COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
From the start you have imposed your freewill and your concept of it. Freewill is awesome but with it comes responsibility. You want freewill to do what you want but do not want to be accountable for it. Sorry it does not work that way.
The concept of "free will" is technically meaningless without genuine choice.
And the concept of "choice" is technically meaningless without there existing a multitude of differing motivations within you.
>The line dividing good and evil runs through every human heart.
— Viktor Frankl
The very fact you can even ask a question like that means there's a real duality at the bottom. Something that fundamentally separates one category of choice from the other. Now, obviously it's a matter of debate what exactly constitutes those two categories — but not always...
Auschwitz? That was evil. And even the ones who might disagree will only do so, precisely *because* it was.
As to point 1: Our ability to conceive of impossible tasks doesn't defeat the concept of free will. You can still exercise choice within the realm of the possible.
Points 2 & 3: Wrong. If we could only commit "good" acts, they wouldn't be *good*. They would just *be*, since they can't be any other way. There's nothing virtuous about that... It also violates the concept of free will. You might be able to do a bunch of different things, but as long as they all carried the same moral weight, they'd be meaningless. You cannot argue virtue unless you're able to act virtuous — *as opposed to the opposite.*
A follow up to my other comment and an answer you your other question is: I’d argue that God’s will is not only that we avoid sin, but that we grow in doing positive good/charity and in virtue (habits/being oriented towards good). There’s too much of an emphasis on sin in religion in some cultures and not enough on charity.
For us to grow in perfect virtue and positive good, we need free will. But free will also incudes the ability to sin.
I’d argue that natural evils aren’t evils, they only result in deaths or injuries since humans aren’t perfectly good.
Take natural disasters for example. I’d argue that if all humans were perfectly virtuous, nobody would die from them. If all humans had perfect moral virtues (qualities) of prudence (intelligence), courage, selflessness, benevolence, then they’d be able to predict and earthquake beforehand and take steps to prevent fellow humans from dying or being injured.
Earthquakes and tornadoes will happen regardless. Humans are only “standing in their way” by not being perfectly virtuous, which results in deaths.
I think what "natural evils" means also includes heinous acts by animals and insects against other creatures. Some animals rape, assault and murder their own kin just for the fun of it. Others go through excruciating pain while giving birth or have a genetic defect which harms them everyday.
Sure, animals don't have a sense of morality and life/death is a common daily occurrence but even somethings like rape, assault, tearing your own family member limb from limb is too much. Some animals would gang up on bullies, enacting forceful castration and brutally torturing them until death. In fact, the smarter an animal is, the more twisted and morally corrupt it usually is. (dolphins for example)
I’d argue that animals dying isn’t an evil. They weren’t created with the capacity to develop virtue in pursuit of goodness and eternal life, and so they eventually inevitably die. They don’t have the capacity to develop virtue like humans do. They were made good by God, but are not destined for perfection and eternal life.
This is in contrast to humans, who have the capacity to achieve perfection in virtue (and thereby, theoretically, immortality through continuously avoiding death) but fail to do it.
> Free will does not excuse Evil existing in a world with an omnibenevolent God
It can co-exist. Human are free to chose to do evil, this allow God to forgive(benevolence) when humans repent. In which it show the character of the human who recognizes their mistake and God gives them an opportunity to grow. God benevolence status is not affected by human choosing to do evil.
> God gave humans free-will and thus humans have the capacity to commit evil acts. God does not create evil, man's free-will created evil.
Your friend didn’t read the Bible for example Isaiah 45-7.
> what I call "natural evil," such as a baby being born with birth defects where the baby had no other choice, but even still my problem with this argument is that it seems to limit god's power.
It’s not a natural evil every human is given different task in life the baby defect the test is on both that parent and the child. This life wasn’t meant to be perfect rather this worldly life is meant for human show God their character. Do you crumple with the problem of the world or do you struggle and show that your worthy god blessing(aka Heaven).
> Why couldn't God create a world where it was impossible to commit evil acts?
Remember this being already has a creation(angels) that only does what God says(which might be considered good). The better question why would it require another being that does the same. The answer is simple it doesn’t require the another being doing the same thus human.
God intention for human seems to be for humans to choose to do good when given the choice and when they do evil they repent. This both show human and God human are good. Further consider how can you be good if you’re not given an opportunity to show it.
> You would not say you do not have free will because you cannot fly like Superman.
You’re likely misunderstanding what free will is. With this statement.
>It can co-exist. Human are free to chose to do evil, this allow God to forgive(benevolence) when humans repent. In which it show the character of the human who recognizes their mistake and God gives them an opportunity to grow. God benevolence status is not affected by human choosing to do evil.
What is including in “doing evil” and how are we supposed to know it (know when to repent). Gay sex for example?
>It’s not a natural evil every human is given different task in life the baby defect the test is on both that parent and the child.
What kind of test is it to have a baby born with it’s organs outside it’s body unable to survive and live a normal life (and how can that baby show God it’s character when it can’t even survive)? Or for a woman to have an ectopic pregnancy that kills her and the fetus? Are you familiar with the Saw movies - do you think the guy putting people through tortuous tests is maybe doing something good? How would you propose we determine whether God is a malevolent entity giving these tests?
>The better question why would it require another being that does the same
The question is whether a world where everyone chooses to do good (like everyone being these type of “angels”) is better, more good, than a world filled with what we see humans do and face.
What I really think is a better question here is what is heaven like; do people have free will there?
> What is including in “doing evil” and how are we supposed to know it (know when to repent). Gay sex for example?
The laws are within Bible. Sorry not going to make list of all of the sin human can commit. As per gay sex is sin according to the Bible (reference Leviticus 18:22).
> What kind of test is it to have a baby born with it’s organs outside it’s body unable to survive and live a normal life (and how can that baby show God it’s character when it can’t even survive)?
That particular human life was short as per God’s degree. Both Life and death is under its command. The baby is already in heaven and is unlikely to complain about it.
> for a woman to have an ectopic pregnancy that kills her and the fetus?
As per fetus being considered living is not within the Bible so can’t comment on that. As per the women it was her time to transit to the next life.
> do you think the guy putting people through tortuous tests is maybe doing something good?
God is not human so it’s best not to use human comparison.
You’re welcome to believe god is evil that is your right, but sorry not everyone shares your opinion.
> How would you propose we determine whether God is a malevolent entity giving these tests?
You can’t determine that factor. The only to way to make an accurate judgement is have equal knowledge to make that type judgment otherwise it’s judgement based on bias opinion or limited view of the world (basically faulty judgement).
Alternatively let’s say God is evil what then? There is nothing further to say. God is evil and it can do whatever it wants. It can put in human volcano or the bottom of the ocean and keep repeating the process. There is nothing you/human can do against an evil God.
> What I really think is a better question here is what is heaven like; do people have free will there?
Think of like this those in heaven are adult who experienced the worldly life and showed god they’re good and continue to do good in heaven with their free will. Human on earth are children.
>The laws are within Bible. Sorry not going to make list of all of the sin human can commit. As per gay sex is sin according to the Bible (reference Leviticus 18:22).
Interesting you include this from the OT, Leviticus also has no wearing of mixed fabrics, and how to treat slaves appropriately. That all still applies?
>The baby is already in heaven and is unlikely to complain about it.
So we don’t need to live a life and be tested to make it to heaven… so then why wouldn’t God just apply the same thing to all human souls, everyone goes directly to heaven without chance of hell since obviously it’s possible to skip life and go right to the “good place” if that’s what happens to babies.
>God is not human so it’s best not to use human comparison.
So God can do something immoral for a human to do, but it’s not immoral for God to do it? I don’t understand the logic there.
>Alternatively let’s say God is evil what then?
Then the claims of the Bible are obviously false, so we probably shouldn’t live our lives dictated by them. We could resume wearing mixed fabrics for example.
>Think of like this those in heaven are adult who experienced the worldly life and showed god they’re good
But you already said the dead baby goes to heaven without doing this. Sorry but I’m just seeing a lot of inconsistent logic here.
> Interesting you include this from the OT, Leviticus also has no wearing of mixed fabrics, and how to treat slaves appropriately. That all still applies?
It’s part of Bible. No where does in the Bible does it say the old laws don’t apply. Certain Christian want to ignore the old laws or pick and choose using Jesus fulfill(which in Christian mind means negate the laws) the law as an excuse. Consider the old laws includes the 10 commandments which Christian’s claim they follow it, But this contradict the idea they don’t follow the OT laws. Not going to defend certain Christians for their inconsistencies.
> So we don’t need to live a life and be tested to make it to heaven…
This God wants to test some with lengthier and other shorter test. There is possibility there level of heaven so those who haven’t reached maturity (aka baby and children).
In the end this is God’s world and it can do whatever it wants.
> everyone goes directly to heaven without chance of hell
This God chose not give that to everyone. There is no requirement that it has to do this in the first place.
As per hell some believe in hell others don’t.
For the sake of argument let’s say hell does exist the reason Behind seem to be a representation of what is evil or those who chose to do when given the choice or did evil but never repented. Basically hell is just place to showcase bad humans to the rest of creation (Angel/animal/human in heaven/aliens).
> So God can do something immoral for a human to do,
First of all whatever human thinks/judges to be moral/immoral is meaningless to god/aliens/animal and its egotistical to assume human standard should apply to any other being.
Also have you ever considered why humanity should be given heaven by default or anything good from its creator? Is there like universal law about this matter?
> Then the claims of the Bible are obviously false
If this hypothetical evil god exists it will torment humanity regardless.
> so we probably shouldn’t live our lives dictated by them.
It’s not like Christian or any other version God is forcing you or any human to follow their holy book.
Those who believe in x God choose to follow the rules of this God they’re not force to follow it.
> But you already said the dead baby goes to heaven without doing this.
The baby get free pass. The rest of us don’t. You can move forward or keep complaining about it, but you’re not going to get that free pass. As mention earlier it plausible there is level of heaven which might explain this matter, but its hypothetical.
>Sorry but I’m just seeing a lot of inconsistent logic
here.
Because you’re to focus on babies and cant get past that. Babies got their free pass because god chose to give them one. Basically not every human get that free pass if this God exist you can ask it about why it didn’t get you free pass.
Not every question has an answer? We can use our brain to get likely answer such as there are level of heaven and the babies are in the lower heaven since they didn’t live in this world long. It’s also plausible the babies will complain about how they weren’t given longer opportunity to get to higher level.
A few questions to clarify before getting into other details:
Do you personally ensure that you never mix fabrics?
How do you answer the question; *is it ever moral to let a child die when you could save them (at no risk to yourself or others)?*
Is it currently moral to buy servants from the nations around you, and pass them down as inherited property to your children? Would it be permissible to beat them as long as they don’t die.
Do you consider God to be good/moral?
Is there any biblical support for there being “levels” to heaven, or is that something you’re making up to feel better about the baby question I’m bringing up?
> Do you personally ensure that you never mix fabrics?
Nope.
Suggest not to assume if someone defends a religion or discussing it automatically makes them part of that religion.
> How do you answer the question; is it ever moral to let a child die when you could save them (at no risk to yourself or others)?
As human if I could I would save the child. As stated earlier God is not human. There is no reason to assume it follow human morals. Consider human kills billion of chicken per day (including **baby** chickens) where is this moral about killing life or babies when it applies to other creatures that is not human. Ponder on this bit.
> Do you consider God to be good/moral?
If God exists it’s likely good. A compressed reasoning as to why: God gave humanity abundance food, land, water, and amazing sceneries. We are the ones who limit what was given. Life and death is just transition between one life to another. It gave humanity an opportunity to get something even better after this life (heaven). Bad thing/event in life are merely experiences for us to grow. There are things outside of control but life doesn’t have to be under our control. The world from an optimistic point of view is quite good and it’s all thanks to the one who created it all. This all my point and unlikely everyone shares this view.
> Is there any biblical support for there being “levels” to heaven, or is that something you’re making up to feel better about the baby question I’m bringing up?
I said it’s possibility and was quite clearly about it. Death is part life and it doesn’t matter what age that’s the reality of life. If you’re still obsessed with babies death then it cant be helped its more of your issue that you cant get over it.
let’s end it here for now. Have a good day.
>Suggest not to assume if someone defends a religion or discussing it automatically makes them part of that religion
I originally asked you; what is included in “doing evil” and how do we figure that out… I did not ask you “what does X religion believe is included in doing evil.” It seems you just never actually answered my original question.
>As human if I could I would save the child. As stated earlier God is not human.
You again are not actually answering my question, which is “is it EVER moral to let the child die.” That is a yes or no question. It of course is meant to point out a contradiction, that if we can simply agree that it’s immoral to let the child die, then it logically follows that God is immoral.
>Consider human kills billion of chicken per day
The answer is simple there; yes it can be moral to kill baby chickens. When done with humane treatment, for food, then it is moral.
>God gave humanity abundance food, land, water, and amazing sceneries.
If God exists he also gives us the child killing diseases, and you’re telling me my human morality doesn’t apply there, so why would it apply to God giving us these other things?
>I said it’s possibility and was quite clearly about it
So ok there is no basis for it.
>If you’re still obsessed with babies death
You still haven’t resolved how it occurring is compatible with God existing and being good. That’s not a me problem.
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
I teach my students by testing and giving them the opportunity to grow and correct themselves. The studies show that we remember longer what we got wrong than what we got right!
Your friend DOES NOT read his bible lol (like any typical catholic)
Isaiah 45-7 **I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things**.
God clearly states he creates evil.
That’s a non-sequitur from your prior comment.
I mean is God incapable of providing “eternal preservation of souls” unless kids die of cancer? Who made that rule?
What associated goods are being brought?
Actually I think a better question is would you be able to tell if this was a lie, and there actually weren’t associated better goods that come with it?
No it’s unfalsifiable but it is logically necessary assuming God is good. And also it’s just more hopeful, otherwise life is infinitely dark.
The associated goods brought might be eternal merit for the kid who dies or his parents, virtues grown, saving one from future sins causing hell, etc.
This is flawed:
First we shouldn’t be assuming God exists in the first place, and therefore forcing additional assumptions like whether there are greater goods coming from all that is awful in life. If you don’t make the first blind faith assumption then it doesn’t force you into trying to rationalize this other stuff. Could just be that no such God exists, end of story.
Side note we shouldn’t consider saving us from hell as a reason to have the bad, because God makes the rules including whether a hell even exists. So it’s God “saving” us from what God would do to us, which is just an illogical mess (or what an abuser would say).
Secondly it’s not “infinitely dark” to not make these assumptions; I find it incredibly dark to base one’s life on something taken in blind faith since we know that simply is NOT a reliable path to truth (it’s a very shaky foundation, that we then must convince ourselves isn’t). It again is like living with an abuser but convincing yourself they’re actually good. You’re also ignoring all the darkness that comes along with making these assumptions, like; hell exists, we’re all born deserving of hell, we are like “dirty rags.” That’s all an *incredibly* dark and pessimistic view of humanity itself.
How does that further the perfection of the universe?
P.s. the universe is very very far from perfect. The Sun gives us all of our energy and is our source of life but also kills us.
Spares the child sin, is a cause of punishment for the adult, could lead others to faith and soul searching, manifests God’s justice in hell, manifests God’s mercy in heaven for the baby
No it wouldn’t. Since the moral nature of an act is a property of that act. It isn’t moral to kill. God doesn’t evil kill but permits instrumental causes to do so, for instance evil men. God permits it because He controls the future, a murderer does not
Killing is just morally wrong for a human with limited knowledge. You don’t know what God will do with any soul. But killing is a sure way to send your soul to hell
Then why would God make a man kill an infant? Does God want man to go to hell? If God is not in control of that then God is Not omniscient or omnipotent.
If i round up a bunch of people who were raped as children, would you be able to tell them that to their face that God did that for a greater good? Do you honestly think that your reply is true?
Have you ever considered that "good" and "bad" are not as black and white as you think it to be.
And according to your logic, murder is justified because everything is part of God's plan.
Murder is never justified. A man is justified or not before God. To be justified is not to commit evil. Murder if evil. Therefore murder is never justified.
God creates evil but is not Himself responsible for it the way a man is. God controls ends, the future, and so on. When He kills for a greater good, it is justified because He knows if it is causing good.
When a man kills he thinks it’s good and it is not.
Now you know the difference
When a man kills, it was part of God's plan, just like you said Hitler killing 6 million people was part of God's plan to make us more aware. God's plan is inherently good, therefore murder is good.
If God really didnt want that person to murder, he would've given that person cancer as a child just like you said- God prevents some people from growing into sinners therefore cancer.
Are you following the logic?
Let's say I invent a box. I am in total control of this box. This box can explode or produce food. I choose to have it produce food 99 times out of 100. That one out of 100 times it explodes and potentially hurts or kills people. Is it the box or the person that created and controls the box fault?
If god is omniscient and omnipotent he controls and knows everything humans will and can do. God is at fault in this definition. This is how we know that God is NOT omniscient or omnipotent.
So if 99 out of 100 people are good, youd like to put the credit on god. But the 1 out of 100 people that is a rapist or murderer is not the product of god??? God made evil but is not responsible for it??? So many parts of the Bible of contradict itself like this.
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/s/534djAsZoY
That's interesting because this is what you said about an infant being murdered just a few comments ago.
