uf:
For the sake of argument let's grant two things:
1. Humans have immortal souls
2. God possess free will
If that's the case I dare to say god is fully responsible for whatever suffering that ever took place.
jc:
God is responsible for the suffering that has taken place, but only indirectly. God created the souls, allowing them to have experience of both joy and sorrow, but in the human realm it is mischief and neglect of one another that causes most of the suffering. You can argue that God has made the souls poorly, since they abuse one another; but as one in the class of humans, you could only be one of those abusers, to argue this. If you can claim that you have risen authentically to a place where you do not abuse others, you are arguing either that some souls are made better than others, or that the souls evolve, and it would have to be over vast time since it is obvious no one is changing quickly in one life.
uf: First of all I simply can't imagine how free will is supposed to work. The problem is very simple. Stage is always set before you're born.
jc: This can be an objection to my argument above, where I might be comparing career criminals with devoted monks, and you would assert all this is due to cultural influence. The world has been missing any significant means of comparing personalities before now, nor was it ever suggested anyone attempt it, by the religions. One of the ways to resolve this question is careful observation of children, in particular when the environment in which they are raised is superior to their current level of development. In such a case, if you find the children acting in ways that could never stem from the parents, it is a proof the soul is born with traits and evolving slowly across lifetimes.
uf: Even if you have immortal soul it does not change the fact, that from the very beginning of your life you're being formed by your vicinity.
jc: Contrarily, if the children are “good” souls, even if they’re surrounded by a harsh environment they can surmount it. You must admit this is plausible, but also that nobody has cared much or observed carefully, before now. No one has looked for the stable traits.
uf: How your brain develops fully depends on how your parents feed you, whether you live in clear neighborhood, whether recombination during your conception was fortunate enough etc.
jc: This is a premise of yours, not an established fact. From this premise, you “cannot imagine” how freewill is supposed to work, but those who do not share the premise might not only imagine it, but observe and document it. You equate soul to brain here, showing you have no clear idea of spirit apart from body. If you are your brain, how does it feel?
uf: The moment you're aware enough to take your own actions you're already set in specific way by your environment.
jc: Again, this is a premise of yours, but the world has not had scientists who care or have the ability to inquire into this question. In my observations many families are composed of children with a wide mix of stable traits, but the parents don’t notice and wouldn’t care if they were told. In fact it isn’t hard to see the grand sweep of traits in adulthood, or how these arose during youth, but my guess is you don’t care, and it wasn’t a serious question.
uf: You were programmed for years, so now that you become conscious you just execute your program.
jc: You propose a certain degree of mindlessness to the human situation, to which I would not disagree in general principle. However the context to answer such questions, cannot also occur in the mindless condition. Someone would need to care, but such I have not found. It is of the greatest urgency if an individual is separable from his experience.
uf: You may say that well, now that you're conscious you have choice but I don't think so. I see your choices as results of countless different factors that have occurred until this point of your life.
jc: Such an argument would require substantial and serious documentation, to try to prove every effect had an external cause and there is no inner individual separable from his experiences, who can make different choices under similar circumstances to other individuals. It’s a machine world you try to prove, and to a certain extent I would agree.
uf: One drop of rain few years ago might have lower your body temperature low enough so you got cold. This cold caused you to skip your classes. It caused you to fail your test. It caused you to get worse job, this caused you to become communist, and then stallinist...
jc: This is a list of non-sequiturs, not a proof that humans are no more than the sum of their sense experience. Is it really the case you haven’t yet accepted the germ theory? Does anyone lose a career because of one test? For most kids colds have no effect on test scores, so you seem to positing an unreal type of kid, unlike those found on college campuses. Saying people become communist or Stalinist on the basis of a bad job is bizarre. Perhaps you have an argument you aren’t presenting, or did not care very much.
uf: That's just one small factor, I think in some sense every particle influences us to some extent.
