of it at the same time, it puts him in a position to know every choice we will make based upon our free will. My contention with the above statement that Dave made is this:
You are stating there is a world possible that God could create that would set up all variables in which it would be possible for humans not to choose to sin (which has been argued as the cause of all suffering). Thus God would actualize this world into creation. The only problem I see with this type of logic is that assuming type-B free will where the free will is actually free. In order for God to allow a choice between following God or not he as to allow for a decision that is against him or else there would be no free will. So, there is decision for D and ~D as you previously stated. So, assuming this world can be created God has to leave two variable uncontrolled being the human free will and the free will of Satan who has already made the choice against God and is called the great Deceiver.
So, God could control everything and set it up perfectly to always choose D… But the two Variables of Human and Satan’s free will.
Thus eliminating the possibility of God actualizing a world where humans always choose D based upon the two uncontrolled variables.
I would say however that if there was no free will all variables would be accounted for and a world without suffer would be able to be actualized because all people would choose D instead of ~D.
If this was not clear let me know.
JAMES:
The only problem I see with this type of logic is that assuming type-B free will where the free will is actually free. In order for God to allow a choice between following God or not he as to allow for a decision that is against him or else there would be no free will. So, there is decision for D and ~D as you previously stated.
DAVE:
If you mean that God has to allow for the logical possibility of P choosing either D or ~D, then you’re back to A-type free will. See above.
Dave: “If the defender is referring to A-type free will, then the defender is correct, God cannot make P freely choose D. In fact, God cannot make, or even allow, anyone to freely choose at all. A-type free will is impossible if God exists, because it is logically impossible for anyone to do anything other than what God already knows he will do. And, by modus tolens, if A-type free will exists, then God does not.”
I am still talking about type-B… Type-A is not free will.
I am saying God being able to see all of time happen at one time as the bible explains he is capable because he is watching you make the decision, not controlling it happening. It is not God’s knowledge causing us to make a decision because he is watching in his present us making the decision that is our future decision.
I am talking about type-B free will where people are free to choose either D or ~D at anytime. I am saying God can only actualize a world were we decide D all the time in Type-A free will because he controls all the variables.
In type-B God does not control two variables being Human type-B free will and satan type-B free will. Thus making it impossible to make a world that would allow humans to choose type D all the time because of Satan type-B free will tricking us like he did at Eden.
Make sense? I am sticking to your definition of Type-B meaning that we really have free will, but I am arguing that there is no world God could actualize where we would choose D all the time based on the uncontrolled variable of Satan being deceiving who also has Type-B free will.
That clarify? If not I might need you to clarify Type-A and Type-B, because I am still sticking to your Type-B from the definition above.
as far as the suffering question goes. i do not understand why you guys are making as big a point over it as you are. i say this because in essence, if you do not believe in a higher supreme being who allows suffering due to free will than you are forced to believe and accept that:
1. all suffering be it caused by another or by the environment is pointless and unending. that life IS suffering and then you die. if you were to hold that view than one must live life to end their own personal suffering, and with no idea or view of a higher power than there is no accountability. and with no accountability, to attain the end of suffering for yourself you can and history has proven will do whatever you feel is necessary to end said personal suffering…which in effect adds to the suffering of others. and then we are right back to the beginning of your argument.
2. if there is no God, there is no suffering. to define something like suffering there must be its opposite. just like to know and define what evil is one must have a clear knowledge and definition of what good is (same to define good). one can not exist without the other. otherwise, it just IS. suffering exists because we know what love it. love is the polar opposite of suffering. and the vice versa (hate is the commonly thought of polar opposite of love, but I do not believe this is so). we do not know what love is without being able to define what suffering is. before adam and eve allowed sin to enter their HEARTS (not the world) they had no true understanding of love. they just HAD love, without understanding. let me try to explain using this example. assume that you are married (i dont know if you are or not) do you love your wife? i would hope the answer is yes, does your wife love you? once again i would hope the answer is yes. do you know you have the love of your spouse? once again assuming the answer is yes. now then, you go through a time of crisis (the first time in your relationship) and your spouse sticks with you. your idea of their love for you has most certainly changed. it is not that you did not know on some level love, or their love for you, but that love was never tested. you now know beyond the level you did before that your spouse does in fact love you and that it is not circumstantial. the suffering you endured defined that love. Ill try one more way to explain what I mean. A 3 year old child has love of their parent (assumption). The child has love, but does not really understand the meaning of love. However, when the child goes through a period of suffering (they get a boo boo, or their favorite animal dies) where do they go? To their parent, who holds them, soothes them, and tells them its alright. In essence, loves them. due to that suffering, the child begins to realize WHAT love truly is. they had it before, but no understanding of what it truly meant until they experienced suffering.
im sorry if this is still not clear, please let me know and i will try to explain it further.