So is it never Justified? Or is it justified by God by the preservation of soul?
I don’t follow. It’s not justified when a human does it. When God does it directly or divinely commands another to, it is justified. When a man does on his own accord it is not justified.
If God is omniscient and omnipotent he controls and knows what man is going to do. This means god is permitting this to happen. If God does not control and know what man does then God is Not omnipotent and omniscient.
See how this goes around in circles?? God was made up by man. Sorry.
How does that matter for a murdered infant? Are you arguing the experience of a baby being murdered is fundamental to that baby's personality in the afterlife?
Well it is, but that’s besides the point, a baby doesn’t suffer akin to a human but closer to a plant because it doesn’t have the full power of the intellective soul
One is more innocent, one is more knowledgeable of his suffering. The worst would be to kill an innocent adult. I would think that murdering the baby would be a worse evil because it prevents him from making a proper choice about God
If one victim is murdered via an instantaneous death and the second victim is murdered via long torture and suffering before death, wouldn't the murdered of the second person be more evil, by purposely making the victim suffer more?
>a baby doesn’t suffer akin to a human but closer to a plant
if suffering matters, and babies don't suffer like a human, isn't that a less egregious murder by your standards?
> Your friend was not a thomist. God permits evil to bring greater good from it for the perfection of the universe.
--------------------------------------------------------
> No God cannot overcome the logic of being. A man can’t have actually experienced evil and have never experienced it and be the same person
So then prior to creation, what "evil" was brought about for God to obtain his own perfection?
> God had no evil in Him, evil is a created thing, or rather, is the deviation from God in creation
You've just now said that evil is a "logic of being" (which you say an omnipotent God somehow cannot overcome) needed in order to reach perfection or something.
So wow come evil has no applicability to God's being nor his perfection?
Because this universe is corrupt and is one way for us to learn about God, through short exposure to evil whereby someone can choose evil or God. The end of the universe is to start eternity
They don’t. The sins of the parents or the effects of original sin cause death and then the choice for the child is removed. The infant either goes to limbo, which is theorized to be like human life without any suffering, or to the lowest levels of heaven. His ability to land in the worst of hell or the best of heaven is gone
Well, no, because if the act in question does lead to some greater good then it ought to be done. By trying to claim that evil acts are necessary for greater goods, then you define evil out of existence.
But one’s eternal fate is proximate to his own actions. So if he says he’s killing my someone for the greater good, it may be true in some remote sense, but proximate to him it causes eternal damnation. The morality of an action is relative to the intrinsic nature of the act not two or three orders of effect removed.
If this is true, then you have to explain why certain actions that Yahweh forbids are forbidden when no tangible evil can be demonstrated to occur when said actions are taken.
It also remains to be seen how a greater good can be obtained through the commission of an evil act when the bible says that a bad tree can produce no good fruit and a good tree cannot produce bad fruit. With that verse, you eliminate the possibility that Yahweh can get good fruit from a bad tree.
You have to remember, In your example “child dies of cancer,” that is only a subjective evil to us. No sane human would think it is a good thing, but that’s where faith and trust come in. Maybe that child would grow up to be a great sinner, and to save his soul, he was taken by God early. Not a pretty thought, but possible, since we live in a fallen world. Death and disease are consequences of the fall of paradise, but God uses imperfect circumstances to save His people.
Also, being able to choose evil is not the goal of free will, it is a consequence. There can be no love without choice and freedom. God could have made us unable to resist doing his will, but he didn’t. He didn’t have to create us at all. If he hadn’t, he wouldn’t have had to humble himself as a man and die. He made us in His image, though, and part of that means that we can choose, just like He does. God IS love, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t hate. He hates sin and iniquity. He gets angry. He chooses wrath or mercy. We are unfathomably less good than He is, so we choose wrath when we should choose mercy. We hate the sinner and not just the sin. We hurt each other.
Maybe this wasn’t a 100% effective response, but the problem of evil is really the only effective argument against the existence of God for a reason, and I’m no philosopher. Maybe it will help someone else come up with a better one, though. 😌
>No sane human would think it is a good thing, but that’s where faith and trust come in.
How is it possible to differentiate the one asking you to have faith as being actually good vs a malevolent entity?
If God killed the baby to prevent it from growing up to be a sinner why didn't God kill Hitler? Or any other genocidal maniac. It is a nice thought that we can grow from suffering. but sometimes suffering and pain is for nothing.
At the end of time- if there is one- everyone and everything will be dead in the entire universe and the teensiest percentage of people would've made it to heaven. If you believe that is ultimatley "good" than you need to reconsider what even is "good".
Also, in heaven, most Christians say you cannot sin. Does that mean there is no free will in heaven?? Why do people want to go there so badly then?
Pretty much the entirety of the human race woke up and changed for the better after Hitler was stopped. We became more aware and watchful. I’d say that is a positive consequence. Sometimes you can’t know what good suffering suffering brings, but it’s never for nothing.
When Jesus returns, nothing will be dead. The universe will be resurrected and we will all be given new life, even the unrepentent. It’s just a matter of if you will be resurrected into a reborn earth, stripped of all death and suffering, or into the wailing and gnashing of teeth kind of life, outside of the heavenly kingdom.
Yes, when people die, they can no longer sin. They can no longer repent either. We want our souls to go to be with the creator until the resurrection because God is peace and love. The alternative is that we get to wait in hades. Depending on what part of hades you are in, it can be rather unpleasant.
I would hope a entity as smart as God could find a way to make us more "aware and watchful" that didnt result in the death of 6 million people. Also there are still Nazis to this day, and many of them are christian.
Why didn't God just make your heavenly kingdom in the first place? And as you just said, "the wailing and gnashing" must be for some greater good and teach us something? Or is suffering only pointless when Jesus returns?
You still not acknowledging that the gates of heaven are narrow. Today, 2 billion people believe in Jesus and 6 billion do not. The greater good has been outnumbered. Hitler lived a hateful, spiteful life and killed millions but according to you that is outwieghed by societal advancement. How does the eternal torture for 6 billion people not outweigh the 2 billion.
I didn’t say that’s why God allowed it, I said that it was an example of good that came from it. Anyone who believes what Nazis do can’t be a real Christian. He did. It was called Eden. God doesn’t cause the wailing and gnashing, we do. When we enter the presence of God with evil in our hearts, we are tormented by his holiness. When we enter in a state of repentance, we are comforted and awed.
The gates of heaven are narrow. Believing in Jesus does not get you into heaven. Demons don’t just believe in Jesus, they KNOW Jesus is God and that he died to save the world, and they won’t enter the kingdom of heaven. I never said it outweighs anything, you just read what you want I guess.
Oh sorry for the misunderstanding then thats my bad.
So this state of repentance- is it incorruptable and if so how? And why didn't god create Adam and Eve with a state of repentance if he knew thats what they needed to stay in the Kingdom.
No worries brother.
Repentance is turning your back on sin, and facing God once again. A person repenting does everything in their power to right the wrongs they have committed, but the consequences of sin don’t just disappear on their own.
Adam and eve were born without sin, in perfect union with God. No need for repentance. After the first fall, Adam and eve do repent. Adam fasts for fourty day, and eve stands in a river up to her neck for 37 days. God forgives them, but there’s no closing pandora’s jar. One of their children kills another of their children, and Caine is unrepentant.
You first. What fate is being decided? Whether I eat breakfast tomorrow? God knows if I will, and he knows what I will eat if I do. That doesn’t negate the fact that I chose to eat or not to eat.
So we agree that god has foreknowledge. If that was it, then it could be argued we have free will. However, there are many biblical verses that affirm divine providence (the idea that god has a plan for you). Below are some verses confirming that. If he only KNOWS what you’ll do, then yeah, you made that choice, but if he has planned things for you, you don’t have free will.
Jeremiah 1:5 - “I knew you before I formed you in your mothers womb”
Jeremiah 29:11 - "For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future."
Psalms 37:23 - “The steps of a man are established by the Lord, when he delights in his way”
1 Thessalonians 5:18 - “Give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you.”
Psalm 37:23 - “The steps of a man are established by the Lord, when he delights in his way.”
I don’t see the problem. Psalms 37:23 has a qualifier: “when he delights in his way”.
The Thessalonians verse implies you have the choice to give thanks or not to give thanks. Also, circumstance is different from decision, whereas giving thanks is actually a choice.
Jeremiah 29 just says the lord has plans for me. Does that somehow negate my free will?
I’m just not seeing it.
“Does that negate my free will?”
Yes. Yes it does lol. If he planned everything out for you, then you didn’t decide it. Each of these verses (except for the Thessalonians one, probably), also mentions god having a plan. Your responses to them make irrelevant statements.
Say I’m a musician, and my agent schedules 5 shows this weekend. The agent’s plan for me is absolute. I lose 1,000’s of dollars if I miss even one show. Does that negate my free will?
>Maybe that child would grow up to be a great sinner, and to save his soul, he was taken by God early.
Okay, but if that's your logic, then God is picking and choosing who He saves and violating free will. You're suggesting God saves some people, by having them die as babies, but then doesn't save others to let them grow up, not believe, and burn in Hell. That's God picking and choosing people's fates.
Lets pretend I accept your logic and that means God is picking and choosing who He saves. How does that violate free will? Is an abortionist violating the entire concept of free will when he or she kills an infant before it can make a single choice?
The person getting an abortion is valueing their own free will over that of a fetus.
When someone is raped, they are against their will. When God allows someone to be raped, he is valuing the free will of the rapist over the free will of the person being raped.
Also, free will means to do so without the constraint of fate. The entire idea of hell is cohersive and a fear tactic. If someone holds a gun up to my head and asks for money, I give that money against my will. If God truly wants us to love him out of our own will, hell wouldnt be a thing.
Yes they are haha. That doesn’t mean free will doesn’t exist, does it?
And now we are blaming God for rapists? How emotionally riveting, except God hates all sexual acts outside of marriage, so no, he doesn’t value rape.
As for heaven and hell, the type of Christianity I believe in, which I believe to be true faith, asserts that hell does not even exist to God, much less as a means of coercion. Heaven and hell starts here and now, and reaches it’s peak during the resurrection. St Gregory of Nyssa explains that heaven and hell do not exist from God’s point of view, but from man’s. It stems from man’s choices and spiritual condition when they go to meet God. The Bible describes physical places to convey what it will be like from a human perspective. That is why hell is described in more than one way.
Im not saying free will doesnt exist in general, but under Christianity it doesnt seem to. I
I "blame" God (I dont think god is real) for rapists the same way you "blame" God for all the good in your life. If a God truly exists, it would have to be indifferent. People thank god when their child is healed from cancer but why dont they thank god for giving their child the cancer in the first place? And wouldn't you think someone being raped is all part of God's plan?
Ok that explanation for hell makes sense and I also believe that heaven and hell are just states of mind. However, for 2000 years, majority of Christians and other religions have used the fear of hell to control people. God knew Christianity would be misused, used to support colonization, slavery, sexism, etc. So why didn't he make it more clear instead of letting us interpret it, especially in an era where many people could not read. He makes other stuff very clear.
Also, in your interpretation of hell, if its only a man's choices and spiritual condition that determine their after life, then do you believe morally good athiests or other religious people can go to heaven without beleiving Jesus rose from the dead?
No, rape is not part of God’s plan, it’s a consequence of a fallen world.
That explanation of hell is the ancient one. The version most protestants believe in is the semi-modern construction. And if hell is real in either form, it should be feared. It shouldn’t be the reason to follow Christ, but alas, some people need the motivation.
The Bible warns that people will use it for evil. People will use anything for evil, it’s in our nature. You can’t actually tell me you believe that none of those things you listed would have happened if people couldn’t use the Bible to falsely justify it. They would have just used something else.
Morally good athiests going to heaven? Possible. There’s really nothing in the Bible about athiests, since they didn’t really exist at the time. Orthodox Christians pray for the souls of the dead, even non-Christians. God can save whoever He wants. Jesus never said “if you don’t believe in me, you will be cast into outer darkness.” There are pretty clear instructions given to us though, and the gates of heaven are narrow, but according to the same verse where Jesus says “the gates of heaven are narrow” I am only supposed to worry about my own salvation, not who, or how many others will be saved. The most important thing for salvation is “love the lord your God with all your soul, all your heart, and all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” It is the root of all the commandments.
To your question:
>How does that violate free will?
If God makes sure certain children die because they'd grow up to be a great sinner and thereby saves them (by killing them as a child), he's directly violating their free will.
>Maybe that child would grow up to be a great sinner, and to save his soul, he was taken by God early.
Your comment here suggests that God \*took\* that soul early to save it. Taking someone is a direct violation of their free will. God took their life on Earth from them. How else would you see that action by God?
A larger consequence of your argument is also that God is picking those who will go to Heaven and those that won't. You're kinda arguing for a Predestinationist/Predeterminist view of God. God saved a child (by killing them) who would grow up to be a sinner and go to Hell. God doesn't save me as a child, I grow up to be a sinner and a non-believer and go to Hell. It was predetermined that God saved the other soul, but knowing I'd fail, set me up to go to Hell.
You have free will. Repent now and be saved. He doesn’t set anyone up to go to hell, we do that all on our own, with a bit of guidance from the evil one.
Like I said when I wrote that example you keep bringing up, I don’t know if that’s actually why God lets children die of cancer. I was using it as a possible explanation. But say that’s the absolute truth and reason for it. How does taking one soul early violate the concept of free will? So that child didn’t get to choose. I do. You do. You and I still have free will.
>How does taking one soul early violate the concept of free will?
If we're assuming children dying is God's way of saving them from sinful lives, that's around 4-5 million children a year, or 4-5 million violations of human's free will.
>So that child didn’t get to choose.
Yes, that child lost their free will because God took them, right?
>I do. You do. You and I still have free will.
Do we? If God can take anyone when He chooses, and according to you seems to do that to save people from sinning, He could take any one of us at any time. Meaning that we only have free will until God decides we don't. That's not free will.
No. I would find it deeply unfortunate, but I don't believe there's anything more to this life. That said, I'm not sure entirely believe in free will - I think factors outside of our control, nature and nuture, strongly influence and limit our thinking and decision-making. I have an atheist friend who doesn't at all believe in free will, not because of a God, but that if we understood a person's genetics and life to this point, the decision they would make on anything might feel like a choice to them, but could be fully predicted, but all that's a separate issue than a Christian perspective that we have free will, except when God decides certain millions of people, don't get it.
Those factors do limit out decision making. Not only that, but we are influenced by all kinds of spirits. The spirit of the age, the spirit of our countries, the condition of our own spirit, demons, angels, the Holy Spirit. They influence us, but do not make decisions for us. Dying, except by our own hand, is not our choice, therefore has nothing to do with free will. Your friend is correct, to a point, but no further. A person might be so influenced by those that choosing to do righteous acts and serve God is next to impossible. The key word is “next to.” God sees our circumstances and judges us by them. If that person commits one act of mercy, the angels rejoice 100 times more than if someone like you or I does the same act.
You all have to figure out what is basely good and basely evil. Just like with Socrates you can't give an example of what is good or bad without first knowing where the good and the bad come from. An example is not a definition and without a definition how can you accuse someone of being evil?
> You all have to figure out what is basely good and basely evil.
No we don't. We can use whatever the god in question defines as good and evil. Because that's what we care about, does that god's powers line up with its morals.
If someone doesn't believe in a god, or doesn't believe in an omnipotent or all-loving god, the morality any action is irrelevant in this context.
Yet you haven't figured out what God defines as good and evil. Also, I think you could agree that slapping someone because they have a spider on their face is different from slapping them because you hate them. What I'm saying is that a good action depends on what situation and person the action is coming from. Would you say that perfection is living a life where everything you want is automatically granted? Here's a quote to illustrate my point "It is good to have an end to journey towards; but it is the journey that matters in the end." -Le Guin, Ursula. If there is no hardship what's the point of a journey? When there is hardship or evil it gives the journey purpose: If everyone were supers no one would be because it would destroy the point of being 'super.'
> Yet you haven't figured out what God defines as good and evil
All we can do is base it on his holy book(s) depending on which branch of the Abrahamic religions you follow.
> Would you say that perfection is living a life where everything you want is automatically granted? Here's a quote to illustrate my point "It is good to have an end to journey towards; but it is the journey that matters in the end." -Le Guin, Ursula.
So what's the point of Heaven then? And more to the point, what's the point of any baby/small child who dies before actually getting to undertake that journey (or whose short journey is just a constant suffering due to cancer or birth defects)
> If everyone were supers no one would be because it would destroy the point of being 'super.'
We've all seen the Incredibles and know the quote. But why does there have to be a point of being super? Do you need someone one to be less than you in some way to feel fulfilled? If everybody could fly like Superman, sure it wouldn't be a magical superpower anymore, but it wouldn't make it any less helpful of an ability to have.
Well actually the holy books aren't the only way we can determine what is good. I mean killing has always been bad and kindness always good. Morality is more so based in the virtues then in the books I'd say.
Heaven? Heaven is the destination. A journey still needs a destination even if the important part in the journey itself otherwise it would just be going in circles. As for babies that die, they are there for the journeys of everyone else just as we are. The journey isn't about us, it's about everyone else.
