Retired Boards (Archived)
Problem of Evil
Posted by: jayceeii
« on: March 03, 2020, 10:42:04 AM »I am refreshed to hear many of the opinions on this forum regarding free will. My beliefs are a bit unique in that I hold the Tanakh (OT) and the words of Jesus as reliable while rejecting all Pauline letters (including Hebrews which was pauline inspired at least). I am thoroughly convinced that the only logical argument for the ultra-sovereign God concept such as Calvanism is Paul's letters. Romans 9 to be more specific.God is presented as imperious and man’s fate as sealed in the Bible, because men don’t rise high enough in intelligence to be able to hear the real terms of justification. Humans are very “smart,” but they lack what you might call “situational awareness,” to know themselves as created souls on a planet of limited resources, ill-suited to the animalistic vision of finding life’s central meaning through procreation. There was a path of justification available to the creatures but it was not given in religion. These do not guide.
So I am happy but a bit perplexed at how people have arrived at these conclusions while maintaining Paul's logic in Romans 9. Can anyone shed some light on this for me?
So it doesn’t matter what a man does or doesn’t do, when God sees what he is calling good choices are fundamentally evil. Humans run their race on a course they designed themselves, from which there is no exit coming from any of them, nor an exit dropped down from God. Christianity has called this the “fallen” state of man, but the cure it offers is empty and fruitless. To be honest God needed some cooperation to make this planet fully successful, but the humans are destructive where they should be constructive.
Posted by: jayceeii
« on: March 03, 2020, 07:46:24 AM »I have read a lot about how ahtheists hate the free will defense. "...and don't give me any of that free-will defense garbage."Evil is not a free choice, but a bound choice. Only those choose evil who are too weak and impure to take the higher road of supporting the universal joy. It can be called a form of blindness, that they are not taking their own existence to heart, seeing they are one soul among many other created souls and rejoicing that such souls with wisdom can create harmony. It can also be called a reaction from a state of misery, since the human body and society are difficult burdens for the weak souls to bear, and they turn any way they can to try to relieve this misery, including into ideas if others suffer they’re made happier.
People have been asking the question of why there is evil, and the answer has been because God allowed free will. No. These choices are those made by those bound by selfish desire. The truly free never choose evil. It isn’t a form of freedom to create harm or misery in those around oneself. Though such souls feel powerful, they are exulting in destruction because their minds are too feeble to build. A violent man is weak in spirit. Jesus said it wrong. He said, “The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak,” when among mankind the flesh is willing but the spirit is weak. Yet all of this avails not against a gun. God has not initiated protection of the meek before now. It’d be a great day if He begins.
Posted by: aleph naught
« on: September 07, 2015, 10:49:11 AM »Hello to all!
Do you think that people who reject God on emotional basis (because of their suffering) will go to hell? I think many people who reject their faith, reject it just because of that. That is a lot of people! How can I blame them if the burden is too heavy? Why did God permitted that much suffering that goes beyond ones reason and lefts Him with emotional rejection?
Also, is free will worthy of that? It seems to me that 90% of all people have to go to hell for eternity. So how is God all-good and all-loving if he created world permeated by evil and most of people that he created have to go to hell. You can say we all deserve hell which is true- but He created us susceptible to sin! He also knew that we would reject Him. Couldn't he create the world of free creatures but also do something like ordaining the stars in the sky to have cross shape and that due to some reactions once a year, in Easter they shine with differed colors or something similar. Isn't that worthy of salvation even just one more person than without it? Much more people would be saved I think. That is why I struggle. Majority of true Christians also have doubts from time to time. There are very few people who don't weaver- because it is hard to believe when you see al that!
The theists answer to this would be that God in having Molinist middle knowledge knows what every given person will do in every given situation, and therefore only chooses to actualize the souls of those who will reject Him no matter what evidence is given. These are the people who "have never heard". God does not "create people to go to hell", He just foreknows what they will do even if they have been given much evidence and doesn't give them the evidence, because it doesn't matter if they receive it or not.