3. This kind of goes with 2, without suffering we do not understand the grace that god gave and continues to give us. If you would read the new testament, there is a very recurring theme throughout it. that theme is Suffering, rather more specifically the view of suffering. The more you get to know the grace of god the more your view of suffering changes. And it has nothing to do with suffering goes away because God protects his flock. Its anything but. Suffering INCREASES when you become a child of God. and yet, suffering loses its bite. This is something that any non-believer cannot ever understand. Not because its some view that god puts in your mind when you ask him into your heart but because a non-believer’s pride will not allow it. pride will cause you to believe that deep down you are a good person. Yet the more grace of god one sees the more you will realize just how evil you/we are.
Yes if you were to look closely you could see a “Free-will” argument in here. That is because the basis for Christianity is centered around free will. Without free will there would be no need for grace because we would all be doing what we were designed to do and could do nothing about it. my question for you is why is free will so hard for you to swallow? You obviously believe in free will or you would not be here arguing your point in the hopes of proving us wrong and dissuading others who read this from believing in this faith. So why then is the “free-will” argument so hard for you to accept?
Further more, you have argued your points, and have done so fluently…but when looking through your posts I have seen no evidence that you have put forth to back up your points. You have made many claims but have used no examples, no experiences to prove your side. What are the proofs behind your reasoning?
Thirdly, and this is more of a personal question. are you this adamant against all religions. Do you spend your time arguing against all religions or just Christianity? And if so, why?
JAMES:
I am saying God can only actualize a world were we decide D all the time in Type-A free will because he controls all the variables.
DAVE:
God’s choosing a world where we freely decide D all the time would be compatible with type-B free will, because type-B free will is, by definition, compatible with logical determinism. That’s the only actual difference between type-A and type-B: whether or not compatibilism applies. In type-B it does, and in type-A it does not.
Since you say you’re sticking with type-B, that means you’re stuck with compatibilism. But under compatibilism, God could indeed actualize a world where everyone freely chooses D all the time — the reason is that their decisions would be entirely uncoerced except in the sense that God would have logically determined what they would be (in choosing which possible world to actualize), and under compatibilism, logical determination does not negate free will.
I just did some research on logical determinism and I disagree. The conclusions made by logical determinism is a non sequitur. Here is my reason why:
Knowing the future and what will happen still leaves the future open to other alternatives.
Knowing the future does not eliminate all the possible choices that could be made thus making it impossible for a world to be actualized where we choose D all the time in a type-B free-will.
We as humans have choices in the present. The future is not made until we experience it since we exist in time. God is watching every part of the time line. Our choices are not predetermined, but are being chosen by us and God watches us do them. This is incompatible with compatibilism that states the future is decided before we make the decision. This is not so. We decide in the present…. God seeing all of the present before it is present for us is all-knowing. But our future is not determined till we decide in the future present.
I hope that makes sense. If not I am willing to try and clarify or agree to disagree with you.
JAMES:
Knowing the future and what will happen still leaves the future open to other alternatives.
DAVE:
Not if the knowledge in question is infallible.
JAMES:
Our choices are not predetermined, but are being chosen by us and God watches us do them. This is incompatible with compatibilism that states the future is decided before we make the decision. This is not so. We decide in the present…. God seeing all of the present before it is present for us is all-knowing. But our future is not determined till we decide in the future present.
DAVE:
If God knows that you will make decision D at time t, then your decision at time t is logically determined.
We seem to be close to arguing in circles, so perhaps it would help matters if I clarify a certain matter:
There are two meanings of the word “determined.” In one sense, the word means “decided upon” — for instance, I am determined to finish this project, or I have determined that the Twins are a good baseball team. But in another sense, the sense used in phrases like logical determinism, it means “being in a fixed, logically necessary state.” If I perform a particular action, and could not have performed any other, then my action is said to be determined in that sense.
Under B-type free will, if I freely choose D at time t, then the state of affairs at time t was determined (in the first sense of the word, by me) — but it was determined (in the second sense of the word) by God, because his foreknowledge places it into a logically fixed state. The reason is that the conjunction of the following propositions leads to a logical contradiction:
(A) N: God knows that X.
(B) N: God is correct in all of his knowledge.
(C) P: ~X.
The only way to resolve the contradiction is to negate one of the premises. Negating A or B would negate God’s omniscience and therefore God himself — but if you want to do it anyway, thereby saving me some time and effort, feel free! Otherwise, we must negate C:
(~C) ~P: ~X = N: ~(~X) = N: X.
Similarly, if I freely choose ~D at time t, then I have determined(1) the state affairs at time t, but God has determined(2) it.