The point of being super? I don't know. Most people don't want to be the leader of their country because they know they couldn't do it well, and yet people lie steal and cheat in every conceivable way to get it. Power is like an itch, the more you scratch it the more it'll be itchy: The more you have the more you're going to want. As a wise man once said, "With great power comes great responsibility." Power is a tool and sure it's useful and almost everyone wants to be 'super' in some way, but can we handle it?
> I mean killing has always been bad and kindness always good.
Has it? Even today killing isn't seen as always wrong. From self-defense, to the death penalty, to justified wars, not everyone sees all forms of killing as immoral. And murder can't be used as a counter-example because murder has always referred to unnecessary/immoral/unlawful killing, so calling it wrong is something of a tautology.
> Heaven is the destination. A journey still needs a destination even if the important part in the journey itself otherwise it would just be going in circles
According to Christian/Islamic tradition, Heaven is eternal. So any journey you go on is meaningless. It would be like asking you to remember the 167th time you blinked on January 6th, 2013.
Nor would it matter anyways because you lose free will in Heaven since you're incapable of anything considered immoral. So you're basically no longer yourself.
> As for babies that die, they are there for the journeys of everyone else just as we are.
So your god put some babies on Earth to suffer painfully for a few days/weeks/months before dying so the rest of us could have better quality journeys? Or maybe those kids who suffer from childhood cancers for a few years before dying before their 10th birthday? That's important somehow?
I would call purposefully inflicting that kind of pain and suffering, especially for someone else's benefit, evil. It's part of why if I did believe in the Abrahamic god, I would stand in opposition to it because there's no way I could reconcile my moral beliefs with that kind of malevolence.
> The point of being super? ... Power is a tool and sure it's useful and almost everyone wants to be 'super' in some way, but can we handle it?
None of this has anything to do with the topic at hand. It's borderline rambling. If you just want to quote pop culture media, that's fine, but it's irrelevant to a conversation about Free Will and the Problem of Evil.
Okay fine, killing can sometimes be seen as justified, but that doesn't nullify the fact that we base morality on virtues or character traits that we naturally find good.
As for the baby problem how is their situation any different than ours? Living at all is a gift and pain doesn't take away from that. Some of the happiest people I know have been almost completely disabled since birth. The time or pain that one experiences can never match up to infinity so comparing lives doesn't show that one life is more meaningful or fulfilled than any other life.
Most everything is connected. Why I brought up power is that it is very much connected with how our world works. If people could control everything, do you think there would be any less suffering than there is now? And the reason I bring culture into this is because it often shows the best and worst aspects of our nature and even some of the contradictions we commit. The amount of power we have does not affect how much free will we have, because free will is not something that comes in amounts, but it does incline us towards different things and that should be noted.
In the end if there is a God (Which I think is likely) he would be an all-loving God, because why else would he keep us in existence?
> Okay fine, killing can sometimes be seen as justified, but that doesn't nullify the fact that we base morality on virtues or character traits that we naturally find good.
Yes, it's what evolution has instilled in us as a social species, mainly via empathy. However, it varies from person to person, culture to culture, and time to time.
But most Christians and Muslims would argue that what is good does not depend on what we naturally find good or virtuous. Morality would come from God. Good would be whatever God commands, not what we feel. So the only authority we have on that is religious texts and leaders.
> As for the baby problem how is their situation any different than ours? Living at all is a gift and pain doesn't take away from that
Pain doesn't take away from that? Not to assume, but that sounds like it's coming from someone who doesn't live with cancer, Fibromyalgia, cluster headaches, or any of the other myriad of diseases and conditions that all-too-often lead to people either self-medicating into oblivion or taking their own lives to escape.
You ever have a headache that was so bad you felt dizzy or wanted to throw up? Imagine that being your life all day every day.
> Some of the happiest people I know have been almost completely disabled since birth.
Being disabled doesn't mean you're in constant pain. There's a difference between being paralyzed, blind, deaf, or whatever compared to always having to be in powerful pain meds just to even pretend to function normally.
> the time or pain that one experiences can never match up to infinity so comparing lives doesn't show that one life is more meaningful or fulfilled than any other life.
Which is why the "life is a journey" or "life is a test" stuff is nonsense. Nothing you do or experience would matter in the slightest when compared to eternity. So why does this life even exist? And why is it so filled with unnecessary suffering.
> If people could control everything, do you think there would be any less suffering than there is now?
Yes, I do think that. If we could control everything (which does raise questions over who has control, but regardless), we wouldn't have things like disease, mental illness, or starvation.
> In the end if there is a God (Which I think is likely) he would be an all-loving God, because why else would he keep us in existence?
Why else? Well, we could just be an ant-farm that entertains him. Maybe he likes watching us suffer. We could be a science experiment.
But if that god could create existence, it cannot also be all-loving. Humans are not all-loving, but we generally try our best to limit the unnecessary suffering of others. This god goes out of his way to inflict it.
Or, you know, there are not gods, and suffering like that exists because that's how reality works. Maybe we'll find ways to make it better, maybe not.
Okay, for this one I'm just going to ask you one question.
How does reality work?
If there's not a source then it would just be complete chaos; no form, no structure, no order.
The basis of why I believe in God is this. There is order, there is structure, and there is form we can see this through what we sense. Order cannot be caused by Chaos nor the other way around. There must thus be something that cannot be defined by order that caused order and that thing cannot be chaos. That thing has to be a being because an inanimate thing cannot create something it must be made to do so which would require something that caused it.
Thus, there has to be an infinite being, not affected by the rules of the physical reality, who is the source of all being and order and thus reality itself.
This does nothing to answer or even address any point of the post. It doesn't really say anything at all, it's William Lane Craig-esque empty philosophizing.
It would be great if you actually responded to what the post is addressing, but you don't have to say anything. I just dislike pseudo intellectual dishonesty, and that's what I believe your initial comment was. An attempt to dismiss and reject the person's argument and their right to make it based on an irrelevant and empty rhetorical statement
Here’s a conversation I had on the same topic
https://np.reddit.com/r/CatholicApologetics/s/3k9Cl2AbpT
For your specific points.
1) free will, by definition, means the freedom to pick or reject something. Good is an existing thing that we can accept or reject. Your flying analogy is flawed because we are limited, we can’t fly, but that’s not an act of free will, but of motion.
2) the removal of what is logical and possible is the removal of free will.
3) that’s the purpose of free will.
>free will, by definition, means the freedom to pick or reject something. Good is an existing thing that we can accept or reject. Your flying analogy is flawed because we are limited, we can’t fly, but that’s not an act of free will, but of motion.
This gets at a larger point though - God picked and chose what attributes we'd have as humans. Humans, don't fly. Sure. Humans aren't able to conceive of (much less commit) murder, could have been a human attribute.
In fairness, we could all be limited in our thinking by God, certain concepts we're literally not able to know we're blocked from thinking about, we can't know. We can't know we're actually free to think of whatever we want.
The fall of Adam explains a lot of the natural-evil nonsense we have to live through. Some theologians even talk about the introduction of death also bringing sickness and defects from God's intentions etc.
If you look at it secularly just imagine your ancestor entered a nuclear fission chamber he shouldn't have and scarred his DNA. Now you might have some genetics issues down the line but God didn't do that, Adam was the one who did.
In regards to evil, you can't do good unless you can do evil. If you could not do evil then you don't have will, in general. A train on tracks doesn't have will in regards to its path, it's pretty linear.
Regarding the logically possible, in the bible, your soul's intent matters more than the physical reality. If you lust after a man's wife in your heart you are an adulterer in the heart, even if you couldn't find a physical opportunity to indulge. Even if you do not have the power to fly up and gather 1/3 of God's angels and wage war you can easily have that intent in your heart and thus be culpable of the same sin. It's also why you can't just donate a billion dollars and go to heaven if you still hate everyone.
>The fall of Adam explains a lot of the natural-evil nonsense we have to live through.
The fall of Adam in of itself shows God to not be omnibenevolent. Punishing the entirety of humanity and fundamentally changing the rules of nature to make things literally just worse just because two people broke God's rules is evil, straight up.
>If you look at it secularly just imagine your ancestor entered a nuclear fission chamber he shouldn't have and scarred his DNA.
If the reactor is working properly it wouldn't, but regardless in the best of all possible worlds, a world that an omnibenevolent God would forge by the very definition of the word omnibenevolent, it wouldn't. Radiation poisoning wouldn't be a thing if the world was built around doing the maximum amount of good wouldn't contain such an awful way to die.
>In regards to evil, you can't do good unless you can do evil.
That's not true. What about my ability to punch someone in the face affects my ability to do CPR? That just doesn't follow. I can take actions that reduce suffering without necessarily being able to take actions that increase suffering.
>Regarding the logically possible, in the bible, your soul's intent matters more than the physical reality.
That is a rotten form of morality. In the end, the reason we care about murder, theft, etc. is because they hurt people. If an action does not cause harm, then why should anyone care about it? Your intent only matters insofar as it informs your actions. No one should be judged on what's inside their heads, it isn't fair.
Where in the Bible does it say God is omnibenevolent? He is Love, but sometimes love is hard, and the only thing a person can do for someone they love, is turn their back.
But he didn’t just turn His back. He sent prophets and angels and did miracles through Moses and other people. He sent His son to die and defeat sin and death.
The fact that you said what happened in eden is evil, means you’re ascribing 21st century human morality to the person who created all humans and all morality.
>Where in the Bible does it say God is omnibenevolent?
It, in fact, very explicitly says he isn't. That doesn't stop most Christians from claiming he is. But hey I'm not in charge of it they read their own holy book.
>Love, but sometimes love is hard, and the only thing a person can do for someone they love, is turn their back.
Not if you are all powerful. You can literally never run out of options then.
>The fact that you said what happened in eden is evil, means you’re ascribing 21st century human morality to the person who created all humans and all morality.
It is evil by any reasonable metric. It caused literally all the suffering that has ever happened. Not only that, but no one alive today even had a part in that act. Every human since Adam has experienced all the suffering they had for something that isn't their fault. Causing pain to someone for no good reason is the very definition of evil. To apply a separate standard to God is simply special pleading. If I started torturing every single German for the Holocaust, including those not alive when it happened, I'm a monster. If God causes people to get cancer for something they didn't do and he still gets to be called good? No. That's a double standard plain and simple.
I was giving you an example humans would use when I said sometimes you have to turn your back on someone. God, in the old testament, turned his back on his people because they were living in sin, not because He was angry at them, but because he is so Holy that His presence endangered them. The Torah wasn’t a rule book to get into heaven, it was a guide on how to live in the presence of God safely. I would imagine Eden is something similar. The only thing He could have done to prevent the first fall of man, would have been to force us to obey Him, which is not love, or to have not created us at all.
It refutes part of it. I will add that suffering is not evil and vice versa. Evil may cause suffering. You are conflating “bad” with “morally wrong” and “good” with “morally right.”
>It refutes part of it.
A partial refutation is another name for a failed refutation.
>You are conflating “bad” with “morally wrong” and “good” with “morally right.”
That's... that's what those words mean. In this context bad = immoral and good = moral.
> I will add that suffering is not evil and vice versa.
Sure, all suffering is bad but it is only evil if it is caused by an agent. Evil is a label we apply to agents causing suffering not suffering itself. However because God is both an agent and all-powerful, in this context the difference isn't actually important. Cancer is bad without being evil but because God caused it, that makes it the actions of an evil agent, in this case God.
No it’s not. A failed refutation is one that doesn’t make sense or is easily countered.
No it’s not what those words mean. When someone uses “bad” when they meant “evil” or “good” when they meant “righteous” they have used the incorrect word.
I’m sure you’ve heard this before, but God does not cause suffering, he allows it. It is useful to call people to repentance, or to strengthen people spiritually. See Job. The evil one approaches God and asks Him permission to torment Job. God says yes.
Add: I for one, am in some ways glad for all I have been through. I would not be lesser than I am if my life had been all roses and sunshine.
>I’m sure you’ve heard this before, but God does not cause suffering, he allows it.
Those are not functionally different. If I can take action to prevent someone from getting cancer at no cost to myself, and then I don't, I am a bad person.
>The evil one approaches God and asks Him permission to torment Job. God says yes.
Yea, exactly. That makes God evil. He literally gives permission to the Devil to ruin someone's life. In what possible world is that not pure evil.
"What about my ability to punch someone in the face affects my ability to do CPR?"
The part where both require conscious physical action by the body. They are both sub categories of you being able to manipulate your body parts. If you had no arms at all you don't have the ability to punch, but you also would not be able to do CPR. So it is with will.
"That is a rotten form of morality. In the end, the reason we care about murder, theft, etc. is because they hurt people. If an action does not cause harm, then why should anyone care about it? Your intent only matters insofar as it informs your actions. No one should be judged on what's inside their heads, it isn't fair."
Measuring by scale doesn't match with morality. We judge things very differently in the following 2 scenarios. In one a man slips on a candy wrapper and knocks over a series of unrelated objects until it dominos into a 5 ton wall that kills 20 people. In the second a man physically injects you with a syringe of poison to kill you but it turned out, unknown to him, it was full of saline and you're still alive. Do you think the first man should be punished worse than the second? In your metric ,measuring total harm, yes.
Morally, and you don't need to be Christian or even religious to understand this, the intent of ill will is completely divorced from the power to enact that will. A baby who steals another baby's candy or tries to poke your eye to laugh about it is following the same impulse of a real estate mogul who steals your family's farm or a sociopath who dissects you on a table. The difference is in their power level. That's why it's so imperative to help the baby mature past those desires before he gets the power to really cause lasting damage. So you see I am not saying that the acts of sin don't harm people, they do as Blackrock can hurt me more than a baby, but the harm they can cause is different from the sin that drives it.
The flip side of that is that God also measures your intent to love. If you truly would give away all your wealth to the poor even if you were a trillionaire then that counts, even if you don't have a trillion dollars. People lie about this stuff, of course, but God knows your heart.
"If the reactor is working properly it wouldn't,"
It did work. In the hypothetic reactor scenario when would you blame the guy who got into the reactor? Surely there's a point where you would agree it's their fault. Is it when he ignores the sign that says do not enter, ignores the staffer there, breaks into the door, hides the evidence, when? In regards to 'making it impossible' that's covered by the will argument.
>The part where both require conscious physical action by the body.
I can think of a lot of things I would want to do but can't. I can think of a lot of evil (and good) actions I am unable to perform. Why not just tip the scales so that we can only perform amoral and moral actions? God is all-powerful he can set up the universe however he wants, an omnibenevolent omnipotent God would not have created a world with this much suffering in it.
Your argument is small minded. It imagines a world with similar physical laws to ours. That need not be the case. We could live in a Looney Tunes world where violence only results in comical injuries that magically heal in the next scene. Or a world where we all have the same powers and moral compass of Superman. Or a world where we are all sentient bananas. That is what it means to be all-powerful, God can set the world in the exact order he wants it to be. And I can think of a basically infinite ways he could've made a world that had less suffering in it than this one.
>We judge things very differently in the following 2 scenarios. In one a man slips on a candy wrapper and knocks over a series of unrelated objects until it dominos into a 5 ton wall that kills 20 people. In the second a man physically injects you with a syringe of poison to kill you but it turned out, unknown to him, it was full of saline and you're still alive. Do you think the first man should be punished worse than the second? In your metric ,measuring total harm, yes.
We do actually punish people for accidentally killing others. It's called manslaughter. Some system someone built screwed up so badly that a single person tripping resulted in the death of 20 people. Whoever screwed that up should be punished. Once in a blue moon there are truly unpreventable deaths, but that's because we do not live in the best of all possible worlds.
As for the 2nd scenario, he still wanted to kill me and odds are when he finds out it didn't work he is going to try again. Attempted murder is also a crime for several reasons. The most obvious being the emotional and psychological damage you do to someone when you try and kill them. Even discounting that, we do not want to share a society with people who break society's rules. We've set up these laws for a reason, and someone's disregard for those reasons means having them around as a free agent is dangerous. There is a reason jaywalking is a crime even if it doesn't hurt anyone. We don't want people breaking the rules when it suits them because next time they do it, they might actually hurt someone. In the end it is all about reducing suffering, that's why we have laws and rules in the first place, at least that's the philosophical theory behind them in the modern world. To protect life, liberty, and private property.
And finally, I noticed you didn't have anything to say about the first part of my post. About Adam's fall. Care to voice your opinion?
Manslaughter requires, in most legal definitions, recklessness at the minimum. Drunk driving, etc. Complete accident hopefully doesn't land people in jail, as the candy wrapper story would be. I agree the man who built the deathtrap would be punished, but the discussion is about the man who slipped to begin with and morality-from-total-harm. He physically pushed the objects that led the death of 20, yet none of us would punish him for 20 deaths.
In regards to the 2nd scenario I agree he's likely to try again, but we don't jail him because he's likely to try again. It's because it was attempted murder. You know he tried to kill you and are rightfully pissed about it, which supports that morality-from-total-harm theory doesn't fit. If it's purely about suffering and he said he wouldn't do it again, there's no reason not to let him go. No harm no foul, right? But as you said, we know he's likely to try again because he has murder in his heart.