You really believe there are souls who would reject God no matter what evidence is given? Moreover you believe there are so many of them to explain the massive numbers of rational nonbelievers? And even worse, you think God creates these people knowing they are destined for Hell, rather than just not creating them in the first place? Surely you see how silly this all looks to an someone who is not desperate for an explanation of divine hiddenness. (And then there's molinism..)
Posted by: Noah Hawryshko
« on: September 07, 2015, 05:44:45 AM »Hello to all!
Do you think that people who reject God on emotional basis (because of their suffering) will go to hell? I think many people who reject their faith, reject it just because of that. That is a lot of people! How can I blame them if the burden is too heavy? Why did God permitted that much suffering that goes beyond ones reason and lefts Him with emotional rejection?
Also, is free will worthy of that? It seems to me that 90% of all people have to go to hell for eternity. So how is God all-good and all-loving if he created world permeated by evil and most of people that he created have to go to hell. You can say we all deserve hell which is true- but He created us susceptible to sin! He also knew that we would reject Him. Couldn't he create the world of free creatures but also do something like ordaining the stars in the sky to have cross shape and that due to some reactions once a year, in Easter they shine with differed colors or something similar. Isn't that worthy of salvation even just one more person than without it? Much more people would be saved I think. That is why I struggle. Majority of true Christians also have doubts from time to time. There are very few people who don't weaver- because it is hard to believe when you see al that!
The theists answer to this would be that God in having Molinist middle knowledge knows what every given person will do in every given situation, and therefore only chooses to actualize the souls of those who will reject Him no matter what evidence is given. These are the people who "have never heard". God does not "create people to go to hell", He just foreknows what they will do even if they have been given much evidence and doesn't give them the evidence, because it doesn't matter if they receive it or not.
Posted by: Domagoj
« on: September 02, 2015, 01:55:58 PM »Hello to all! I'm having trouble with this
Do you think that people who reject God on emotional basis (because of their suffering) will go to hell? I think many people who reject their faith, reject it just because of that. That is a lot of people! How can I blame them if the burden is too heavy? Why did God permitted that much suffering that goes beyond ones reason and lefts Him with emotional rejection?
Also, is free will worthy of that? It seems to me that 90% of all people have to go to hell for eternity. So how is God all-good and all-loving if he created world permeated by evil and most of people that he created have to go to hell. You can say we all deserve hell which is true- but He created us susceptible to sin! He also knew that we would reject Him. Couldn't he create the world of free creatures but also do something like ordaining the stars in the sky to have cross shape and that due to some reactions once a year, in Easter they shine with differed colors or something similar. Isn't that worthy of salvation even just one more person than without it? Much more people would be saved I think. That is why I struggle. Majority of true Christians also have doubts from time to time. There are very few people who don't weaver- because it is hard to believe when you see al that!
I'm having trouble with thisDo you think that people who reject God on emotional basis (because of their suffering) will go to hell? I think many people who reject their faith, reject it just because of that. That is a lot of people! How can I blame them if the burden is too heavy? Why did God permitted that much suffering that goes beyond ones reason and lefts Him with emotional rejection?
Also, is free will worthy of that? It seems to me that 90% of all people have to go to hell for eternity. So how is God all-good and all-loving if he created world permeated by evil and most of people that he created have to go to hell. You can say we all deserve hell which is true- but He created us susceptible to sin! He also knew that we would reject Him. Couldn't he create the world of free creatures but also do something like ordaining the stars in the sky to have cross shape and that due to some reactions once a year, in Easter they shine with differed colors or something similar. Isn't that worthy of salvation even just one more person than without it? Much more people would be saved I think. That is why I struggle. Majority of true Christians also have doubts from time to time. There are very few people who don't weaver- because it is hard to believe when you see al that!