With that in mind, let me try to rephrase the implications of B-type free will: For any possible world W, God would know everything that happens at every point in time in that world. He would know that I determine(1) D in world W1, and that I determine(1) ~D in world W2. Assuming that D does not lead to suffering and ~D does, God would actualize, thereby determining(2), W1. I would still be the one who determines(1) D in the actual world, but that is because God would have determined(2) that I do so; he could just as easily have determined(2) that I would determine(1) ~D.
I hope that makes things less, rather than more, confusing.
James, are you supporting that God is not capable of seeing the future?
Does this mean that God is not outside time?
James has already stated that he believes that God can see the future — that is, our future.
I think the main contention I have is I see it is logically fixed by God knowing it all the time. Mainly because he sees it happen in our future, but his current state. So, I am okay with agreeing to disagree. Thank you for the wonderful discussion and I will continue to think on this and maybe do a little more research.
db0,
As Dave stated above I do believe that got can see our future, but it is not future for God since he exists outside of time.
Thanks all and see you in other threads.
I meant “I think the main contention I have is I do not see it as logically fixed by God knowing all of our future. ”
Oops
JAMES:
I think the main contention I have is I see it is logically fixed by God knowing it all the time. Mainly because he sees it happen in our future, but his current state. So, I am okay with agreeing to disagree.
DAVE:
Between the two of us, I am the one who has logically demonstrated the soundness of his argument — therefore, like you, I have no objections to letting matters stand as they are.
Perhaps Ernie or Neil or Frank will have better luck.
Sorry, I meant to alter the quote from your post to reflect what you had intended to say — that you do not agree that determinancy is entailed by infallible foreknowledge, despite the logical proof I cited that it is.
Who said I’m angry? If anything, I’m amused.
We did not make anything. This thread was initiated by the owner.
As far as the PoE goes, we’re just pointing it out the a logical inconsistency in the definition of the Christian God.
1. This does not address the PoE
2. Suffering exists whether God exists or not. Suffering is defined by humans just as well.
Here’s an easy definition: Suffering for a human is any time when they are in physical or emotional pain. The polar opposite is just the absence of this pain.
I can feel physical and emotional pain so I know when I suffer.
if we’re going to talk about how we define Evil without having Good then
1. I will argue that the concepts of Good and Evil do not even exist but are rather polarized terms to encapsulate a large number of ideas.
2. I can also argue that Evil does not exist because Good exists but both Good and Evil “exist” because we’ve defined them as a society.
The rest of your parahraph, once again, does not refute the PoE.
And finally
Would you consider a doctor who breaks his child’s legs so that he can show the village how well he can set bones moral?
Would you consider moral a king who allows crimes and disaster in his city, even though he can put a stop to all them at any time without effort, only so that he may be praised when he stops the occasional one?
So God is a sadist and we must become masochists in order to live happy?
Yeah, well, fuck you too…
Aren’t we being punished because we did not do what we designed to do?
Which is it? Should we do what we are supposed to do or not?
You misunderstand. I accept free will. It’s just that the concept of free will automatically makes your God go *poof*.
Do you understand the difference between a logical and an empirical problem?
Dan, please forgive me, I did not see your post until now.
DAN:
if you do not believe in a higher supreme being who allows suffering due to free will than you are forced to believe and accept that:
(….)
all suffering be it caused by another or by the environment is pointless and unending. that life IS suffering and then you die. if you were to hold that view than one must live life to end their own personal suffering, and with no idea or view of a higher power than there is no accountability. and with no accountability, to attain the end of suffering for yourself you can and history has proven will do whatever you feel is necessary to end said personal suffering…which in effect adds to the suffering of others. and then we are right back to the beginning of your argument.
DAVE:
Atheism does not entail nihilism (or Buddhism) — and even if it did, the problem of suffering would still be valid so long as suffering existed, regardless of our philosophy toward it.
DAN:
2. if there is no God, there is no suffering. to define something like suffering there must be its opposite. just like to know and define what evil is one must have a clear knowledge and definition of what good is (same to define good). one can not exist without the other.
(….)
3. This kind of goes with 2, without suffering we do not understand the grace that god gave and continues to give us.
DAVE:
This is known as the Contrast Defense, and it does not hold water for two reasons. First, there is no logical reason why God, if he existed, could not have directly implanted the idea of the contrasting value into our minds. Second, an entity who is caused to suffer for his entire span of awareness would have no (empirically derived) concept of pleasure, or the absence of suffering — but that doesn’t mean it never suffered.
My understanding of determinism is that heredity plus environment accounts for all of our action: H + E = A.
From your argument above you state that God could actualize a world that controls our Heredity and Environment to make us choose D. Assuming D is non-suffering and D~ is suffering. I am agree that Heredity and environment can be controlled by God.