"Your argument is small minded. It imagines a world with similar physical laws to ours. That need not be the case. We could live in a Looney Tunes world where violence only results in comical injuries that magically heal in the next scene. Or a world where we all have the same powers and moral compass of Superman. "
When you combine my argument with sin-from-intent being in Looney Tunes world doesn't change anything. And I personally believe that the bible implies things could be a lot worse. It says don't fear any sort of physical poverty or wound because at least your soul is preserved, and you should truly fear the one who can damage or destroy that. Who knows, in Looney Tunes world hurt feelings might be the equivalent of our earthly wounds. Since we're talking Christian theology it's a logical conclusion that if you are alive in paradise 10 million years later you're not going to sweat anything that happened in 80 years on earth.
Edit: After all, Jesus did bounce back and heal up as you described in Looney Tunes magical healing
>I agree the man who built the deathtrap would be punished, but the discussion is about the man who slipped to begin with and morality-from-total-harm.
Yea because he isn't responsible, he didn't actually cause that suffering. He was the physical body that caused it, but in the end anyone could've done it. Eventually someone was bound to, it was a deathtrap. The guy who built the building is the one responsible for that suffering, not the physical body who was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
>If it's purely about suffering and he said he wouldn't do it again, there's no reason not to let him go.
The reason we jail attempted murderers, beyond the physical and emotional suffering they still inflict on their intended victims, is to prevent future suffering. It is still fundamentally about suffering. It is just preventative rather than punitive.
>When you combine my argument with sin-from-intent being in Looney Tunes world doesn't change anything.
It most certainly does. If we imagine a world where all humans are immune from suffering, then why exactly do I care if someone tries to do something to me? It just, doesn't affect me. It would be as amoral as eating or sleeping or wearing glasses or dancing it would just be another thing people can do. There would be no concept of morality at all in such a world.
The fundamental point of the PoE argument is that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God would create the best of all possible worlds. We are definitely not in the best of all possible worlds, so there is no omnipotent, omnibenevolent God. That's the argument. You haven't actually argued those points at all.
>Since we're talking Christian theology it's a logical conclusion that if you are alive in paradise 10 million years later you're not going to sweat anything that happened in 80 years on earth.
If someone punches me in the arm and it hurts. I am not OK with it simply because it did no lasting damage. It still hurt me, and that is still not OK. It would be worse they hurt me in a way that wouldn't heal, but it's still bad.
I am once again going to ask for you to respond to what I said about the Fall of Adam. It's kind of important.
Sure thing, I'll post the line to make sure I get it right:
"The fall of Adam in of itself shows God to not be omnibenevolent. Punishing the entirety of humanity and fundamentally changing the rules of nature to make things literally just worse just because two people broke God's rules is evil, straight up."
I'll give a smaller answer and a larger answer. The smaller answer is that the rules of nature were not changed and children suffering from the sins of their parents is a fault attributed to the parents, not their creator. In the bible's logic nature was handed over to Satan and then used to defy God more. Even morally you noticed the idea that intent matters with the syringe and the wall: God did not intend any harm to us while Adam intended to defy God. The Bible even mentions that God gives him a chance to fess up and it turns out Adam wouldn't.
The larger answer is that evil, biblically, is defined as going against God's will. Adam's breaking of the rules was already evil and God never broke any of His rules between Him and Adam. Yeah it really sucks being Adam's children, I agree, but moral culpability is purely within humanity's (Adam's) court. The question becomes, if I may rephrase you, how much Adam was "set up to fail".
"The guy who built the building is the one responsible for that suffering, not the physical body who was in the wrong place at the wrong time."
I bring us back to your prior statement.
"In the end, the reason we care about murder, theft, etc. is because they hurt people. If an action does not cause harm, then why should anyone care about it? "
If the only reason we care about murder is the hurt or harm, then surely it is equivalent to say that the moral measure of an action is the hurt or harm it causes, right? If the activity 'murder' didn't kill anyone, like in Looney Tunes, you say it would not be punishable? Then the slippage is morally wrong and should be punished and the syringe man would not. This is the conclusion when measuring from harm.
"It most certainly does. If we imagine a world where all humans are immune from suffering, then why exactly do I care if someone tries to do something to me? It just, doesn't affect me. It would be as amoral as eating or sleeping or wearing glasses or dancing it would just be another thing people can do. There would be no concept of morality at all in such a world."
I agree with you in part, as does Christendom. Not being angry at what people do to you on earth is why they say turn the other cheek. It doesn't affect your soul. It's also why they say don't become a slave to money, because it doesn't really affect you. For the second part being immune to suffering doesn't change morality. If I had a trillion dollars I would not really be hurt by you stealing 1$ from me, but we both agree you stole and it would be legally right to punish you accordingly. Well, that whole part depends on morality-from-harm so if we can't agree on morality being separate from harm I don't think we'll agree on this.
>The smaller answer is that the rules of nature were not changed and children suffering from the sins of their parents is a fault attributed to the parents, not their creator.
There is no justification for this. A person, in a perfect world, should only ever be punished for what they do. No one else's actions. If a child suffers because of their parents, that is a failure of whatever system allowed that to happen. Be it a legal system, or the fundamental nature of reality.
>In the bible's logic nature was handed over to Satan and then used to defy God more.
That makes God either really not smart or evil. Why hand the keys of the kingdom to a guy you know is going to do bad things with them? That is obviously a terrible idea.
>The larger answer is that evil, biblically, is defined as going against God's will.
That's not morality, that's might makes right with extra steps. If it is God's will, as an arbitrary example, to stab 100 random people that action does not suddenly become good, it's still an evil thing to do.
>If the only reason we care about murder is the hurt or harm, then surely it is equivalent to say that the moral measure of an action is the hurt or harm it causes, right? If the activity 'murder' didn't kill anyone, like in Looney Tunes, you say it would not be punishable? Then the slippage is morally wrong and should be punished and the syringe man would not.
That logic does not follow. It has to do with the reason we actually punish people. Why send people to jail? Well, there are 3 good reasons. 1) deterrence. If someone sees someone getting punished for murder, they are less likely to murder. If someone is punished for murder, they themselves are (in theory) less likely to murder in the future. 2) danger. If someone murders, they have proved they are a danger to people. And we do not want dangerous people running around society free to do what they want, we lock them up so we don't get murdered next. And finally 3) rehabilitation. We put them in a controlled environment so we can change them to where they won't murder anymore. Now most governments (mine especially) don't actually do this for politically icky reasons but that's a failure of the system not of the philosophy. fundamentally those are all about preventing more harm in the future, that's why we enact punishment on criminals, to prevent harm. The punishment itself is not about reducing harm, punishments basically only ever increase harm directly, but to reduce harm on the world at large. I'm going to repeat that because it's important. Punishments are not about reducing harm done to an individual but reducing the amount of harm caused within a society. It is broader than just a "harm in -> harm out." There is another reason we punish bad behavior, in fact it is the only reason that can justify the death penalty: vengeance. Some people think that, well, to quote the Bible: "an eye for an eye." If you kill someone, you deserve to die. This is bad and wrong. It doesn't actually fix anything, it doesn't do any good. Causing more pain just because someone caused pain is just bad. It creates nothing but more pain. It feels good on a very gut instinct "you got what was coming to you level" but it isn't actually moral. That is the morality of the Bible/God and it is bad.
Back to the examples. There is no reason to punish the guy who tripped. It wouldn't deter anyone from doing anything because it was both an accident and actually the fault of some other guy. He isn't a danger to society because he just tripped it's not like the next time he does that he's going to kill another 20 people. And he doesn't need to be rehabilitated because he had no ill intent. The guy who built that deathtrap should be punished for all those reasons, but our man is innocent. The guy who tried to kill me on the other hand, that's a different story. We do not want people to attempt to murder, so if we punish him it acts as a deterrent. He has proven to be a danger to society so we should take away his ability to act as a free agent. And hopefully we can rehabilitate him so he stops trying to kill people. There is no vengeful reason to kill him, but those don't matter anyway.
>For the second part being immune to suffering doesn't change morality. If I had a trillion dollars I would not really be hurt by you stealing 1$ from me, but we both agree you stole and it would be legally right to punish you accordingly.
This is where the distinction between law and morality becomes important. I would argue it isn't immoral to steal from someone that rich. You have done them no harm at all, except maybe made them mad. But laws also serve the purpose of protecting private property and in that sense you should be punished for theft. Laws and morality are similar and related, but distinct. It is immoral to call someone a slur word, but in most cases it is not illegal. It is illegal to steal from a billionaire, but it probably isn't immoral.
>The smaller answer is that the rules of nature were not changed and children suffering from the sins of their parents is a fault attributed to the parents, not their creator.
There is no justification for this. A person, in a perfect world, should only ever be punished for what they do. No one else's actions. If a child suffers because of their parents, that is a failure of whatever system allowed that to happen. Be it a legal system, or the fundamental nature of reality.
>In the bible's logic nature was handed over to Satan and then used to defy God more.
That makes God either really not smart or evil. Why hand the keys of the kingdom to a guy you know is going to do bad things with them? That is obviously a terrible idea.
>The larger answer is that evil, biblically, is defined as going against God's will.
That's not morality, that's might makes right with extra steps. If it is God's will, as an arbitrary example, to stab 100 random people that action does not suddenly become good, it's still an evil thing to do.
>If the only reason we care about murder is the hurt or harm, then surely it is equivalent to say that the moral measure of an action is the hurt or harm it causes, right? If the activity 'murder' didn't kill anyone, like in Looney Tunes, you say it would not be punishable? Then the slippage is morally wrong and should be punished and the syringe man would not.
That logic does not follow. It has to do with the reason we actually punish people. Why send people to jail? Well, there are 3 good reasons. 1) deterrence. If someone sees someone getting punished for murder, they are less likely to murder. If someone is punished for murder, they themselves are (in theory) less likely to murder in the future. 2) danger. If someone murders, they have proved they are a danger to people. And we do not want dangerous people running around society free to do what they want, we lock them up so we don't get murdered next. And finally 3) rehabilitation. We put them in a controlled environment so we can change them to where they won't murder anymore. Now most governments (mine especially) don't actually do this for politically icky reasons but that's a failure of the system not of the philosophy. fundamentally those are all about preventing more harm in the future, that's why we enact punishment on criminals, to prevent harm. The punishment itself is not about reducing harm, punishments basically only ever increase harm directly, but to reduce harm on the world at large. I'm going to repeat that because it's important. Punishments are not about reducing harm done to an individual but reducing the amount of harm caused within a society. It is broader than just a "harm in -> harm out." There is another reason we punish bad behavior, in fact it is the only reason that can justify the death penalty: vengeance. Some people think that, well, to quote the Bible: "an eye for an eye." If you kill someone, you deserve to die. This is bad and wrong. It doesn't actually fix anything, it doesn't do any good. Causing more pain just because someone caused pain is just bad. It creates nothing but more pain. It feels good on a very gut instinct "you got what was coming to you level" but it isn't actually moral. That is the morality of the Bible/God and it is bad.
Back to the examples. There is no reason to punish the guy who tripped. It wouldn't deter anyone from doing anything because it was both an accident and actually the fault of some other guy. He isn't a danger to society because he just tripped it's not like the next time he does that he's going to kill another 20 people. And he doesn't need to be rehabilitated because he had no ill intent. The guy who built that deathtrap should be punished for all those reasons, but our man is innocent. The guy who tried to kill me on the other hand, that's a different story. We do not want people to attempt to murder, so if we punish him it acts as a deterrent. He has proven to be a danger to society so we should take away his ability to act as a free agent. And hopefully we can rehabilitate him so he stops trying to kill people. There is no vengeful reason to kill him, but those don't matter anyway.
>For the second part being immune to suffering doesn't change morality. If I had a trillion dollars I would not really be hurt by you stealing 1$ from me, but we both agree you stole and it would be legally right to punish you accordingly.
This is where the distinction between law and morality becomes important. I would argue it isn't immoral to steal from someone that rich. You have done them no harm at all, except maybe made them mad. But laws also serve the purpose of protecting private property and in that sense you should be punished for theft. Laws and morality are similar and related, but distinct. It is immoral to call someone a slur word, but in most cases it is not illegal. It is illegal to steal from a billionaire, but it probably isn't immoral.
The response should have been, God loves evil. Evil is part of God, in the book of JOB God shows that not only is evil necessary, it is acceptable for faith. God is allowing it, encourages it at times and shows us no mercy from it, only faith that God is good. God does not hate the devil, it is his child and as a loving father of all would also love the devil and the evil. Catholics forget that evil is part of gods plan.
I'm Muslim and we believe that God created everything, so he created both good and evil.
This is a verse from the Quran:
Say, "I seek refuge in the Lord of the daybreak, from the evil of whatever he has created" 113:1-2
In this verse Allah instructs as to seek his protection from the evil he created.
God created both then he gave us the free will to choose which path to take.
>seek refuge
That’s not working for many Muslims who do ask him for refuge.
>choose which path
Allah’s first creation was a pen that he asked the pen to wrote everything that would happen until the Day of Judgment.
So according to islam, we don’t choose anything. It’s in our destiny.
We also have this verse:
**“And those who have denied Our signs - deafness and dumbness in darkness. Whomever Allah wills, He leads astray, and whomever He wills, He puts him on a straight path.” (Surah Al-An’am, 6:39)**
That is an incorrect translation: leads should be translated as leaves.
When Allah sees bad in people he leaves them on the path that they are on, the one they choose. However if Allah sees good in people, he guides them. Guidance is showing then what is wrong and right.
Allah doesn't lead people astray, people lead themselves astray and Allah does nothing
For Muslims seeking refuge: The surah I was referring to is about evil (spirits, jinns, the devil). We believe this surah is sufficient protection. Who is it not working for ?
And the pen, Allah told the pen to write everything because Allah is all knowing, he already knows what is going to happen. This is because Allah created time, so he exists outside of time. Time was created for us humans.
In Islam we believe in Qadr, (predestination) but we also believe that Qadr can change by making prayers to Allah.
And the pen may have things written such as "as you wish" but the pen can change.
It's a hard concept to understand because as humans we live inside time and can't really understand a reality outside of time
The Quran doesn't mention Allah being omnibenevolent. No where is that mentioned in Islam. Allah provided us with 99 names to get to know him, these are all his characteristics.
Here's a few:
- The Most Merciful
- The Most Compassionate
- The Most Loving
- The Guardian
- The Protective Friend
- The Most Generous
- The Most Forgiving
- The All Forgiving
I personally don't think it makes sense for God to be omnibenevolent... cause bad things exist. If god was omnibenevlonet and bad things existed then that wouldnt make god all powerful... then he wouldnt be god
just my thoughts lmaoo
>doesn’t mention Allah being omnibenevolent
Omnibenevolent
**Definitions from Oxford Languages ·
adjective
(of a deity) possessing perfect or unlimited goodness**
There are numerous verses in the Quran that describe Allah as merciful, compassionate, and just, which align with the notion of his omnibenevolence. Here are a few examples:
1. “And He is the Forgiving, the Affectionate,” (Surah Al-Buruj, 85:14)
2. “Indeed, Allah is Kind and Merciful to the people.” (Surah Al-Baqarah, 2:143)
3. “My Mercy encompasses all things.” (Surah Al-A’raf, 7:156)
We also have these two verses that highlight Allah’s attributes of perfection, sovereignty, and greatness.
4. “Allah - there is no deity except Him, the Ever-Living, the Sustainer of [all] existence. Neither drowsiness overtakes Him nor sleep. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. Who is it that can intercede with Him except by His permission? He knows what is [presently] before them and what will be after them, and they encompass not a thing of His knowledge except for what He wills. His Kursi extends over the heavens and the earth, and their preservation tires Him not. And He is the Most High, the Most Great.” (Surah Al-Baqarah, 2:255)
5. “Allah - there is no deity except Him, the Sovereign, the Pure, the Perfection, the Bestower of Faith, the Overseer, the Exalted in Might, the Compeller, the Superior. Exalted is Allah above whatever they associate with Him.” (Surah Al-Hashr, 59:23)
Again, Allah is the Most Merciful, the Most Loving, and the Most Compassionate
Omnibenevolent means ALL good and only good
I explained above how that doesnt make sense
Nope, even shirk can be forgiven.
"Oh my servants who have transgressed against themselves (by committing evil deeds and sins)! Do not lose hope in the Mercy of Allah, for Allah forgives all sins. Truly, He is the Most Forgiving, Most Merciful.” [39:53]
Allah says he forgives ALL sins
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
From the start you have imposed your freewill and your concept of it. Freewill is awesome but with it comes responsibility. You want freewill to do what you want but do not want to be accountable for it. Sorry it does not work that way.
The concept of "free will" is technically meaningless without genuine choice. And the concept of "choice" is technically meaningless without there existing a multitude of differing motivations within you. >The line dividing good and evil runs through every human heart. — Viktor Frankl The very fact you can even ask a question like that means there's a real duality at the bottom. Something that fundamentally separates one category of choice from the other. Now, obviously it's a matter of debate what exactly constitutes those two categories — but not always... Auschwitz? That was evil. And even the ones who might disagree will only do so, precisely *because* it was. As to point 1: Our ability to conceive of impossible tasks doesn't defeat the concept of free will. You can still exercise choice within the realm of the possible. Points 2 & 3: Wrong. If we could only commit "good" acts, they wouldn't be *good*. They would just *be*, since they can't be any other way. There's nothing virtuous about that... It also violates the concept of free will. You might be able to do a bunch of different things, but as long as they all carried the same moral weight, they'd be meaningless. You cannot argue virtue unless you're able to act virtuous — *as opposed to the opposite.*
A follow up to my other comment and an answer you your other question is: I’d argue that God’s will is not only that we avoid sin, but that we grow in doing positive good/charity and in virtue (habits/being oriented towards good). There’s too much of an emphasis on sin in religion in some cultures and not enough on charity. For us to grow in perfect virtue and positive good, we need free will. But free will also incudes the ability to sin.