Posted by: KingVoid
« on: May 18, 2015, 04:19:25 PM »Regarding this whole "Free Will Defense", what about natural disasters (such as the earthquake in Nepal) which are the cause of the deaths of thousands of innocent people, and thousands more are injured and hurt?
Tectonic plates aren't people. As they are inanimate objects, there is no free will to disturb. Why did an all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful God not stop this tragedy from occurring?
Tectonic plates aren't people. As they are inanimate objects, there is no free will to disturb. Why did an all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful God not stop this tragedy from occurring?
Posted by: aleph naught
« on: April 22, 2015, 11:30:53 PM »I have read a lot about how ahtheists hate the free will defense. "...and don't give me any of that free-will defense garbage." I have read numerous times, or have read something to the same affect.
Why is it so hated? I think it is logical and rational but cannot understand why an ahtheist would have problems with it. I can understand if they didn't think it was good or valid, but they don't say that. They say 'they don't want to hear anything about it.' Why is that?
I guess it's a little late for me to jump into this but... First of all no one hates the freewill defense. Second of all, it assumes some things that not everyone finds plausible, like the possibility of transworld depravity. Thirdly, even if it's successful, it's a snore. It's not as if anyone thinks Mackie's argument from evil is very strong anymore. The freewill defense is attacking an argument no atheist would even use. It's all about the evidential arguments, these days.
Posted by: Simplelogic
« on: April 22, 2015, 07:11:41 PM »Actually christianity is a joke and the Story book itself proves your christian god is NOT all knowing and NOT omnipresent -
As I correctly proved on another Thread - Obviously your god is NOT omnipresent and NOT ' all knowing ' and had to physically ' go down to earth ' to see for itself and find out what it didn't already know. Proofs: -
And <B>the LORD said</B>, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; 21 <B>I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know</B>. <I>(Gen. 18:20-21, cf. Gen. 11:5,) KJV Story book</I>
And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and <B>Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden</B>. <I>(Gen. 3:KJV Story book (My Bolds)</I>
<B><FONT face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">They were smarter than you suppose being able to hide from your (alleged) omnipresent christian god. LOL!</FONT></B>
<IMG border=0 hspace=0 alt="" align=baseline src="http://i43.servimg.com/u/f43/12/43/81/32/velvet10.gif">
I actually agree with you that God is not omnipresent in this world. He clearly isn't. I don't see this as a negative thing as you do though. It actually is a testament to God's desire for this world to be out of His control, so to speak. I like it. By the way, here is a more comprehensive list of scriptures which prove that God has limited His knowledge:
Scriptures that indicate God has limited His knowledge.
There are many passages in the Bible that indicate God does not necessarily know what man will do. The following are just a few of them. This picture of a creator who chooses to not know what his creature will do shows up right at the beginning of the Bible in the creation account itself .
"Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them." Genesis 2:19
If God is all-knowing of what man will do, why was He so inquisitive of what Adam would do?
Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the Lord said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth,... for I regret that I have made them." Genesis 6:5-7
How can a wise God do something that He knows He will regret in the future? This passage clearly implies that, had God known when He created man that he would become as evil as he did, He would not have created him! Thus, He did not know. God knew it was a possibility that man could turn toward ultimate evil. That is part of the risk He took in relinquishing control and giving man a free will. But that is not the same as knowing man would become as evil as he did. God had higher hopes for His creation.
But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. And the Lord said, "Indeed, the people are one and they all have one language..." Genesis 11:5,6
Gathering information again! And obviously, it was information He didn't completely possess before.
And the Lord said, "Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous, I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know." Genesis 18:20,21
It sounds like He didn't know for sure and was going on a fact-finding mission again!
But the Angel of the Lord called to him from heaven and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am." And He said, "Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me." Genesis 22:11,12
Again, "now I know", as though He wasn't completely sure before.
Now the word of the Lord came to Samuel, saying, "I greatly regret that I have set up Saul as king, for he has turned back from following Me, and has not performed My commandments." 1Samuel 15:11
How can an intelligent God do something He knew He would wish He hadn't done?