However if we include free will:
H + E
JAMES:
My understanding of determinism is that heredity plus environment accounts for all of our action: H + E = A.
DAVE:
That’s physical determinism, not logical determinism.
First post did not post everything. Sorry.
My understanding of determinism is that heredity plus environment accounts for all of our action: H + E = A.
From your argument above you state that God could actualize a world that controls our Heredity and Environment to make us choose D. Assuming D is non-suffering and D~ is suffering. I am agree that Heredity and environment can be controlled by God.
However if we include free will:
H + E > = A
Heredity + Environment is less than human action
So to include free will:
H + E + FW = A
God can control Heredity and Environment, but cannot control the last variable to human action FW.
The whole argument of choosing D or D~ is assuming that the choice has been pre-decided in the future. I am stating that:
1)God knows D
2)God knowledge of D is right
3)Person chooses D
The reason this is not logical determinism is that it does not follow that God seeing you choose D logically determines it. He only knows D because you choose D already.
Your example above of:
(A) N: God knows that X.
(B) N: God is correct in all of his knowledge.
(C) P: ~X.
Is not accurate because God saw you choose X thus you can’t choose ~X after choosing X.
The two alternative choices have no truth value for the future until you choose them. Where as logical determinism labels one as true and one as false causing one to be logically determined in the future. It does not follow that God’s knowledge of you choosing D requires you choosing D because he saw it happen.
In summary I am stating God controlling H and E cannot actualize a world without suffering because of FW.
James,
I agree that the sort of determinism you’re describing is not logical determinism — and that’s why it doesn’t affect my argument in the slightest. My argument deals with logical determinism. If God existed, he could logically determine a state of affairs without materialistically determining it — in other words, without controlling H and E.
Sorry, that last sentence should read:
If God existed, he could logically determine a state of affairs without materialistically determining it — in other words, without controlling H, E or (B-type) FW.
We have been talking about Epistemic Determinism based on the inclusion of God. I just did more research and this is my argument against what we have been discussing. I am arguing for the non-fallacious.
“ORIGINAL Version of the Argument for Epistemic Determinism
Premise 1: If x knows that you are going to do [some action] A, then you must do A.
Premise 2: But if you must do A, then you have no choice in the matter (i.e. you will not be able to do otherwise than A).
Thus: If x knows (beforehand) that you are going to do A, then you have no free choice (i.e. you will not be able to do otherwise than A).
Or, put another way:
Foreknowledge is incompatible with free will.
As should now be clear, the first premise – because of the way we ordinarily state necessary conditions – appears to be true. But if taken literally, at face value, as is being done in this argument, the first premise is false.
If, however, we take some care to express the first premise in a non-misleading way, so that it expresses correctly the underlying logic, then the conclusion above does not follow from the (corrected) premises.
CORRECTED Version of the Argument for Epistemic Determinism
Premise 1: It must be that (if x knows that you are going to do [some action] A, then you will do A).
Premise 2: But if you must do A, then you have no choice in the matter.
Thus: If x knows (beforehand) that you are going to do A, then you will do A.
The supposed problem – that foreknowledge is incompatible with free will – disappears once the logic of the fallacious argument is corrected.
Concluding remarks about epistemic determinism
The notion that foreknowledge, and in particular God’s foreknowledge, is incompatible with free will is not a mere semantic trifle. It is not just word-chopping. For some persons, believing that God’s foreknowledge is incompatible with free will has had, and for some persons will have, a profound affect on their lives.
Some persons who believe that there is an omniscient (i.e. all-knowing) God have accepted the fallacious argument which we have been reviewing, and not knowing that it is fallacious, have come to believe that they have no free will.
Others, also being beguiled by the argument, have – in believing that they do have free will – rejected the idea that there can be an omniscient God.
In both cases, these persons might have lived, or would live, rather different lives if they were to see that they have fallen victim to a subtle logical confusion. Sometimes logical errors do have the most profound, indeed lifelong, consequences for persons who do not perceive those errors.
Foreknowledge no more ‘forces’ the future to be a certain way, than true reports in history books ‘force’ the past to have been a certain way. ”
All this info is found here:
http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/freewill1.htm
Sorry this was too tempting.
A little story about Freewill and Foreknowledge
One day Neil and Simon decided to go the horse races. They were very excited. Neil saw a horse named Neil’s Nightmare, Simon saw a horse named Simon’s Surprize (it was British thus the spelling). So they each bet on the horse with their name.
The race started and Simon’s Surprize though not expected to win, surprised everyone and won the race. Neil’s Nightmare though the favorite tripped, fell, hurt the jockey and hurt 3 other horses in the race.
Neil lost his money, Simon make enough money to buy them both a hamburger at the over inflated race track food prices.
As they were eating their overpriced burgers, suddenly a man with silver gray hair driving a sliver gray De Lorean drove up.