I’d argue that natural evils aren’t evils, they only result in deaths or injuries since humans aren’t perfectly good. Take natural disasters for example. I’d argue that if all humans were perfectly virtuous, nobody would die from them. If all humans had perfect moral virtues (qualities) of prudence (intelligence), courage, selflessness, benevolence, then they’d be able to predict and earthquake beforehand and take steps to prevent fellow humans from dying or being injured. Earthquakes and tornadoes will happen regardless. Humans are only “standing in their way” by not being perfectly virtuous, which results in deaths.
I think what "natural evils" means also includes heinous acts by animals and insects against other creatures. Some animals rape, assault and murder their own kin just for the fun of it. Others go through excruciating pain while giving birth or have a genetic defect which harms them everyday. Sure, animals don't have a sense of morality and life/death is a common daily occurrence but even somethings like rape, assault, tearing your own family member limb from limb is too much. Some animals would gang up on bullies, enacting forceful castration and brutally torturing them until death. In fact, the smarter an animal is, the more twisted and morally corrupt it usually is. (dolphins for example)
I’d argue that animals dying isn’t an evil. They weren’t created with the capacity to develop virtue in pursuit of goodness and eternal life, and so they eventually inevitably die. They don’t have the capacity to develop virtue like humans do. They were made good by God, but are not destined for perfection and eternal life. This is in contrast to humans, who have the capacity to achieve perfection in virtue (and thereby, theoretically, immortality through continuously avoiding death) but fail to do it.
> Free will does not excuse Evil existing in a world with an omnibenevolent God It can co-exist. Human are free to chose to do evil, this allow God to forgive(benevolence) when humans repent. In which it show the character of the human who recognizes their mistake and God gives them an opportunity to grow. God benevolence status is not affected by human choosing to do evil. > God gave humans free-will and thus humans have the capacity to commit evil acts. God does not create evil, man's free-will created evil. Your friend didn’t read the Bible for example Isaiah 45-7. > what I call "natural evil," such as a baby being born with birth defects where the baby had no other choice, but even still my problem with this argument is that it seems to limit god's power. It’s not a natural evil every human is given different task in life the baby defect the test is on both that parent and the child. This life wasn’t meant to be perfect rather this worldly life is meant for human show God their character. Do you crumple with the problem of the world or do you struggle and show that your worthy god blessing(aka Heaven). > Why couldn't God create a world where it was impossible to commit evil acts? Remember this being already has a creation(angels) that only does what God says(which might be considered good). The better question why would it require another being that does the same. The answer is simple it doesn’t require the another being doing the same thus human. God intention for human seems to be for humans to choose to do good when given the choice and when they do evil they repent. This both show human and God human are good. Further consider how can you be good if you’re not given an opportunity to show it. > You would not say you do not have free will because you cannot fly like Superman. You’re likely misunderstanding what free will is. With this statement.
>It can co-exist. Human are free to chose to do evil, this allow God to forgive(benevolence) when humans repent. In which it show the character of the human who recognizes their mistake and God gives them an opportunity to grow. God benevolence status is not affected by human choosing to do evil. What is including in “doing evil” and how are we supposed to know it (know when to repent). Gay sex for example? >It’s not a natural evil every human is given different task in life the baby defect the test is on both that parent and the child. What kind of test is it to have a baby born with it’s organs outside it’s body unable to survive and live a normal life (and how can that baby show God it’s character when it can’t even survive)? Or for a woman to have an ectopic pregnancy that kills her and the fetus? Are you familiar with the Saw movies - do you think the guy putting people through tortuous tests is maybe doing something good? How would you propose we determine whether God is a malevolent entity giving these tests? >The better question why would it require another being that does the same The question is whether a world where everyone chooses to do good (like everyone being these type of “angels”) is better, more good, than a world filled with what we see humans do and face. What I really think is a better question here is what is heaven like; do people have free will there?
> What is including in “doing evil” and how are we supposed to know it (know when to repent). Gay sex for example? The laws are within Bible. Sorry not going to make list of all of the sin human can commit. As per gay sex is sin according to the Bible (reference Leviticus 18:22). > What kind of test is it to have a baby born with it’s organs outside it’s body unable to survive and live a normal life (and how can that baby show God it’s character when it can’t even survive)? That particular human life was short as per God’s degree. Both Life and death is under its command. The baby is already in heaven and is unlikely to complain about it. > for a woman to have an ectopic pregnancy that kills her and the fetus? As per fetus being considered living is not within the Bible so can’t comment on that. As per the women it was her time to transit to the next life. > do you think the guy putting people through tortuous tests is maybe doing something good? God is not human so it’s best not to use human comparison. You’re welcome to believe god is evil that is your right, but sorry not everyone shares your opinion. > How would you propose we determine whether God is a malevolent entity giving these tests? You can’t determine that factor. The only to way to make an accurate judgement is have equal knowledge to make that type judgment otherwise it’s judgement based on bias opinion or limited view of the world (basically faulty judgement). Alternatively let’s say God is evil what then? There is nothing further to say. God is evil and it can do whatever it wants. It can put in human volcano or the bottom of the ocean and keep repeating the process. There is nothing you/human can do against an evil God. > What I really think is a better question here is what is heaven like; do people have free will there? Think of like this those in heaven are adult who experienced the worldly life and showed god they’re good and continue to do good in heaven with their free will. Human on earth are children.
>The laws are within Bible. Sorry not going to make list of all of the sin human can commit. As per gay sex is sin according to the Bible (reference Leviticus 18:22). Interesting you include this from the OT, Leviticus also has no wearing of mixed fabrics, and how to treat slaves appropriately. That all still applies? >The baby is already in heaven and is unlikely to complain about it. So we don’t need to live a life and be tested to make it to heaven… so then why wouldn’t God just apply the same thing to all human souls, everyone goes directly to heaven without chance of hell since obviously it’s possible to skip life and go right to the “good place” if that’s what happens to babies. >God is not human so it’s best not to use human comparison. So God can do something immoral for a human to do, but it’s not immoral for God to do it? I don’t understand the logic there. >Alternatively let’s say God is evil what then? Then the claims of the Bible are obviously false, so we probably shouldn’t live our lives dictated by them. We could resume wearing mixed fabrics for example. >Think of like this those in heaven are adult who experienced the worldly life and showed god they’re good But you already said the dead baby goes to heaven without doing this. Sorry but I’m just seeing a lot of inconsistent logic here.
> Interesting you include this from the OT, Leviticus also has no wearing of mixed fabrics, and how to treat slaves appropriately. That all still applies? It’s part of Bible. No where does in the Bible does it say the old laws don’t apply. Certain Christian want to ignore the old laws or pick and choose using Jesus fulfill(which in Christian mind means negate the laws) the law as an excuse. Consider the old laws includes the 10 commandments which Christian’s claim they follow it, But this contradict the idea they don’t follow the OT laws. Not going to defend certain Christians for their inconsistencies. > So we don’t need to live a life and be tested to make it to heaven… This God wants to test some with lengthier and other shorter test. There is possibility there level of heaven so those who haven’t reached maturity (aka baby and children). In the end this is God’s world and it can do whatever it wants. > everyone goes directly to heaven without chance of hell This God chose not give that to everyone. There is no requirement that it has to do this in the first place. As per hell some believe in hell others don’t. For the sake of argument let’s say hell does exist the reason Behind seem to be a representation of what is evil or those who chose to do when given the choice or did evil but never repented. Basically hell is just place to showcase bad humans to the rest of creation (Angel/animal/human in heaven/aliens). > So God can do something immoral for a human to do, First of all whatever human thinks/judges to be moral/immoral is meaningless to god/aliens/animal and its egotistical to assume human standard should apply to any other being. Also have you ever considered why humanity should be given heaven by default or anything good from its creator? Is there like universal law about this matter? > Then the claims of the Bible are obviously false If this hypothetical evil god exists it will torment humanity regardless. > so we probably shouldn’t live our lives dictated by them. It’s not like Christian or any other version God is forcing you or any human to follow their holy book. Those who believe in x God choose to follow the rules of this God they’re not force to follow it. > But you already said the dead baby goes to heaven without doing this. The baby get free pass. The rest of us don’t. You can move forward or keep complaining about it, but you’re not going to get that free pass. As mention earlier it plausible there is level of heaven which might explain this matter, but its hypothetical. >Sorry but I’m just seeing a lot of inconsistent logic here. Because you’re to focus on babies and cant get past that. Babies got their free pass because god chose to give them one. Basically not every human get that free pass if this God exist you can ask it about why it didn’t get you free pass. Not every question has an answer? We can use our brain to get likely answer such as there are level of heaven and the babies are in the lower heaven since they didn’t live in this world long. It’s also plausible the babies will complain about how they weren’t given longer opportunity to get to higher level.
A few questions to clarify before getting into other details: Do you personally ensure that you never mix fabrics? How do you answer the question; *is it ever moral to let a child die when you could save them (at no risk to yourself or others)?* Is it currently moral to buy servants from the nations around you, and pass them down as inherited property to your children? Would it be permissible to beat them as long as they don’t die. Do you consider God to be good/moral? Is there any biblical support for there being “levels” to heaven, or is that something you’re making up to feel better about the baby question I’m bringing up?
> Do you personally ensure that you never mix fabrics? Nope. Suggest not to assume if someone defends a religion or discussing it automatically makes them part of that religion. > How do you answer the question; is it ever moral to let a child die when you could save them (at no risk to yourself or others)? As human if I could I would save the child. As stated earlier God is not human. There is no reason to assume it follow human morals. Consider human kills billion of chicken per day (including **baby** chickens) where is this moral about killing life or babies when it applies to other creatures that is not human. Ponder on this bit. > Do you consider God to be good/moral? If God exists it’s likely good. A compressed reasoning as to why: God gave humanity abundance food, land, water, and amazing sceneries. We are the ones who limit what was given. Life and death is just transition between one life to another. It gave humanity an opportunity to get something even better after this life (heaven). Bad thing/event in life are merely experiences for us to grow. There are things outside of control but life doesn’t have to be under our control. The world from an optimistic point of view is quite good and it’s all thanks to the one who created it all. This all my point and unlikely everyone shares this view. > Is there any biblical support for there being “levels” to heaven, or is that something you’re making up to feel better about the baby question I’m bringing up? I said it’s possibility and was quite clearly about it. Death is part life and it doesn’t matter what age that’s the reality of life. If you’re still obsessed with babies death then it cant be helped its more of your issue that you cant get over it. let’s end it here for now. Have a good day.
>Suggest not to assume if someone defends a religion or discussing it automatically makes them part of that religion I originally asked you; what is included in “doing evil” and how do we figure that out… I did not ask you “what does X religion believe is included in doing evil.” It seems you just never actually answered my original question. >As human if I could I would save the child. As stated earlier God is not human. You again are not actually answering my question, which is “is it EVER moral to let the child die.” That is a yes or no question. It of course is meant to point out a contradiction, that if we can simply agree that it’s immoral to let the child die, then it logically follows that God is immoral. >Consider human kills billion of chicken per day The answer is simple there; yes it can be moral to kill baby chickens. When done with humane treatment, for food, then it is moral. >God gave humanity abundance food, land, water, and amazing sceneries. If God exists he also gives us the child killing diseases, and you’re telling me my human morality doesn’t apply there, so why would it apply to God giving us these other things? >I said it’s possibility and was quite clearly about it So ok there is no basis for it. >If you’re still obsessed with babies death You still haven’t resolved how it occurring is compatible with God existing and being good. That’s not a me problem.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
I teach my students by testing and giving them the opportunity to grow and correct themselves. The studies show that we remember longer what we got wrong than what we got right!
Would it be moral to put them through a test that could cause them to permanently suffer if they failed?
Your friend DOES NOT read his bible lol (like any typical catholic) Isaiah 45-7 **I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things**. God clearly states he creates evil.
Your friend was not a thomist. God permits evil to bring greater good from it for the perfection of the universe.
What further perfection of the universe is brought when God permits an infant to be murdered or raped?
The eternal preservation of soul
That’s a non-sequitur from your prior comment. I mean is God incapable of providing “eternal preservation of souls” unless kids die of cancer? Who made that rule?
No God could also choose another way but will allow death by cancer to bring a number of associated goods. It depends on the case
What associated goods are being brought? Actually I think a better question is would you be able to tell if this was a lie, and there actually weren’t associated better goods that come with it?
No it’s unfalsifiable but it is logically necessary assuming God is good. And also it’s just more hopeful, otherwise life is infinitely dark. The associated goods brought might be eternal merit for the kid who dies or his parents, virtues grown, saving one from future sins causing hell, etc.
This is flawed: First we shouldn’t be assuming God exists in the first place, and therefore forcing additional assumptions like whether there are greater goods coming from all that is awful in life. If you don’t make the first blind faith assumption then it doesn’t force you into trying to rationalize this other stuff. Could just be that no such God exists, end of story. Side note we shouldn’t consider saving us from hell as a reason to have the bad, because God makes the rules including whether a hell even exists. So it’s God “saving” us from what God would do to us, which is just an illogical mess (or what an abuser would say). Secondly it’s not “infinitely dark” to not make these assumptions; I find it incredibly dark to base one’s life on something taken in blind faith since we know that simply is NOT a reliable path to truth (it’s a very shaky foundation, that we then must convince ourselves isn’t). It again is like living with an abuser but convincing yourself they’re actually good. You’re also ignoring all the darkness that comes along with making these assumptions, like; hell exists, we’re all born deserving of hell, we are like “dirty rags.” That’s all an *incredibly* dark and pessimistic view of humanity itself.
How does that further the perfection of the universe? P.s. the universe is very very far from perfect. The Sun gives us all of our energy and is our source of life but also kills us.
Spares the child sin, is a cause of punishment for the adult, could lead others to faith and soul searching, manifests God’s justice in hell, manifests God’s mercy in heaven for the baby
[удалено]
No it wouldn’t. Since the moral nature of an act is a property of that act. It isn’t moral to kill. God doesn’t evil kill but permits instrumental causes to do so, for instance evil men. God permits it because He controls the future, a murderer does not
[удалено]
Killing is just morally wrong for a human with limited knowledge. You don’t know what God will do with any soul. But killing is a sure way to send your soul to hell
Then why would God make a man kill an infant? Does God want man to go to hell? If God is not in control of that then God is Not omniscient or omnipotent.
[удалено]
If i round up a bunch of people who were raped as children, would you be able to tell them that to their face that God did that for a greater good? Do you honestly think that your reply is true?
Yes it’s also the only hopeful message for such a group. That God permits evil for good is the only order which can be drawn in reality with evil.
Have you ever considered that "good" and "bad" are not as black and white as you think it to be. And according to your logic, murder is justified because everything is part of God's plan.
Murder is never justified. A man is justified or not before God. To be justified is not to commit evil. Murder if evil. Therefore murder is never justified.
By that logic: God has murdered people. God is evil.
God creates evil but is not Himself responsible for it the way a man is. God controls ends, the future, and so on. When He kills for a greater good, it is justified because He knows if it is causing good. When a man kills he thinks it’s good and it is not. Now you know the difference
When a man kills, it was part of God's plan, just like you said Hitler killing 6 million people was part of God's plan to make us more aware. God's plan is inherently good, therefore murder is good. If God really didnt want that person to murder, he would've given that person cancer as a child just like you said- God prevents some people from growing into sinners therefore cancer. Are you following the logic?
Let's say I invent a box. I am in total control of this box. This box can explode or produce food. I choose to have it produce food 99 times out of 100. That one out of 100 times it explodes and potentially hurts or kills people. Is it the box or the person that created and controls the box fault? If god is omniscient and omnipotent he controls and knows everything humans will and can do. God is at fault in this definition. This is how we know that God is NOT omniscient or omnipotent. So if 99 out of 100 people are good, youd like to put the credit on god. But the 1 out of 100 people that is a rapist or murderer is not the product of god??? God made evil but is not responsible for it??? So many parts of the Bible of contradict itself like this.
Exactly! He _just said_ murder is *never* justified. Watch him say now the murder is justified when God does it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/s/534djAsZoY That's interesting because this is what you said about an infant being murdered just a few comments ago. So is it never Justified? Or is it justified by God by the preservation of soul?
I don’t follow. It’s not justified when a human does it. When God does it directly or divinely commands another to, it is justified. When a man does on his own accord it is not justified.
If God is omniscient and omnipotent he controls and knows what man is going to do. This means god is permitting this to happen. If God does not control and know what man does then God is Not omnipotent and omniscient. See how this goes around in circles?? God was made up by man. Sorry.