jc: Ah, the butterfly effect. This argument does attract many people, most of whom are looking for ways to avoid responsibility for their choices and actions. What proves free choice, is when an individual arises who can choose what is clearly not recommended by the senses, though all selfish and evil acts are. As a brief example, a sage annoyed by his taste buds might choose to eat the most unpalatable foods he can find, for a month. Especially if he never heard of anyone doing such a thing, as I have not, he must be free.
uf: Your current state of mind is result of previous one, and that is result of previous, and so on until before you were born.
jc: You are not defining “mind” in a significant way, just as you don’t know if you’re speaking about soul or brain (or care either). To make this argument it is required to define what “state of mind” means, and then to prove how these are connected with no input from beyond sense experience. Continuity within the mind does not imply a lack of freedom; in fact this is what defines the personality! To argue for mindlessness or total lack of awareness, you should show what is taken into the mind from the senses, simply turns around without any input from above or apart from the senses. This is ‘bondage.”
uf: So we can't be free on two levels. Our start is fully independent from us. And even when we grow up we're still just responding to our environment.
jc: Importantly, humans respond selfishly to their environment. That is to say they’re looking around for what is available to grab, then grabbing without thinking. A fully free person would be able to juggle what the senses present, not grabbing. This is “liberation.” No examples of liberated persons or societies have been presented on Earth.
uf: I really don't see any space to swing a free will.
jc: Again, to say that you don’t see it, is not to say it isn’t so. Others who do not share your premises, may see it, and document it. From what you’ve written it is evident your models for soul, mind and brain are not profound, well-considered, or accurate. Had you presented clear and compelling models and examples, this sentence might have weight.
uf: To be honest I can't imagine how it may work. Thoughts just appear in our heads. For free will to exist, you would have to be able to consciously think of things you want to think of before you actually think of them... It's not gonna work.
jc: Thoughts do not just appear, they must have a source, they must be generated somehow. You not only haven’t seen the thought-generator, you haven’t guessed it might exist. The skill you relate, of being able to consciously think of things you want to think of before you actually think them, is I think usual for a certain class of entities, but not the humans. This is why Ramakrishna spoke of the bound, the liberated and the ever-free.
uf: I can somehow imagine god having free will due to the fact there was never anything before to program him, however that means god is 100% responsible for absolutely all suffering.
jc: Why are the “programmed” entities driving themselves into suffering? Isn’t it a rather common story that some people sink to their “lowest point,” before giving up addictions? Indeed, the ability to leave an addiction would seem to argue for a type of freedom, even on the human plane of general sensate response. The way you describe things, that everyone is a mindless brain, it seems that everyone should be getting addicted all the time. Some people choose never to try drugs because they see it will interfere with their native blissful condition. Obviously, those who try them must not have such a condition.
uf: We may not have free will but we are conscious and we feel pain, so if god is going to torture us forever in hell it means he deliberately created us knowing we have zero chance to choose differently, yet he just wants us to suffer. Not a very loving god I think.
jc: The idea men have they’d be tormented in hell makes an unwarranted presumption the human body will always be theirs. God may not have made them eternal humans, and hell may mean the other option is actualized, that involves no torture, instead restoring the bliss they knew before. You make an interesting point, for God is indeed not loving as men demand it. This has been a tragic error in the religions. God loves those who make themselves lovable. When you say, “God is not loving,” it can be analyzed as a type of whining, that you demand God must love you, as you are. Yet, who can love the tiger?
I can just add in here that in general the human mind has an undercurrent of what you might call hostility, which is part of what makes it impossible for them to be truly happy. This hostility I think you will not be able to trace to the brain, and it can be hard to see since people grow skilled at keeping it hidden in public venues. In any case there may be a subpopulation who, unlike yourself, rather than cursing God for the misery existence in the human body is causing them, praise Him for creating their souls and for giving them a fully blissful life. Perhaps it took some work to get there; but nobody cares much today.