“Neil and Simon” he said: “My name is Doc, jump into my Time Machine with my newly invented Flux Inductor (Flux Capacitor was taken) and we’ll go back 20 minutes to the beginning of the race. They squeeze into the De Lorean and jump back in time.
They both approach the ticket counter. Neil asks: Should I put $10,000 on Simon’s Surprize with the 10:1 odds?
Simon says: “Of course you should. He has no choice but to win.”
“Ah” says Neil, “but does knowing that mean that you have FORCED Simon’s Surprize to win and have tripped up Neil’s Nightmare? Haven’t you removed all the freewill of both horses and jockeys and predetermined their win?”
“No” says Simon “though he is going to win, as far as they are concerned the future is open. We have not manipulated it. We have not changed or affected their choices, nor have we forced anything on them they have all the freewill they ever had before we knew who would win, (OK so we are going to cheat the Bookie blind) but to the horses and the jockey foreknowledge is not manipulation. It’s just foreknowledge. Bet on the dumb horse already.”
P.S. If any actual race details are incorrect it’s because I’ve never actually ever gone to a horse race myself.
This was a story told to us by Dave Jacob in 1986 during one of our great heated discussions in our College Men’s Bible Study Group. If you are out there Dave, this story still lives on.
JAMES:
We have been talking about Epistemic Determinism based on the inclusion of God. I just did more research and this is my argument against what we have been discussing. I am arguing for the non-fallacious.
“ORIGINAL Version of the Argument for Epistemic Determinism (snip remainder)
DAVE:
This paper simply argues that free will is B-type, not A-type, which you have already made clear that it is your position, and you didn’t need to argue it, for I was happy to grant it for the sake of discussion. This paper does not address my argument against the free will defense. To be honest, I don’t even know why you posted it.
NEIL:
“Ah” says Neil, “but does knowing that mean that you have FORCED Simon’s Surprize to win and have tripped up Neil’s Nightmare? Haven’t you removed all the freewill of both horses and jockeys and predetermined their win?”
“No” says Simon “though he is going to win, as far as they are concerned the future is open. We have not manipulated it. We have not changed or affected their choices, nor have we forced anything on them they have all the freewill they ever had before we knew who would win, (OK so we are going to cheat the Bookie blind) but to the horses and the jockey foreknowledge is not manipulation. It’s just foreknowledge. Bet on the dumb horse already.”
DAVE:
This story argues the exact same point as James’s paper above: that free will is B-type, not A-type. My response to that is the same as my response to James: Whatever makes you happy. I do not argue for or against either A-type free will or B-type free will. I have shown that the free will defense fails in both cases.
Dave: “With that in mind, let me try to rephrase the implications of B-type free will: For any possible world W, God would know everything that happens at every point in time in that world. He would know that I determine(1) D in world W1, and that I determine(1) ~D in world W2. Assuming that D does not lead to suffering and ~D does, God would actualize, thereby determining(2), W1. I would still be the one who determines(1) D in the actual world, but that is because God would have determined(2) that I do so; he could just as easily have determined(2) that I would determine(1) ~D.”
Just for clarification. Are you arguing that God could create a world where suffering does not exist even with type-B free will? If so what would got change in order for that to happen?
I am not sure of your point. Hence the previous post. Sorry if I have misunderstood you.
Wow… I apologize for my sentence “If so what would got change in order for that to happen?” I am bi-lingual and my languages sometimes mix. I meant “If so what would God change in order for that to happen?”
Dave: If you choose B-type, then the free will defense fails because there is a set of possible worlds in which all choices are freely made and suffering nonetheless does not exist, and God, if he existed and desired free will, would actualize one of those worlds.
I am arguing that your conclusion does not follow (Non-sequitur) that God could actualize of of those worlds where suffer does not exist. What would he change in a type-B free-will world that would actualize the decision of D instead of D~?
JAMES:
Are you arguing that God could create a world where suffering does not exist even with type-B free will?
DAVE:
Yes.
JAMES:
If so what would God change in order for that to happen?
DAVE:
It’s not a matter of actualizing a world, not one of changing a world that’s already actual.
JAMES:
I am arguing that your conclusion does not follow (Non-sequitur) that God could actualize of of those worlds where suffer does not exist.
DAVE:
God is all powerful, which means he can bring about any state of affairs so long as it is logically possible. A world where everyone freely makes decisions that in no way lead to suffering is logically possible.
Sorry, the second sentence above should read “It’s a matter of actualizing a world, not one of changing a world that’s already actual.”
And I don’t even have the excuse of being bi-lingual. :-/
DAVE SAID:
God is all powerful, which means he can bring about any state of affairs so long as it is logically possible. A world where everyone freely makes decisions that in no way lead to suffering is logically possible.