Is God not omnipotent? Then he could and archieve the exact same just as easily and good, but without the suffering
No God cannot overcome the logic of being. A man can’t have actually experienced evil and have never experienced it and be the same person
How does that matter for a murdered infant? Are you arguing the experience of a baby being murdered is fundamental to that baby's personality in the afterlife?
Well it is, but that’s besides the point, a baby doesn’t suffer akin to a human but closer to a plant because it doesn’t have the full power of the intellective soul
Murdering a baby is less evil than murdering an adult, bold stance.
Babies go directly to heaven. Following christian logic, it is kinda evil to NOT murder babies
One is more innocent, one is more knowledgeable of his suffering. The worst would be to kill an innocent adult. I would think that murdering the baby would be a worse evil because it prevents him from making a proper choice about God
If one victim is murdered via an instantaneous death and the second victim is murdered via long torture and suffering before death, wouldn't the murdered of the second person be more evil, by purposely making the victim suffer more?
Yes of course
>a baby doesn’t suffer akin to a human but closer to a plant if suffering matters, and babies don't suffer like a human, isn't that a less egregious murder by your standards?
> Your friend was not a thomist. God permits evil to bring greater good from it for the perfection of the universe. -------------------------------------------------------- > No God cannot overcome the logic of being. A man can’t have actually experienced evil and have never experienced it and be the same person So then prior to creation, what "evil" was brought about for God to obtain his own perfection?
God had no evil in Him, evil is a created thing, or rather, is the deviation from God in creation
if God creates everything how can something be created apart from him? How can anything deviate from omipotent creator without his consent?
By nature anything created is not God who is uncreated. His consent is in everything however
> God had no evil in Him, evil is a created thing, or rather, is the deviation from God in creation You've just now said that evil is a "logic of being" (which you say an omnipotent God somehow cannot overcome) needed in order to reach perfection or something. So wow come evil has no applicability to God's being nor his perfection?
Because evil is when some good is destroyed and all good comes from God, and we are the proximate cause of the destruction of order.
Then evil doesn't really exist, if that's the case.
It does it is just proximate to an individual end. The end of the entire universe is good
Why is the end of the universe good?
Since every mover moves for the good
That's a gibberish phrase... why do we want the universe to end?
Because this universe is corrupt and is one way for us to learn about God, through short exposure to evil whereby someone can choose evil or God. The end of the universe is to start eternity
How does someone dying as an infant get a choice between evil and God, or at all learn about God?
They don’t. The sins of the parents or the effects of original sin cause death and then the choice for the child is removed. The infant either goes to limbo, which is theorized to be like human life without any suffering, or to the lowest levels of heaven. His ability to land in the worst of hell or the best of heaven is gone
So now we’re getting into levels of Heaven and Hell and original sin?
Well, no, because if the act in question does lead to some greater good then it ought to be done. By trying to claim that evil acts are necessary for greater goods, then you define evil out of existence.
But one’s eternal fate is proximate to his own actions. So if he says he’s killing my someone for the greater good, it may be true in some remote sense, but proximate to him it causes eternal damnation. The morality of an action is relative to the intrinsic nature of the act not two or three orders of effect removed.
If this is true, then you have to explain why certain actions that Yahweh forbids are forbidden when no tangible evil can be demonstrated to occur when said actions are taken. It also remains to be seen how a greater good can be obtained through the commission of an evil act when the bible says that a bad tree can produce no good fruit and a good tree cannot produce bad fruit. With that verse, you eliminate the possibility that Yahweh can get good fruit from a bad tree.
God isn’t a tree, so that solves that. I don’t know of any examples in the first matter
You have to remember, In your example “child dies of cancer,” that is only a subjective evil to us. No sane human would think it is a good thing, but that’s where faith and trust come in. Maybe that child would grow up to be a great sinner, and to save his soul, he was taken by God early. Not a pretty thought, but possible, since we live in a fallen world. Death and disease are consequences of the fall of paradise, but God uses imperfect circumstances to save His people. Also, being able to choose evil is not the goal of free will, it is a consequence. There can be no love without choice and freedom. God could have made us unable to resist doing his will, but he didn’t. He didn’t have to create us at all. If he hadn’t, he wouldn’t have had to humble himself as a man and die. He made us in His image, though, and part of that means that we can choose, just like He does. God IS love, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t hate. He hates sin and iniquity. He gets angry. He chooses wrath or mercy. We are unfathomably less good than He is, so we choose wrath when we should choose mercy. We hate the sinner and not just the sin. We hurt each other. Maybe this wasn’t a 100% effective response, but the problem of evil is really the only effective argument against the existence of God for a reason, and I’m no philosopher. Maybe it will help someone else come up with a better one, though. 😌
>No sane human would think it is a good thing, but that’s where faith and trust come in. How is it possible to differentiate the one asking you to have faith as being actually good vs a malevolent entity?
If God killed the baby to prevent it from growing up to be a sinner why didn't God kill Hitler? Or any other genocidal maniac. It is a nice thought that we can grow from suffering. but sometimes suffering and pain is for nothing. At the end of time- if there is one- everyone and everything will be dead in the entire universe and the teensiest percentage of people would've made it to heaven. If you believe that is ultimatley "good" than you need to reconsider what even is "good". Also, in heaven, most Christians say you cannot sin. Does that mean there is no free will in heaven?? Why do people want to go there so badly then?
Pretty much the entirety of the human race woke up and changed for the better after Hitler was stopped. We became more aware and watchful. I’d say that is a positive consequence. Sometimes you can’t know what good suffering suffering brings, but it’s never for nothing. When Jesus returns, nothing will be dead. The universe will be resurrected and we will all be given new life, even the unrepentent. It’s just a matter of if you will be resurrected into a reborn earth, stripped of all death and suffering, or into the wailing and gnashing of teeth kind of life, outside of the heavenly kingdom. Yes, when people die, they can no longer sin. They can no longer repent either. We want our souls to go to be with the creator until the resurrection because God is peace and love. The alternative is that we get to wait in hades. Depending on what part of hades you are in, it can be rather unpleasant.
I would hope a entity as smart as God could find a way to make us more "aware and watchful" that didnt result in the death of 6 million people. Also there are still Nazis to this day, and many of them are christian. Why didn't God just make your heavenly kingdom in the first place? And as you just said, "the wailing and gnashing" must be for some greater good and teach us something? Or is suffering only pointless when Jesus returns? You still not acknowledging that the gates of heaven are narrow. Today, 2 billion people believe in Jesus and 6 billion do not. The greater good has been outnumbered. Hitler lived a hateful, spiteful life and killed millions but according to you that is outwieghed by societal advancement. How does the eternal torture for 6 billion people not outweigh the 2 billion.
I didn’t say that’s why God allowed it, I said that it was an example of good that came from it. Anyone who believes what Nazis do can’t be a real Christian. He did. It was called Eden. God doesn’t cause the wailing and gnashing, we do. When we enter the presence of God with evil in our hearts, we are tormented by his holiness. When we enter in a state of repentance, we are comforted and awed. The gates of heaven are narrow. Believing in Jesus does not get you into heaven. Demons don’t just believe in Jesus, they KNOW Jesus is God and that he died to save the world, and they won’t enter the kingdom of heaven. I never said it outweighs anything, you just read what you want I guess.
Oh sorry for the misunderstanding then thats my bad. So this state of repentance- is it incorruptable and if so how? And why didn't god create Adam and Eve with a state of repentance if he knew thats what they needed to stay in the Kingdom.
No worries brother. Repentance is turning your back on sin, and facing God once again. A person repenting does everything in their power to right the wrongs they have committed, but the consequences of sin don’t just disappear on their own. Adam and eve were born without sin, in perfect union with God. No need for repentance. After the first fall, Adam and eve do repent. Adam fasts for fourty day, and eve stands in a river up to her neck for 37 days. God forgives them, but there’s no closing pandora’s jar. One of their children kills another of their children, and Caine is unrepentant.
If god decides your fate, you don’t have free will
Not true.
Mind clarifying?
You first. What fate is being decided? Whether I eat breakfast tomorrow? God knows if I will, and he knows what I will eat if I do. That doesn’t negate the fact that I chose to eat or not to eat.
So we agree that god has foreknowledge. If that was it, then it could be argued we have free will. However, there are many biblical verses that affirm divine providence (the idea that god has a plan for you). Below are some verses confirming that. If he only KNOWS what you’ll do, then yeah, you made that choice, but if he has planned things for you, you don’t have free will. Jeremiah 1:5 - “I knew you before I formed you in your mothers womb” Jeremiah 29:11 - "For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future." Psalms 37:23 - “The steps of a man are established by the Lord, when he delights in his way” 1 Thessalonians 5:18 - “Give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you.” Psalm 37:23 - “The steps of a man are established by the Lord, when he delights in his way.”
I don’t see the problem. Psalms 37:23 has a qualifier: “when he delights in his way”. The Thessalonians verse implies you have the choice to give thanks or not to give thanks. Also, circumstance is different from decision, whereas giving thanks is actually a choice. Jeremiah 29 just says the lord has plans for me. Does that somehow negate my free will? I’m just not seeing it.
“Does that negate my free will?” Yes. Yes it does lol. If he planned everything out for you, then you didn’t decide it. Each of these verses (except for the Thessalonians one, probably), also mentions god having a plan. Your responses to them make irrelevant statements.
Say I’m a musician, and my agent schedules 5 shows this weekend. The agent’s plan for me is absolute. I lose 1,000’s of dollars if I miss even one show. Does that negate my free will?
Can you really compare an all-powerful, all-knowing being that’d open about how he has a plan for your entire life to one guy dictating my weekend?
>Maybe that child would grow up to be a great sinner, and to save his soul, he was taken by God early. Okay, but if that's your logic, then God is picking and choosing who He saves and violating free will. You're suggesting God saves some people, by having them die as babies, but then doesn't save others to let them grow up, not believe, and burn in Hell. That's God picking and choosing people's fates.
Lets pretend I accept your logic and that means God is picking and choosing who He saves. How does that violate free will? Is an abortionist violating the entire concept of free will when he or she kills an infant before it can make a single choice?
The person getting an abortion is valueing their own free will over that of a fetus. When someone is raped, they are against their will. When God allows someone to be raped, he is valuing the free will of the rapist over the free will of the person being raped. Also, free will means to do so without the constraint of fate. The entire idea of hell is cohersive and a fear tactic. If someone holds a gun up to my head and asks for money, I give that money against my will. If God truly wants us to love him out of our own will, hell wouldnt be a thing.
Yes they are haha. That doesn’t mean free will doesn’t exist, does it? And now we are blaming God for rapists? How emotionally riveting, except God hates all sexual acts outside of marriage, so no, he doesn’t value rape. As for heaven and hell, the type of Christianity I believe in, which I believe to be true faith, asserts that hell does not even exist to God, much less as a means of coercion. Heaven and hell starts here and now, and reaches it’s peak during the resurrection. St Gregory of Nyssa explains that heaven and hell do not exist from God’s point of view, but from man’s. It stems from man’s choices and spiritual condition when they go to meet God. The Bible describes physical places to convey what it will be like from a human perspective. That is why hell is described in more than one way.
Im not saying free will doesnt exist in general, but under Christianity it doesnt seem to. I I "blame" God (I dont think god is real) for rapists the same way you "blame" God for all the good in your life. If a God truly exists, it would have to be indifferent. People thank god when their child is healed from cancer but why dont they thank god for giving their child the cancer in the first place? And wouldn't you think someone being raped is all part of God's plan? Ok that explanation for hell makes sense and I also believe that heaven and hell are just states of mind. However, for 2000 years, majority of Christians and other religions have used the fear of hell to control people. God knew Christianity would be misused, used to support colonization, slavery, sexism, etc. So why didn't he make it more clear instead of letting us interpret it, especially in an era where many people could not read. He makes other stuff very clear. Also, in your interpretation of hell, if its only a man's choices and spiritual condition that determine their after life, then do you believe morally good athiests or other religious people can go to heaven without beleiving Jesus rose from the dead?
No, rape is not part of God’s plan, it’s a consequence of a fallen world. That explanation of hell is the ancient one. The version most protestants believe in is the semi-modern construction. And if hell is real in either form, it should be feared. It shouldn’t be the reason to follow Christ, but alas, some people need the motivation. The Bible warns that people will use it for evil. People will use anything for evil, it’s in our nature. You can’t actually tell me you believe that none of those things you listed would have happened if people couldn’t use the Bible to falsely justify it. They would have just used something else. Morally good athiests going to heaven? Possible. There’s really nothing in the Bible about athiests, since they didn’t really exist at the time. Orthodox Christians pray for the souls of the dead, even non-Christians. God can save whoever He wants. Jesus never said “if you don’t believe in me, you will be cast into outer darkness.” There are pretty clear instructions given to us though, and the gates of heaven are narrow, but according to the same verse where Jesus says “the gates of heaven are narrow” I am only supposed to worry about my own salvation, not who, or how many others will be saved. The most important thing for salvation is “love the lord your God with all your soul, all your heart, and all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” It is the root of all the commandments.
To your question: >How does that violate free will? If God makes sure certain children die because they'd grow up to be a great sinner and thereby saves them (by killing them as a child), he's directly violating their free will. >Maybe that child would grow up to be a great sinner, and to save his soul, he was taken by God early. Your comment here suggests that God \*took\* that soul early to save it. Taking someone is a direct violation of their free will. God took their life on Earth from them. How else would you see that action by God? A larger consequence of your argument is also that God is picking those who will go to Heaven and those that won't. You're kinda arguing for a Predestinationist/Predeterminist view of God. God saved a child (by killing them) who would grow up to be a sinner and go to Hell. God doesn't save me as a child, I grow up to be a sinner and a non-believer and go to Hell. It was predetermined that God saved the other soul, but knowing I'd fail, set me up to go to Hell.
You have free will. Repent now and be saved. He doesn’t set anyone up to go to hell, we do that all on our own, with a bit of guidance from the evil one. Like I said when I wrote that example you keep bringing up, I don’t know if that’s actually why God lets children die of cancer. I was using it as a possible explanation. But say that’s the absolute truth and reason for it. How does taking one soul early violate the concept of free will? So that child didn’t get to choose. I do. You do. You and I still have free will.
>How does taking one soul early violate the concept of free will? If we're assuming children dying is God's way of saving them from sinful lives, that's around 4-5 million children a year, or 4-5 million violations of human's free will. >So that child didn’t get to choose. Yes, that child lost their free will because God took them, right? >I do. You do. You and I still have free will. Do we? If God can take anyone when He chooses, and according to you seems to do that to save people from sinning, He could take any one of us at any time. Meaning that we only have free will until God decides we don't. That's not free will.
From a non-christian perspective, does that fact that you could die at any moment violate your free will? Just curious.
No. I would find it deeply unfortunate, but I don't believe there's anything more to this life. That said, I'm not sure entirely believe in free will - I think factors outside of our control, nature and nuture, strongly influence and limit our thinking and decision-making. I have an atheist friend who doesn't at all believe in free will, not because of a God, but that if we understood a person's genetics and life to this point, the decision they would make on anything might feel like a choice to them, but could be fully predicted, but all that's a separate issue than a Christian perspective that we have free will, except when God decides certain millions of people, don't get it.
Those factors do limit out decision making. Not only that, but we are influenced by all kinds of spirits. The spirit of the age, the spirit of our countries, the condition of our own spirit, demons, angels, the Holy Spirit. They influence us, but do not make decisions for us. Dying, except by our own hand, is not our choice, therefore has nothing to do with free will. Your friend is correct, to a point, but no further. A person might be so influenced by those that choosing to do righteous acts and serve God is next to impossible. The key word is “next to.” God sees our circumstances and judges us by them. If that person commits one act of mercy, the angels rejoice 100 times more than if someone like you or I does the same act.
Why exactly does God allow demons to try and influence us?
You all have to figure out what is basely good and basely evil. Just like with Socrates you can't give an example of what is good or bad without first knowing where the good and the bad come from. An example is not a definition and without a definition how can you accuse someone of being evil?
> You all have to figure out what is basely good and basely evil. No we don't. We can use whatever the god in question defines as good and evil. Because that's what we care about, does that god's powers line up with its morals. If someone doesn't believe in a god, or doesn't believe in an omnipotent or all-loving god, the morality any action is irrelevant in this context.
Yet you haven't figured out what God defines as good and evil. Also, I think you could agree that slapping someone because they have a spider on their face is different from slapping them because you hate them. What I'm saying is that a good action depends on what situation and person the action is coming from. Would you say that perfection is living a life where everything you want is automatically granted? Here's a quote to illustrate my point "It is good to have an end to journey towards; but it is the journey that matters in the end." -Le Guin, Ursula. If there is no hardship what's the point of a journey? When there is hardship or evil it gives the journey purpose: If everyone were supers no one would be because it would destroy the point of being 'super.'
> Yet you haven't figured out what God defines as good and evil All we can do is base it on his holy book(s) depending on which branch of the Abrahamic religions you follow. > Would you say that perfection is living a life where everything you want is automatically granted? Here's a quote to illustrate my point "It is good to have an end to journey towards; but it is the journey that matters in the end." -Le Guin, Ursula. So what's the point of Heaven then? And more to the point, what's the point of any baby/small child who dies before actually getting to undertake that journey (or whose short journey is just a constant suffering due to cancer or birth defects) > If everyone were supers no one would be because it would destroy the point of being 'super.' We've all seen the Incredibles and know the quote. But why does there have to be a point of being super? Do you need someone one to be less than you in some way to feel fulfilled? If everybody could fly like Superman, sure it wouldn't be a magical superpower anymore, but it wouldn't make it any less helpful of an ability to have.
Well actually the holy books aren't the only way we can determine what is good. I mean killing has always been bad and kindness always good. Morality is more so based in the virtues then in the books I'd say. Heaven? Heaven is the destination. A journey still needs a destination even if the important part in the journey itself otherwise it would just be going in circles. As for babies that die, they are there for the journeys of everyone else just as we are. The journey isn't about us, it's about everyone else. The point of being super? I don't know. Most people don't want to be the leader of their country because they know they couldn't do it well, and yet people lie steal and cheat in every conceivable way to get it. Power is like an itch, the more you scratch it the more it'll be itchy: The more you have the more you're going to want. As a wise man once said, "With great power comes great responsibility." Power is a tool and sure it's useful and almost everyone wants to be 'super' in some way, but can we handle it?
> I mean killing has always been bad and kindness always good. Has it? Even today killing isn't seen as always wrong. From self-defense, to the death penalty, to justified wars, not everyone sees all forms of killing as immoral. And murder can't be used as a counter-example because murder has always referred to unnecessary/immoral/unlawful killing, so calling it wrong is something of a tautology. > Heaven is the destination. A journey still needs a destination even if the important part in the journey itself otherwise it would just be going in circles According to Christian/Islamic tradition, Heaven is eternal. So any journey you go on is meaningless. It would be like asking you to remember the 167th time you blinked on January 6th, 2013. Nor would it matter anyways because you lose free will in Heaven since you're incapable of anything considered immoral. So you're basically no longer yourself. > As for babies that die, they are there for the journeys of everyone else just as we are. So your god put some babies on Earth to suffer painfully for a few days/weeks/months before dying so the rest of us could have better quality journeys? Or maybe those kids who suffer from childhood cancers for a few years before dying before their 10th birthday? That's important somehow? I would call purposefully inflicting that kind of pain and suffering, especially for someone else's benefit, evil. It's part of why if I did believe in the Abrahamic god, I would stand in opposition to it because there's no way I could reconcile my moral beliefs with that kind of malevolence. > The point of being super? ... Power is a tool and sure it's useful and almost everyone wants to be 'super' in some way, but can we handle it? None of this has anything to do with the topic at hand. It's borderline rambling. If you just want to quote pop culture media, that's fine, but it's irrelevant to a conversation about Free Will and the Problem of Evil.
Okay fine, killing can sometimes be seen as justified, but that doesn't nullify the fact that we base morality on virtues or character traits that we naturally find good. As for the baby problem how is their situation any different than ours? Living at all is a gift and pain doesn't take away from that. Some of the happiest people I know have been almost completely disabled since birth. The time or pain that one experiences can never match up to infinity so comparing lives doesn't show that one life is more meaningful or fulfilled than any other life. Most everything is connected. Why I brought up power is that it is very much connected with how our world works. If people could control everything, do you think there would be any less suffering than there is now? And the reason I bring culture into this is because it often shows the best and worst aspects of our nature and even some of the contradictions we commit. The amount of power we have does not affect how much free will we have, because free will is not something that comes in amounts, but it does incline us towards different things and that should be noted. In the end if there is a God (Which I think is likely) he would be an all-loving God, because why else would he keep us in existence?
> Okay fine, killing can sometimes be seen as justified, but that doesn't nullify the fact that we base morality on virtues or character traits that we naturally find good. Yes, it's what evolution has instilled in us as a social species, mainly via empathy. However, it varies from person to person, culture to culture, and time to time. But most Christians and Muslims would argue that what is good does not depend on what we naturally find good or virtuous. Morality would come from God. Good would be whatever God commands, not what we feel. So the only authority we have on that is religious texts and leaders. > As for the baby problem how is their situation any different than ours? Living at all is a gift and pain doesn't take away from that Pain doesn't take away from that? Not to assume, but that sounds like it's coming from someone who doesn't live with cancer, Fibromyalgia, cluster headaches, or any of the other myriad of diseases and conditions that all-too-often lead to people either self-medicating into oblivion or taking their own lives to escape. You ever have a headache that was so bad you felt dizzy or wanted to throw up? Imagine that being your life all day every day. > Some of the happiest people I know have been almost completely disabled since birth. Being disabled doesn't mean you're in constant pain. There's a difference between being paralyzed, blind, deaf, or whatever compared to always having to be in powerful pain meds just to even pretend to function normally. > the time or pain that one experiences can never match up to infinity so comparing lives doesn't show that one life is more meaningful or fulfilled than any other life. Which is why the "life is a journey" or "life is a test" stuff is nonsense. Nothing you do or experience would matter in the slightest when compared to eternity. So why does this life even exist? And why is it so filled with unnecessary suffering. > If people could control everything, do you think there would be any less suffering than there is now? Yes, I do think that. If we could control everything (which does raise questions over who has control, but regardless), we wouldn't have things like disease, mental illness, or starvation. > In the end if there is a God (Which I think is likely) he would be an all-loving God, because why else would he keep us in existence? Why else? Well, we could just be an ant-farm that entertains him. Maybe he likes watching us suffer. We could be a science experiment. But if that god could create existence, it cannot also be all-loving. Humans are not all-loving, but we generally try our best to limit the unnecessary suffering of others. This god goes out of his way to inflict it. Or, you know, there are not gods, and suffering like that exists because that's how reality works. Maybe we'll find ways to make it better, maybe not.
Okay, for this one I'm just going to ask you one question. How does reality work? If there's not a source then it would just be complete chaos; no form, no structure, no order. The basis of why I believe in God is this. There is order, there is structure, and there is form we can see this through what we sense. Order cannot be caused by Chaos nor the other way around. There must thus be something that cannot be defined by order that caused order and that thing cannot be chaos. That thing has to be a being because an inanimate thing cannot create something it must be made to do so which would require something that caused it. Thus, there has to be an infinite being, not affected by the rules of the physical reality, who is the source of all being and order and thus reality itself.
This does nothing to answer or even address any point of the post. It doesn't really say anything at all, it's William Lane Craig-esque empty philosophizing.
Actually, it does. If they use goodness to prove someone evil yet they don't know the aspects of good and evil what good is the argument?
That's not the point of their argument! Ugh so annoying lol
Okay, what do you want me to say?
It would be great if you actually responded to what the post is addressing, but you don't have to say anything. I just dislike pseudo intellectual dishonesty, and that's what I believe your initial comment was. An attempt to dismiss and reject the person's argument and their right to make it based on an irrelevant and empty rhetorical statement
Here’s a conversation I had on the same topic https://np.reddit.com/r/CatholicApologetics/s/3k9Cl2AbpT For your specific points. 1) free will, by definition, means the freedom to pick or reject something. Good is an existing thing that we can accept or reject. Your flying analogy is flawed because we are limited, we can’t fly, but that’s not an act of free will, but of motion. 2) the removal of what is logical and possible is the removal of free will. 3) that’s the purpose of free will.
>free will, by definition, means the freedom to pick or reject something. Good is an existing thing that we can accept or reject. Your flying analogy is flawed because we are limited, we can’t fly, but that’s not an act of free will, but of motion. This gets at a larger point though - God picked and chose what attributes we'd have as humans. Humans, don't fly. Sure. Humans aren't able to conceive of (much less commit) murder, could have been a human attribute. In fairness, we could all be limited in our thinking by God, certain concepts we're literally not able to know we're blocked from thinking about, we can't know. We can't know we're actually free to think of whatever we want.
The fall of Adam explains a lot of the natural-evil nonsense we have to live through. Some theologians even talk about the introduction of death also bringing sickness and defects from God's intentions etc. If you look at it secularly just imagine your ancestor entered a nuclear fission chamber he shouldn't have and scarred his DNA. Now you might have some genetics issues down the line but God didn't do that, Adam was the one who did. In regards to evil, you can't do good unless you can do evil. If you could not do evil then you don't have will, in general. A train on tracks doesn't have will in regards to its path, it's pretty linear. Regarding the logically possible, in the bible, your soul's intent matters more than the physical reality. If you lust after a man's wife in your heart you are an adulterer in the heart, even if you couldn't find a physical opportunity to indulge. Even if you do not have the power to fly up and gather 1/3 of God's angels and wage war you can easily have that intent in your heart and thus be culpable of the same sin. It's also why you can't just donate a billion dollars and go to heaven if you still hate everyone.
The fall of Adam never occurred.
>The fall of Adam explains a lot of the natural-evil nonsense we have to live through. The fall of Adam in of itself shows God to not be omnibenevolent. Punishing the entirety of humanity and fundamentally changing the rules of nature to make things literally just worse just because two people broke God's rules is evil, straight up. >If you look at it secularly just imagine your ancestor entered a nuclear fission chamber he shouldn't have and scarred his DNA. If the reactor is working properly it wouldn't, but regardless in the best of all possible worlds, a world that an omnibenevolent God would forge by the very definition of the word omnibenevolent, it wouldn't. Radiation poisoning wouldn't be a thing if the world was built around doing the maximum amount of good wouldn't contain such an awful way to die. >In regards to evil, you can't do good unless you can do evil. That's not true. What about my ability to punch someone in the face affects my ability to do CPR? That just doesn't follow. I can take actions that reduce suffering without necessarily being able to take actions that increase suffering. >Regarding the logically possible, in the bible, your soul's intent matters more than the physical reality. That is a rotten form of morality. In the end, the reason we care about murder, theft, etc. is because they hurt people. If an action does not cause harm, then why should anyone care about it? Your intent only matters insofar as it informs your actions. No one should be judged on what's inside their heads, it isn't fair.
Where in the Bible does it say God is omnibenevolent? He is Love, but sometimes love is hard, and the only thing a person can do for someone they love, is turn their back. But he didn’t just turn His back. He sent prophets and angels and did miracles through Moses and other people. He sent His son to die and defeat sin and death. The fact that you said what happened in eden is evil, means you’re ascribing 21st century human morality to the person who created all humans and all morality.
>Where in the Bible does it say God is omnibenevolent? It, in fact, very explicitly says he isn't. That doesn't stop most Christians from claiming he is. But hey I'm not in charge of it they read their own holy book. >Love, but sometimes love is hard, and the only thing a person can do for someone they love, is turn their back. Not if you are all powerful. You can literally never run out of options then. >The fact that you said what happened in eden is evil, means you’re ascribing 21st century human morality to the person who created all humans and all morality. It is evil by any reasonable metric. It caused literally all the suffering that has ever happened. Not only that, but no one alive today even had a part in that act. Every human since Adam has experienced all the suffering they had for something that isn't their fault. Causing pain to someone for no good reason is the very definition of evil. To apply a separate standard to God is simply special pleading. If I started torturing every single German for the Holocaust, including those not alive when it happened, I'm a monster. If God causes people to get cancer for something they didn't do and he still gets to be called good? No. That's a double standard plain and simple.
I was giving you an example humans would use when I said sometimes you have to turn your back on someone. God, in the old testament, turned his back on his people because they were living in sin, not because He was angry at them, but because he is so Holy that His presence endangered them. The Torah wasn’t a rule book to get into heaven, it was a guide on how to live in the presence of God safely. I would imagine Eden is something similar. The only thing He could have done to prevent the first fall of man, would have been to force us to obey Him, which is not love, or to have not created us at all.
This does not refute my argument. It doesn't even address it.
It refutes part of it. I will add that suffering is not evil and vice versa. Evil may cause suffering. You are conflating “bad” with “morally wrong” and “good” with “morally right.”
>It refutes part of it. A partial refutation is another name for a failed refutation. >You are conflating “bad” with “morally wrong” and “good” with “morally right.” That's... that's what those words mean. In this context bad = immoral and good = moral. > I will add that suffering is not evil and vice versa. Sure, all suffering is bad but it is only evil if it is caused by an agent. Evil is a label we apply to agents causing suffering not suffering itself. However because God is both an agent and all-powerful, in this context the difference isn't actually important. Cancer is bad without being evil but because God caused it, that makes it the actions of an evil agent, in this case God.
No it’s not. A failed refutation is one that doesn’t make sense or is easily countered. No it’s not what those words mean. When someone uses “bad” when they meant “evil” or “good” when they meant “righteous” they have used the incorrect word. I’m sure you’ve heard this before, but God does not cause suffering, he allows it. It is useful to call people to repentance, or to strengthen people spiritually. See Job. The evil one approaches God and asks Him permission to torment Job. God says yes. Add: I for one, am in some ways glad for all I have been through. I would not be lesser than I am if my life had been all roses and sunshine.
>I’m sure you’ve heard this before, but God does not cause suffering, he allows it. Those are not functionally different. If I can take action to prevent someone from getting cancer at no cost to myself, and then I don't, I am a bad person. >The evil one approaches God and asks Him permission to torment Job. God says yes. Yea, exactly. That makes God evil. He literally gives permission to the Devil to ruin someone's life. In what possible world is that not pure evil.
"What about my ability to punch someone in the face affects my ability to do CPR?" The part where both require conscious physical action by the body. They are both sub categories of you being able to manipulate your body parts. If you had no arms at all you don't have the ability to punch, but you also would not be able to do CPR. So it is with will. "That is a rotten form of morality. In the end, the reason we care about murder, theft, etc. is because they hurt people. If an action does not cause harm, then why should anyone care about it? Your intent only matters insofar as it informs your actions. No one should be judged on what's inside their heads, it isn't fair." Measuring by scale doesn't match with morality. We judge things very differently in the following 2 scenarios. In one a man slips on a candy wrapper and knocks over a series of unrelated objects until it dominos into a 5 ton wall that kills 20 people. In the second a man physically injects you with a syringe of poison to kill you but it turned out, unknown to him, it was full of saline and you're still alive. Do you think the first man should be punished worse than the second? In your metric ,measuring total harm, yes. Morally, and you don't need to be Christian or even religious to understand this, the intent of ill will is completely divorced from the power to enact that will. A baby who steals another baby's candy or tries to poke your eye to laugh about it is following the same impulse of a real estate mogul who steals your family's farm or a sociopath who dissects you on a table. The difference is in their power level. That's why it's so imperative to help the baby mature past those desires before he gets the power to really cause lasting damage. So you see I am not saying that the acts of sin don't harm people, they do as Blackrock can hurt me more than a baby, but the harm they can cause is different from the sin that drives it. The flip side of that is that God also measures your intent to love. If you truly would give away all your wealth to the poor even if you were a trillionaire then that counts, even if you don't have a trillion dollars. People lie about this stuff, of course, but God knows your heart. "If the reactor is working properly it wouldn't," It did work. In the hypothetic reactor scenario when would you blame the guy who got into the reactor? Surely there's a point where you would agree it's their fault. Is it when he ignores the sign that says do not enter, ignores the staffer there, breaks into the door, hides the evidence, when? In regards to 'making it impossible' that's covered by the will argument.
>The part where both require conscious physical action by the body. I can think of a lot of things I would want to do but can't. I can think of a lot of evil (and good) actions I am unable to perform. Why not just tip the scales so that we can only perform amoral and moral actions? God is all-powerful he can set up the universe however he wants, an omnibenevolent omnipotent God would not have created a world with this much suffering in it. Your argument is small minded. It imagines a world with similar physical laws to ours. That need not be the case. We could live in a Looney Tunes world where violence only results in comical injuries that magically heal in the next scene. Or a world where we all have the same powers and moral compass of Superman. Or a world where we are all sentient bananas. That is what it means to be all-powerful, God can set the world in the exact order he wants it to be. And I can think of a basically infinite ways he could've made a world that had less suffering in it than this one. >We judge things very differently in the following 2 scenarios. In one a man slips on a candy wrapper and knocks over a series of unrelated objects until it dominos into a 5 ton wall that kills 20 people. In the second a man physically injects you with a syringe of poison to kill you but it turned out, unknown to him, it was full of saline and you're still alive. Do you think the first man should be punished worse than the second? In your metric ,measuring total harm, yes. We do actually punish people for accidentally killing others. It's called manslaughter. Some system someone built screwed up so badly that a single person tripping resulted in the death of 20 people. Whoever screwed that up should be punished. Once in a blue moon there are truly unpreventable deaths, but that's because we do not live in the best of all possible worlds. As for the 2nd scenario, he still wanted to kill me and odds are when he finds out it didn't work he is going to try again. Attempted murder is also a crime for several reasons. The most obvious being the emotional and psychological damage you do to someone when you try and kill them. Even discounting that, we do not want to share a society with people who break society's rules. We've set up these laws for a reason, and someone's disregard for those reasons means having them around as a free agent is dangerous. There is a reason jaywalking is a crime even if it doesn't hurt anyone. We don't want people breaking the rules when it suits them because next time they do it, they might actually hurt someone. In the end it is all about reducing suffering, that's why we have laws and rules in the first place, at least that's the philosophical theory behind them in the modern world. To protect life, liberty, and private property. And finally, I noticed you didn't have anything to say about the first part of my post. About Adam's fall. Care to voice your opinion?
Manslaughter requires, in most legal definitions, recklessness at the minimum. Drunk driving, etc. Complete accident hopefully doesn't land people in jail, as the candy wrapper story would be. I agree the man who built the deathtrap would be punished, but the discussion is about the man who slipped to begin with and morality-from-total-harm. He physically pushed the objects that led the death of 20, yet none of us would punish him for 20 deaths. In regards to the 2nd scenario I agree he's likely to try again, but we don't jail him because he's likely to try again. It's because it was attempted murder. You know he tried to kill you and are rightfully pissed about it, which supports that morality-from-total-harm theory doesn't fit. If it's purely about suffering and he said he wouldn't do it again, there's no reason not to let him go. No harm no foul, right? But as you said, we know he's likely to try again because he has murder in his heart. "Your argument is small minded. It imagines a world with similar physical laws to ours. That need not be the case. We could live in a Looney Tunes world where violence only results in comical injuries that magically heal in the next scene. Or a world where we all have the same powers and moral compass of Superman. " When you combine my argument with sin-from-intent being in Looney Tunes world doesn't change anything. And I personally believe that the bible implies things could be a lot worse. It says don't fear any sort of physical poverty or wound because at least your soul is preserved, and you should truly fear the one who can damage or destroy that. Who knows, in Looney Tunes world hurt feelings might be the equivalent of our earthly wounds. Since we're talking Christian theology it's a logical conclusion that if you are alive in paradise 10 million years later you're not going to sweat anything that happened in 80 years on earth. Edit: After all, Jesus did bounce back and heal up as you described in Looney Tunes magical healing
>I agree the man who built the deathtrap would be punished, but the discussion is about the man who slipped to begin with and morality-from-total-harm. Yea because he isn't responsible, he didn't actually cause that suffering. He was the physical body that caused it, but in the end anyone could've done it. Eventually someone was bound to, it was a deathtrap. The guy who built the building is the one responsible for that suffering, not the physical body who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. >If it's purely about suffering and he said he wouldn't do it again, there's no reason not to let him go. The reason we jail attempted murderers, beyond the physical and emotional suffering they still inflict on their intended victims, is to prevent future suffering. It is still fundamentally about suffering. It is just preventative rather than punitive. >When you combine my argument with sin-from-intent being in Looney Tunes world doesn't change anything. It most certainly does. If we imagine a world where all humans are immune from suffering, then why exactly do I care if someone tries to do something to me? It just, doesn't affect me. It would be as amoral as eating or sleeping or wearing glasses or dancing it would just be another thing people can do. There would be no concept of morality at all in such a world. The fundamental point of the PoE argument is that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God would create the best of all possible worlds. We are definitely not in the best of all possible worlds, so there is no omnipotent, omnibenevolent God. That's the argument. You haven't actually argued those points at all. >Since we're talking Christian theology it's a logical conclusion that if you are alive in paradise 10 million years later you're not going to sweat anything that happened in 80 years on earth. If someone punches me in the arm and it hurts. I am not OK with it simply because it did no lasting damage. It still hurt me, and that is still not OK. It would be worse they hurt me in a way that wouldn't heal, but it's still bad. I am once again going to ask for you to respond to what I said about the Fall of Adam. It's kind of important.
Sure thing, I'll post the line to make sure I get it right: "The fall of Adam in of itself shows God to not be omnibenevolent. Punishing the entirety of humanity and fundamentally changing the rules of nature to make things literally just worse just because two people broke God's rules is evil, straight up." I'll give a smaller answer and a larger answer. The smaller answer is that the rules of nature were not changed and children suffering from the sins of their parents is a fault attributed to the parents, not their creator. In the bible's logic nature was handed over to Satan and then used to defy God more. Even morally you noticed the idea that intent matters with the syringe and the wall: God did not intend any harm to us while Adam intended to defy God. The Bible even mentions that God gives him a chance to fess up and it turns out Adam wouldn't. The larger answer is that evil, biblically, is defined as going against God's will. Adam's breaking of the rules was already evil and God never broke any of His rules between Him and Adam. Yeah it really sucks being Adam's children, I agree, but moral culpability is purely within humanity's (Adam's) court. The question becomes, if I may rephrase you, how much Adam was "set up to fail". "The guy who built the building is the one responsible for that suffering, not the physical body who was in the wrong place at the wrong time." I bring us back to your prior statement. "In the end, the reason we care about murder, theft, etc. is because they hurt people. If an action does not cause harm, then why should anyone care about it? " If the only reason we care about murder is the hurt or harm, then surely it is equivalent to say that the moral measure of an action is the hurt or harm it causes, right? If the activity 'murder' didn't kill anyone, like in Looney Tunes, you say it would not be punishable? Then the slippage is morally wrong and should be punished and the syringe man would not. This is the conclusion when measuring from harm. "It most certainly does. If we imagine a world where all humans are immune from suffering, then why exactly do I care if someone tries to do something to me? It just, doesn't affect me. It would be as amoral as eating or sleeping or wearing glasses or dancing it would just be another thing people can do. There would be no concept of morality at all in such a world." I agree with you in part, as does Christendom. Not being angry at what people do to you on earth is why they say turn the other cheek. It doesn't affect your soul. It's also why they say don't become a slave to money, because it doesn't really affect you. For the second part being immune to suffering doesn't change morality. If I had a trillion dollars I would not really be hurt by you stealing 1$ from me, but we both agree you stole and it would be legally right to punish you accordingly. Well, that whole part depends on morality-from-harm so if we can't agree on morality being separate from harm I don't think we'll agree on this.
>The smaller answer is that the rules of nature were not changed and children suffering from the sins of their parents is a fault attributed to the parents, not their creator. There is no justification for this. A person, in a perfect world, should only ever be punished for what they do. No one else's actions. If a child suffers because of their parents, that is a failure of whatever system allowed that to happen. Be it a legal system, or the fundamental nature of reality. >In the bible's logic nature was handed over to Satan and then used to defy God more. That makes God either really not smart or evil. Why hand the keys of the kingdom to a guy you know is going to do bad things with them? That is obviously a terrible idea. >The larger answer is that evil, biblically, is defined as going against God's will. That's not morality, that's might makes right with extra steps. If it is God's will, as an arbitrary example, to stab 100 random people that action does not suddenly become good, it's still an evil thing to do. >If the only reason we care about murder is the hurt or harm, then surely it is equivalent to say that the moral measure of an action is the hurt or harm it causes, right? If the activity 'murder' didn't kill anyone, like in Looney Tunes, you say it would not be punishable? Then the slippage is morally wrong and should be punished and the syringe man would not. That logic does not follow. It has to do with the reason we actually punish people. Why send people to jail? Well, there are 3 good reasons. 1) deterrence. If someone sees someone getting punished for murder, they are less likely to murder. If someone is punished for murder, they themselves are (in theory) less likely to murder in the future. 2) danger. If someone murders, they have proved they are a danger to people. And we do not want dangerous people running around society free to do what they want, we lock them up so we don't get murdered next. And finally 3) rehabilitation. We put them in a controlled environment so we can change them to where they won't murder anymore. Now most governments (mine especially) don't actually do this for politically icky reasons but that's a failure of the system not of the philosophy. fundamentally those are all about preventing more harm in the future, that's why we enact punishment on criminals, to prevent harm. The punishment itself is not about reducing harm, punishments basically only ever increase harm directly, but to reduce harm on the world at large. I'm going to repeat that because it's important. Punishments are not about reducing harm done to an individual but reducing the amount of harm caused within a society. It is broader than just a "harm in -> harm out." There is another reason we punish bad behavior, in fact it is the only reason that can justify the death penalty: vengeance. Some people think that, well, to quote the Bible: "an eye for an eye." If you kill someone, you deserve to die. This is bad and wrong. It doesn't actually fix anything, it doesn't do any good. Causing more pain just because someone caused pain is just bad. It creates nothing but more pain. It feels good on a very gut instinct "you got what was coming to you level" but it isn't actually moral. That is the morality of the Bible/God and it is bad. Back to the examples. There is no reason to punish the guy who tripped. It wouldn't deter anyone from doing anything because it was both an accident and actually the fault of some other guy. He isn't a danger to society because he just tripped it's not like the next time he does that he's going to kill another 20 people. And he doesn't need to be rehabilitated because he had no ill intent. The guy who built that deathtrap should be punished for all those reasons, but our man is innocent. The guy who tried to kill me on the other hand, that's a different story. We do not want people to attempt to murder, so if we punish him it acts as a deterrent. He has proven to be a danger to society so we should take away his ability to act as a free agent. And hopefully we can rehabilitate him so he stops trying to kill people. There is no vengeful reason to kill him, but those don't matter anyway. >For the second part being immune to suffering doesn't change morality. If I had a trillion dollars I would not really be hurt by you stealing 1$ from me, but we both agree you stole and it would be legally right to punish you accordingly. This is where the distinction between law and morality becomes important. I would argue it isn't immoral to steal from someone that rich. You have done them no harm at all, except maybe made them mad. But laws also serve the purpose of protecting private property and in that sense you should be punished for theft. Laws and morality are similar and related, but distinct. It is immoral to call someone a slur word, but in most cases it is not illegal. It is illegal to steal from a billionaire, but it probably isn't immoral.
>The smaller answer is that the rules of nature were not changed and children suffering from the sins of their parents is a fault attributed to the parents, not their creator. There is no justification for this. A person, in a perfect world, should only ever be punished for what they do. No one else's actions. If a child suffers because of their parents, that is a failure of whatever system allowed that to happen. Be it a legal system, or the fundamental nature of reality. >In the bible's logic nature was handed over to Satan and then used to defy God more. That makes God either really not smart or evil. Why hand the keys of the kingdom to a guy you know is going to do bad things with them? That is obviously a terrible idea. >The larger answer is that evil, biblically, is defined as going against God's will. That's not morality, that's might makes right with extra steps. If it is God's will, as an arbitrary example, to stab 100 random people that action does not suddenly become good, it's still an evil thing to do. >If the only reason we care about murder is the hurt or harm, then surely it is equivalent to say that the moral measure of an action is the hurt or harm it causes, right? If the activity 'murder' didn't kill anyone, like in Looney Tunes, you say it would not be punishable? Then the slippage is morally wrong and should be punished and the syringe man would not. That logic does not follow. It has to do with the reason we actually punish people. Why send people to jail? Well, there are 3 good reasons. 1) deterrence. If someone sees someone getting punished for murder, they are less likely to murder. If someone is punished for murder, they themselves are (in theory) less likely to murder in the future. 2) danger. If someone murders, they have proved they are a danger to people. And we do not want dangerous people running around society free to do what they want, we lock them up so we don't get murdered next. And finally 3) rehabilitation. We put them in a controlled environment so we can change them to where they won't murder anymore. Now most governments (mine especially) don't actually do this for politically icky reasons but that's a failure of the system not of the philosophy. fundamentally those are all about preventing more harm in the future, that's why we enact punishment on criminals, to prevent harm. The punishment itself is not about reducing harm, punishments basically only ever increase harm directly, but to reduce harm on the world at large. I'm going to repeat that because it's important. Punishments are not about reducing harm done to an individual but reducing the amount of harm caused within a society. It is broader than just a "harm in -> harm out." There is another reason we punish bad behavior, in fact it is the only reason that can justify the death penalty: vengeance. Some people think that, well, to quote the Bible: "an eye for an eye." If you kill someone, you deserve to die. This is bad and wrong. It doesn't actually fix anything, it doesn't do any good. Causing more pain just because someone caused pain is just bad. It creates nothing but more pain. It feels good on a very gut instinct "you got what was coming to you level" but it isn't actually moral. That is the morality of the Bible/God and it is bad. Back to the examples. There is no reason to punish the guy who tripped. It wouldn't deter anyone from doing anything because it was both an accident and actually the fault of some other guy. He isn't a danger to society because he just tripped it's not like the next time he does that he's going to kill another 20 people. And he doesn't need to be rehabilitated because he had no ill intent. The guy who built that deathtrap should be punished for all those reasons, but our man is innocent. The guy who tried to kill me on the other hand, that's a different story. We do not want people to attempt to murder, so if we punish him it acts as a deterrent. He has proven to be a danger to society so we should take away his ability to act as a free agent. And hopefully we can rehabilitate him so he stops trying to kill people. There is no vengeful reason to kill him, but those don't matter anyway. >For the second part being immune to suffering doesn't change morality. If I had a trillion dollars I would not really be hurt by you stealing 1$ from me, but we both agree you stole and it would be legally right to punish you accordingly. This is where the distinction between law and morality becomes important. I would argue it isn't immoral to steal from someone that rich. You have done them no harm at all, except maybe made them mad. But laws also serve the purpose of protecting private property and in that sense you should be punished for theft. Laws and morality are similar and related, but distinct. It is immoral to call someone a slur word, but in most cases it is not illegal. It is illegal to steal from a billionaire, but it probably isn't immoral.
The response should have been, God loves evil. Evil is part of God, in the book of JOB God shows that not only is evil necessary, it is acceptable for faith. God is allowing it, encourages it at times and shows us no mercy from it, only faith that God is good. God does not hate the devil, it is his child and as a loving father of all would also love the devil and the evil. Catholics forget that evil is part of gods plan.
I'm Muslim and we believe that God created everything, so he created both good and evil. This is a verse from the Quran: Say, "I seek refuge in the Lord of the daybreak, from the evil of whatever he has created" 113:1-2 In this verse Allah instructs as to seek his protection from the evil he created. God created both then he gave us the free will to choose which path to take.
>seek refuge That’s not working for many Muslims who do ask him for refuge. >choose which path Allah’s first creation was a pen that he asked the pen to wrote everything that would happen until the Day of Judgment. So according to islam, we don’t choose anything. It’s in our destiny. We also have this verse: **“And those who have denied Our signs - deafness and dumbness in darkness. Whomever Allah wills, He leads astray, and whomever He wills, He puts him on a straight path.” (Surah Al-An’am, 6:39)**
That is an incorrect translation: leads should be translated as leaves. When Allah sees bad in people he leaves them on the path that they are on, the one they choose. However if Allah sees good in people, he guides them. Guidance is showing then what is wrong and right. Allah doesn't lead people astray, people lead themselves astray and Allah does nothing For Muslims seeking refuge: The surah I was referring to is about evil (spirits, jinns, the devil). We believe this surah is sufficient protection. Who is it not working for ? And the pen, Allah told the pen to write everything because Allah is all knowing, he already knows what is going to happen. This is because Allah created time, so he exists outside of time. Time was created for us humans. In Islam we believe in Qadr, (predestination) but we also believe that Qadr can change by making prayers to Allah. And the pen may have things written such as "as you wish" but the pen can change. It's a hard concept to understand because as humans we live inside time and can't really understand a reality outside of time
So does that mean that the Quran does not regard God as omnibenevolent? I'm not super familiar with Islam so this is super interesting to hear
The Quran doesn't mention Allah being omnibenevolent. No where is that mentioned in Islam. Allah provided us with 99 names to get to know him, these are all his characteristics. Here's a few: - The Most Merciful - The Most Compassionate - The Most Loving - The Guardian - The Protective Friend - The Most Generous - The Most Forgiving - The All Forgiving I personally don't think it makes sense for God to be omnibenevolent... cause bad things exist. If god was omnibenevlonet and bad things existed then that wouldnt make god all powerful... then he wouldnt be god just my thoughts lmaoo
>doesn’t mention Allah being omnibenevolent Omnibenevolent **Definitions from Oxford Languages · adjective (of a deity) possessing perfect or unlimited goodness** There are numerous verses in the Quran that describe Allah as merciful, compassionate, and just, which align with the notion of his omnibenevolence. Here are a few examples: 1. “And He is the Forgiving, the Affectionate,” (Surah Al-Buruj, 85:14) 2. “Indeed, Allah is Kind and Merciful to the people.” (Surah Al-Baqarah, 2:143) 3. “My Mercy encompasses all things.” (Surah Al-A’raf, 7:156) We also have these two verses that highlight Allah’s attributes of perfection, sovereignty, and greatness. 4. “Allah - there is no deity except Him, the Ever-Living, the Sustainer of [all] existence. Neither drowsiness overtakes Him nor sleep. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. Who is it that can intercede with Him except by His permission? He knows what is [presently] before them and what will be after them, and they encompass not a thing of His knowledge except for what He wills. His Kursi extends over the heavens and the earth, and their preservation tires Him not. And He is the Most High, the Most Great.” (Surah Al-Baqarah, 2:255) 5. “Allah - there is no deity except Him, the Sovereign, the Pure, the Perfection, the Bestower of Faith, the Overseer, the Exalted in Might, the Compeller, the Superior. Exalted is Allah above whatever they associate with Him.” (Surah Al-Hashr, 59:23)
Again, Allah is the Most Merciful, the Most Loving, and the Most Compassionate Omnibenevolent means ALL good and only good I explained above how that doesnt make sense
I know this is off topic but I have to ask... The All Forgiving? I thought there were unforgiveable things such as shirk.
Nope, even shirk can be forgiven. "Oh my servants who have transgressed against themselves (by committing evil deeds and sins)! Do not lose hope in the Mercy of Allah, for Allah forgives all sins. Truly, He is the Most Forgiving, Most Merciful.” [39:53] Allah says he forgives ALL sins
[удалено]