"And they built the high places of Baal which are in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did it come into My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin." Jeremiah 32:35 (see also Jeremiah 7:31 and 19:5)
God said Himself that it never came into His mind!!
Posted by: Simplelogic
« on: April 22, 2015, 06:49:06 PM »I am refreshed to hear many of the opinions on this forum regarding free will. My beliefs are a bit unique in that I hold the Tanakh (OT) and the words of Jesus as reliable while rejecting all Pauline letters (including Hebrews which was pauline inspired at least). I am thoroughly convinced that the only logical argument for the ultra-sovereign God concept such as Calvanism is Paul's letters. Romans 9 to be more specific.
So I am happy but a bit perplexed at how people have arrived at these conclusions while maintaining Paul's logic in Romans 9. Can anyone shed some light on this for me?
So I am happy but a bit perplexed at how people have arrived at these conclusions while maintaining Paul's logic in Romans 9. Can anyone shed some light on this for me?
Posted by: Questionaire
« on: March 30, 2015, 12:05:36 PM »I have read a lot about how ahtheists hate the free will defense. "...and don't give me any of that free-will defense garbage." I have read numerous times, or have read something to the same affect.
Why is it so hated? I think it is logical and rational but cannot understand why an ahtheist would have problems with it. I can understand if they didn't think it was good or valid, but they don't say that. They say 'they don't want to hear anything about it.' Why is that?
They have to say free will doesnt exist, and seek to redefine it in other ways which isnt true, because it is their soloution to keep not agreeing with theists in arguements like, why does evil exist.
Posted by: Noah Hawryshko
« on: December 18, 2014, 12:34:38 PM »To answer the original question, the reason and the free-will defense is so inconceivable by itself is that is does not cover natural evils in it's explanatory scope. Take things like a volcano or an earthquake or a tidal wave killing a group of people, for instance. This has nothing to do with any kind of human free will whatsoever, nor could human free will (reasonably) stop it from happening. I personally hold that God is at least the greatest conceivable being, and for this to be true, then it would mean that God would be obligated to commit an evil of some instance if it were necessary for a greater good of some sort (such as greater knowledge of God) to then follow from it. Aside from these bizarre left-field snowball theories about how "x evil can happen and then y evil can happen and then that can lead to z evil and 100 people could become Christians, making it good in the end", I hold that we needn't even go this far, but we rather just have to say that any kind of emotional turmoil, even that which has no outside effect on anybody else, almost always comes with a strong sort of self-reflection, whether it be grief, search for true, or other things that might make a given person come to knowledge of Jesus Christ. This kind of "search for truth" or whatever we may call it, is something so powerful for God's kingdom that the atheist simply cannot say that these kind of evils, even if horrible in their own context, cannot somehow lead to the knowledge of God. I would hold that the burden of proof is on the atheist to justify their premise that evil that may be neccessary to result in knowledge of God could be bad, all things considered. This is, I think, an appropriate alternate theory, which can either be used in conjunction with the free-will defense, or without the free will defense, depending on what your other theological axioms are. Thoughts? and sorry to bump an old thread but I just saw no proper answer at all here for this question.
Posted by: belorg
« on: October 16, 2011, 09:42:08 AM »Originally posted by tlarsenI respectfully disagree with your final claim. The practical issue of how creatures are to live in a world containing significant evil and suffering is a problem that every human being must face, and Christian theism is entirely compatible with possible explanations for why there is so much evil in the world.
Maybe, but (most brands of )Christian theism aren't compatible with the FWD as a 'possible explanation' for why there is so much evil in the world.
As I suggested before, perhaps our universe is part of a multiverse made up of many, or all, of the possible universes that contain more good than evil on balance—it seems quite plausible to me that God might create such an ensemble.
A God who is 'more good than evil on balance' might have created such an ensemble, but the Christian God is not just 'more good than evil', the Christian God is said to be 'prefectly good', and would only create such an ensemble if there is no logically possible way to create something better. But as you yourself say:
Accordingly, the Christian eschatological vision is one of new heavens and a new earth, a resurrected universe filled with the presence of God.