I’m not sure this is possible. It seems to me that if you are free to make decisions but are limited to only those decisions that have no evil consequences then you never truly had any freedom to choose evil (this is actually part of my blog that will one day be ready. You had a limited Freedom. If I allow my 2 year old to play in her playpen and away from all the power sockets, she never really had true freedom and I don’t want her to have that. But once she becomes an adult if I try to keep her in her playpen and away from sockets she will hate me. She has freedom at that point and can do whatever she wants. But the playpen is not true freewill. She cannot do what she truly wants.
NEIL:
I’m not sure this is possible.
DAVE:
It does not entail a logical contradiction. Therefore, it is logically possible.
NEIL:
It seems to me that if you are free to make decisions but are limited to only those decisions that have no evil consequences then you never truly had any freedom to choose evil (this is actually part of my blog that will one day be ready. You had a limited Freedom.
DAVE:
Limited only in the sense that it is logically determined — which is a problem for A-type free will, but not for B-type free will, which both you and James have affirmed (in James’s case, repeatedly).
NEIL:
If I allow my 2 year old to play in her playpen and away from all the power sockets, she never really had true freedom and I don’t want her to have that.
DAVE:
You’re forced to keep her in her playpen because under the circumstances, you don’t have the power to arrange matters so that she can be as free as she wants and will never decide to do anything that will cause suffering. God, if he existed, would not suffer from that handicap.
But it seems that doesn’t logically follow (I admit I have not read the A and B definitions yet).
I’m trying to understand how can we logically give someone freewill and still ensure that they will never do anything that causes suffering. What if they want to do something that causes suffering but we didn’t let them. That’s not freewill then.
Or what if you made it so that they’d never want to cause suffering but then they never had freewill to do evil. You’ve manipulated the freewill out of them.
It seems that evil can only be evil if it has real consequences that are bad.e.g. My child playing in the playpen with a fake socket is not evil as the fake socket has no consequences.
If you already discussed this my apologies. Just point me to the entry.
NEIL:
But it seems that doesn’t logically follow (I admit I have not read the A and B definitions yet).
DAVE:
Allow me.
DAVE (MANY POSTS AGO):
Let’s say that person P must, at time t, choose between either decision D or decision ~D (not-D). Under A-type free will, P has free will if and only if it is logically possible for P to either choose D or choose ~D at time t — that is, if his choice was not logically determined. (Note that logical determination is not the same thing as physical determination.)
Under B-type free will, that is not the case; P can have free will to choose either D or ~D at time t even if logical determinism applies.
NEIL:
I’m trying to understand how can we logically give someone freewill and still ensure that they will never do anything that causes suffering. What if they want to do something that causes suffering but we didn’t let them. That’s not freewill then.
DAVE:
It is if, in spite of wanting to do that thing, they choose not to do it.
NEIL:
Or what if you made it so that they’d never want to cause suffering but then they never had freewill to do evil. You’ve manipulated the freewill out of them.
DAVE:
Only insofar as you have logically determined that they would never want to cause suffering — and if you consider that to be a defeater of free will, then you regard free will as A-type.
NEIL:
It seems that evil can only be evil if it has real consequences that are bad.e.g. My child playing in the playpen with a fake socket is not evil as the fake socket has no consequences.
DAVE:
Who’s talking about evil? I’m talking about suffering. How many times do I have to repeat that?
[Referring to a post of someone other than Dave's that was moderated] As you know, this is a moderated site. Posts that do not contribute to the discussion are automatically moderated at the discretion of the moderators. The objective of the forum is to enhance friendly non contentious discussions. So rude or irrelevant posts are moderated.
DAVE:
It is if, in spite of wanting to do that thing, they choose not to do it.
Neil: But who made them choose not to do it. Forgive me if I’m lost on this.
I don’t follow the B type I’ll go back and read it if there’s a more elaborate definition.
DAVE:
Who’s talking about evil? I’m talking about suffering. How many times do I have to repeat that?
Neil:
I understand the general distinction, but then the question can be asked, why is suffering bad? If suffering is not “bad” then why object to it. Presumably the objection you have to God letting it happen is that it’s a bad thing to let happen.
If suffering is ‘bad’ then presumably anyone who allows suffering for no reason (i.e. unlike the suffering an athlete goes through to get stronger) is evil and thus your objection to God letting it happen.
So it seems that in general we see most (not all) actions that lead to suffering as evil or bad actions.
NEIL:
But who made them choose not to do it. Forgive me if I’m lost on this.
DAVE:
If by “made them” you mean logically determined that they do so, then God. If you mean something else, then no one, presuming it was a free will decision.
NEIL:
I understand the general distinction, but then the question can be asked, why is suffering bad? If suffering is not “bad” then why object to it. Presumably the objection you have to God letting it happen is that it’s a bad thing to let happen.
If suffering is ‘bad’ then presumably anyone who allows suffering for no reason (i.e. unlike the suffering an athlete goes through to get stronger) is evil and thus your objection to God letting it happen.
DAVE:
Suffering would be absent not because it is “bad,” but because an all-loving being would desire that it not exist with respect to the objects that it loves.
But isnt’ that begging the question? Why should it be absent? And if it is absent then that means that people do not have the freewill to chose to cause suffering. I think I’m missing something. I’ll stop till I have some time to dedicate to reading the old posts and tracking it.
NEIL:
As you know, this is a moderated site. Posts that do not contribute to the discussion are automatically moderated at the discretion of the moderators. The objective of the forum is to enhance friendly non contentious discussions. So rude or irrelevant posts will be moderated.
DAVE:
Unfortunately, what constitutes rudeness or irrelevancy or non-contribution is a matter of interpretation — and on this particular website, the ones doing the interpreting would have motivation to make any of my posts likewise disappear, notwithstanding my good faith efforts to be germane and gentlemanly — and, regretfully, a great deal of experience with other Christian websites has taught me not to trust assurances to the contrary.
I am therefore terminating my participation on this blog. Anyone who wishes to continue their ongoing discussions with me may come to my blog at silentdave.net, or email me at silentdave47 at gmail dot com.
Good-bye.
So let me see if I understand, at the root of it all the argument in a nutshell is this: You feel that God CAN allow people to have freewill but can also control them such that they do not have the freewill to cause others to suffer?
I can’t see how that logically follows. I’m not sure that B is possible if I understand B correctly.
Actually Dave knew this site was moderated from his very first post on this blog. In fact on his website he even said that he doubted that his very first comment would be posted.
Dave (from his website dated May 4th 2008 – 4 days ago) to his readers: “I posted the following in response — it is currently awaiting moderation, so I’m reposting it here [on my blog] in case it “accidentally” gets deleted from the moderation queue.”
Since we don’t moderate opposing arguments (only rude or abusive posts, insults or extreme ad hominens are moderated) his original post and in fact ALL his posts were of course posted without moderation.
This seems to portray some disingenousness on Dave’s part. If Dave knew he was being moderated from the start (in fact once you post, the site tells you that it’s awaiting moderation), it seems funny that he should suddenly find moderation objectionable in the middle of an argument when he hadn’t minded being moderated for over 20 or more posts.
Moderation of abusive, rude and ad hominum posts allows everyone at all levels to participate without the fear of being called names or having their feelings hurt. As such it allows the timidest of us to ask questions or argue a viewpoint in a secure and friendly environment. No posts are ever moderated because someone is winning or losing an argument. That would violate the spirit of the site to search for the real and actual truth.
So here’s to the spirit of healthy open friendly discussions.
I’m sorry, you’re now deleted 2 of my comments that were neither abusive, rude or ad hominem. I pointed the fact that you started arguing against something you admitted you did not understand.
You might as well stop blogging then, especially if you’re going to attempt to draw Atheists into the discussions.
One deleted comment I may consider a mistake. two or three (If this one is deleted as well) are a clear case of malicious intent. I will see no reason to continue discussing if comments I consider valid and non-abusive are deleted, without even giving me the opportunity to respond to that claim.
db0 feel free to restate your comment (unless that was it) in a manner that promotes friendly discussion and I will respond to it. Are you arguing or refuting a point that I have made?
Remember folks there are only two ways to refute and argument:
1. Show that the facts are wrong or incomplete
or
2. Show that the Logic is wrong
Everything else is a fallacy.
Calling someone names is not refuting an argument. Saying someone is ignorant or stupid betrays a failure on the abuser to be able to state their case and may show a weakness in their case. Berating someone for not understanding someone’s case shows a lack of tolerance and childishness on the berater’s part.
So db0 are you claiming that atheists are unable to discuss things without resorting to ad hominems? If that’s your point one wonders if they really have a valid case or have to hide behind rudeness when all else fails?
But rather than argue that issue I’d like to see an example of how you think God CAN allow people to have freewill to cause suffering to others but can also control them such that they do not have the freewill to cause others to suffer?
Anyway you twist this it does not make sense. Adding foreknowledge into the picture does not change the basic equation. It is obvious that the act of giving someone the freewill to cause suffering will cause suffering.
My comment was not insulting or ad homined. I stated as politely as possible that you cannot argue against something you have not even bothered reading. I did not call you ignorant, stupid or anything else.
From your 2 points, you were doing the first. You’ve got your facts (the definition of the argument) wrong.