It's obvious that, according to most Christians, creating something better is NOT logically impossible, hence, God should have created this.
Moreover, why do you assume that God's only purpose in creating the world—this universe, or perhaps multiple universes—is to see His creatures worship Him without falling into sin, rebellion, or imperfection? Perhaps a world in which creatures struggle to worship God, and God extends His grace to them, is better than a world in which creatures are created perfect, infallible, and without the real freedom to choose to worship God. I don't know.
I don't know either, but Christians do seem to know what God's purpose is. And the question isn't, "Why can't God have some other purpose?", because, obviously, God can have whatever purpose He wants. The question is,"In what way can we call this purpose of God 'good'?"
And then we arrive at the good old Euthrypho Dilemma.
Posted by: Thomas Larsen
« on: October 16, 2011, 02:29:36 AM »belorg wrote:Quote from: tlarsenWell, I don't think the theist even has to give a suggestion for why God might permit creatures who do evil to exist—if it's even possible that God has a reason for permitting evil, then the logical problem of evil is unsuccessful. And you agree with me, I think, that God might have such a reason.
I do not actually think that the God usually described by Christians can have such a reason, but since that is very difficult, if not impossible to prove, I concede that the logical problem of evil is unsuccessful. That does not mean the problem of evil isn't a huge problem for mmost barnds of Christianity, though.
I respectfully disagree with your final claim. The practical issue of how creatures are to live in a world containing significant evil and suffering is a problem that every human being must face, and Christian theism is entirely compatible with possible explanations for why there is so much evil in the world. As I suggested before, perhaps our universe is part of a multiverse made up of many, or all, of the possible universes that contain more good than evil on balance—it seems quite plausible to me that God might create such an ensemble. And Christianity provides resources for understanding and dealing with evil: the person of Jesus; the doctrine of human rebellion; hope, both present and eschatological; and so on.
belorg wrote:Quote from: tlarsenPerhaps all of the possible worlds in which every creature freely chooses to worship God have overwhelming deficiencies: maybe, in every possible world with more than ten free creatures, at least one creature freely chooses to rebel against God
If there is a possible world in which every creature freely chooses to worship God, then it is not the case that if there are more than 10 creatures, one of them will rebel. And there is no reason why a world in which everybody freely chooses to worship God would have overwhelming deficiencies.
And this might work for some generic tri-omni God, it most certainly does not work for the God of most Christian denomonations, because they explicitly hold to a possible world in which everybody chooses to worship God without any deficiencies, namely Heaven.
Why think there are any possible worlds containing more than ten people in which every creature worships God and does not fall into rebellion? I'm not saying that no such world exists; but possibly no such world exists. To be honest, I don't think either of us have enough counterfactual knowledge to know whether there are any possible worlds with more than X people who do not rebel against God and His purposes, for a large number of X.
Creatures do not "go to heaven" when they die. Or, at least, heaven is not the final destination of creatures on the orthodox Christian view. "Heaven is important, but it's not the end of the world," as N. T. Wright likes to put it. The New Testament generally uses heaven to refer to God's space and earth to refer to the physical realm occupied by His creatures. Accordingly, the Christian eschatological vision is one of new heavens and a new earth, a resurrected universe filled with the presence of God.
Of course, Christians believe that this new universe will be perfect, and that no creatures will rebel in it; but it is quite plausible that God will so overwhelm creatures in this world with His loving, holy presence that they will lose the practical ability—indeed, the freedom—to rebel against Him (see, for instance, Philippians 2.5–11). So I just don't think it's true that the new creation will be a place where people continue to choose to worship God.
Moreover, why do you assume that God's only purpose in creating the world—this universe, or perhaps multiple universes—is to see His creatures worship Him without falling into sin, rebellion, or imperfection? Perhaps a world in which creatures struggle to worship God, and God extends His grace to them, is better than a world in which creatures are created perfect, infallible, and without the real freedom to choose to worship God. I don't know. Both of us are likely to end up in speculation and guesswork if we keep pursuing this topic.
Posted by: belorg
« on: October 15, 2011, 12:35:46 PM »tlarsen wrote: I actually disagree with you that Molinism is incompatible with libertarian free will. But one doesn't have to affirm Molinism to be a theist, so let's bracket this issue for the time being.
I was taling about WL Craig's variety of Molinism, which he himself demonstrated to be incompatible with libertarian free will in his latest Q&A.
But the point is, the FWD is often used by people who do not belive in one of its main premises. If one does not believe in LFW, or if one holds to a doctrone that is contrary to LFW, then one should not use the FWD.
Well, I don't think the theist even has to give a suggestion for why God might permit creatures who do evil to exist—if it's even possible that God has a reason for permitting evil, then the logical problem of evil is unsuccessful. And you agree with me, I think, that God might have such a reason.
I do not actually think that the God usually described by Christians can have such a reason, but since that is very difficult, if not impossible to prove, I concede that the logical problem of evil is unsuccessful. That does not mean the problem of evil isn't a huge problem for mmost barnds of Christianity, though.
Perhaps all of the possible worlds in which every creature freely chooses to worship God have overwhelming deficiencies: maybe, in every possible world with more than ten free creatures, at least one creature freely chooses to rebel against God
If there is a possible world in which every creature freely chooses to worship God, then it is not the case that if there are more than 10 creatures, one of them will rebel. And there is no reason why a world in which everybody freely chooses to worship God would have overwhelming deficiencies.
And this might work for some generic tri-omni God, it most certainly does not work for the God of most Christian denomonations, because they explicitly hold to a possible world in which everybody chooses to worship God without any deficiencies, namely Heaven.
Posted by: Thomas Larsen
« on: October 15, 2011, 08:58:55 AM »belorg wrote:Quote from: tlarsenSo the theist doesn't need to argue for libertarian free will.
If the logical problem of evil is attacked ny a molinist like e.g. WL Craig, then he sure needs to argue for LFW, because under (Craig's variety of) molinism, LFW is impossibible.I actually disagree with you that Molinism is incompatible with libertarian free will. But one doesn't have to affirm Molinism to be a theist, so let's bracket this issue for the time being.belorg wrote:Quote from: tlarsenThe sceptic needs to show that libertarian free will is impossible, or that God could have no reasons at all for permitting free creatures to exist in the first place, in order to establish the validity of the logical problem of evil.
In order to really make a case, the theist nneds to show that, although God is omnipotent, there is something He cannot do.
The default position is that God can do anything but the logically impossible. While I agree there might be some mystreious reason for God to be forced into allowing evil, I have never seen any satisfying suggestion. The question always arises: is a God who values the evil choices of people over the lack of evil, to be considered a perfectly good God? Under most definitions of 'good' I do not think He is.Well, I don't think the theist even has to give a suggestion for why God might permit creatures who do evil to exist—if it's even possible that God has a reason for permitting evil, then the logical problem of evil is unsuccessful. And you agree with me, I think, that God might have such a reason.And I can, in fact, think of some possible reasons. Perhaps all of the possible worlds in which every creature freely chooses to worship God have overwhelming deficiencies: maybe, in every possible world with more than ten free creatures, at least one creature freely chooses to rebel against God and His purposes (and it makes no sense to speak of God creating an impossible world, and God thinks it better to create a world with some evil and much good than no world at all). Or perhaps God has created every possible world containing more good on balance than evil (so that as many creatures as possible can enjoy Him, say), and we happen to live in a world that contains a significant amount of evil.Of course, these suggestions don't deal with the practical, existential issue of how creatures like us are to live in a world containing so much suffering and evil. For that, we need to seek God and the joy, peace, and hope He offers, and contemplate Gethsemane and the cross.