One more thing. Deleting comments without warning is considered extremely bad form in the blogosphere. I’ve shown in this discussion that I am arguing politely. To jump to the conclusion that I suddenly decided trolling and remove what I write is annoying. To then accuse me of ad hominems, rudeness or whetever else, is disingenuous as everyone else has to take you at your word that you are telling the truth and I cannot defend myself unless I took care to copy my comment elsewhere and then it’s your word against mine. I don’t care to play that game.
Anyway enough about this. My argument for the PoE is above (Here’s the last comment I’ve made about it). The “free will” argument is Dave’s.
Since Ernie has apparently withdrawn you’re welcome to take over from him.
For those who have been expecting the blog related to this topic here it is.
http://crossexamined.thehuntercreative.com/?p=57
It’s my attempt to respond to the “problem of evil and suffering” using the Christian frame work (note that the problem of evil and suffering does not really exist in the atheistic moral framework). That is you can’t say evil is wrong if you are an atheist.
Why?
Because to say something is wrong requires a moral standard. To have a moral standard you need a moral standard giver who has authority over all humans or it’s just an arbitrary statement of your personal preference or the personal preference of a group of random folks who are strong.
So if there is no absolute standard giver there is no standard of good or bad or right or wrong. So evil is not wrong, just not preferred.
Correct. This is a problem that you only have if you accept that God exists and furthermore is omniscient, omnibenevolent and all-powerful.
Atheists stop at the first step.
The rest of your comment seems like a combination of ad hominem and red herring.
Even if it were true, it does not make the Problem of Evil any less problematic.
Why do you say that? Can you refute what I said?
Can you have a moral standard without a moral standard giver? Who determines your standard?
Neil, I will say it again: It is a red herring, a logical fallacy.
Even if I was the most immoral person in the world I could still point to the Problem of Evil as a logical inconsistency with your theory.
Even if I has not moral standard at all, I could still point out logical errors.
To give you an example: Even though I have no interest in playing chess because I prefer poker, given that I know the rules of chess, I can point out that your Towers can move only horizontally. I can even do that without being a world-call chess champion.
If you really want to discuss what moral standard an atheist can have, you can either start a new blogpost or I can direct you to the excellent Atheist Ethicist. Knock yourself out
I have been participating in a continuation of the Free-will discussion with Dave on his website. Initially this was against my better judgment but I am now glad that I did. It gave me the opportunity to better state what I had been trying to say before. I will repost it here for your information, but I have no interest in taking up the discussion again here.
_____________________________
Ernie Laurence, Jr. Says:
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:49 am
I am somewhat disappointed in Dave’s rebuttal. It is the negative’s job to follow the affirmative, and I spent quite a bit of time speaking of suffering only to have Dave concede the point for his rebuttal and wait till his affirmative (where he has more space) to deal with the issue.
Instead, he spent of his time responding to the concept of free-will and produced the same argument he has on the cross-examined website. He provided a lot more words but no new information to the argument and it is still as invalid as before.
Dave posits a false dichotomy between what he calls A-type “free-will” which he says is incompatible with logical determinism and isn’t really free-will at all, and B-type “free-will” which supposedly IS compatible. If such is true, the law of excluded middle would then not allow for any third type (my C-type free will). However, the problem Dave faces is that A-type and B-type are the same. He says that if God logically determines event D by knowing it, then A-type free will is not free will (Dave is basically redefining the word “free-will”), but if free will IS, in fact, free will then God does not logically determine event D, and this is B-type free will. Folks, that’s two ways of saying the same thing, its two sides of the same coin. You have free-will incompatible with “logical determinism” or opposed to God’s foreknowledge based on Dave’s premise (11) either way you choose. That’s not law of excluded middle, that’s just one type of free will. Both A-type and B-type are incompatible with God’s omniscience as set forth by Dave.
But perhaps I have been remiss in stating my objections to this argument of Dave’s. You see, the difficulty is that Dave has his cart pulling the horse. He assumes that in God’s foreknowledge there is causation of choice D. In reality, the causation is in the human free-will choice of D which then leads to God’s foreknowledge of that choice. Human makes choice, therefore God foresees that choice…not the other way around. If Human P chose ~D, then that is the choice that God foresees. And so C-type free-will, which is actually free will, is completely compatible with God’s omniscience and is actually different from A-type free-will, where B-type is not.
Now, I do understand that humans have a difficult time with eternal concepts and so it is not anything for Dave to be ashamed of that he has his chronological perspective out of order. He has the seeing of an event happen before the event takes place and the cause (determination) of that event, when in reality the event happens before the seeing of the event which then causes the event to be seen. That God can see into the future because of His eternality, His omniscience, does not change the fact of which is the event/cause and which is the observation of the event/effect.
Hereby my case is successfully affirmed.
_____________________________________________
I hope you find this useful.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie