Problem of Design

[iplaw]

I don't think I asserted that this god made us sinners, in fact, the creation of humanity is best referred to as tabla rasa.  We are capable of both good and evil, it is of our own chosing.

We are a flawed product because he needs someone to worship him, and he wants "true" love instead of an automatic, programmed response.

This is a gargantuan logical step that is not born out of what I posited.  I never asserted that humanity as created was flawed in this sense, simply our choices can either be good or evil.  This must be a pre-conceived notion on your part because I mentioned this nowhere in my response.

That doesn't really sound loving because he is sacrificing humans he created (to whom he has not made himself obvious) because HE wants followers. That's absurd.

What is unloving about giving us the free will to choose our own fate?  Your assertion of a lack of evidence is personal opinion and opens another can of worms appropriate for a different discussion.  I also don't remember making any assertion of him "sacrificing" humanity either, which seems like another logical leap.  You are conflating the ideas of free will and sacrifice.

If it is a relevant question, then let's answer it... what world would you have?

[Court]

If god gives us free will, does not make himself obvious (not even close to obvious enough), and then condemns the majority of humans to an eternal fiery punishment because of disbelief in him, then he is sacrificing us.
If he is all-powerful, could he not make it obvious to his creation that he exists? We would still have the choice to believe in our experience. We would still have the choice not to ask for forgiveness for our sins. We would still have the choice to accept and love him. But there is no choice for the rational, because it is obvious that the holy books in which god is written are ancient myths and fairy tales. So by not making himself known in the relative here and now, god would be (this is still hypothetical, remember) taking away my free will, because he (hypothetically) created my brain, knowing that I would lean toward rational, logical thought and would require more than a two-thousand-year-old book filled with utter nonsense to convince me of his existence.

[Court]

If god gives us free will, does not make himself obvious (not even close to obvious enough), and then condemns the majority of humans to an eternal fiery punishment because of disbelief in him, then he is sacrificing us.
If he is all-powerful, could he not make it obvious to his creation that he exists? We would still have the choice to believe in our experience. We would still have the choice not to ask for forgiveness for our sins. We would still have the choice to accept and love him. But there is no choice for the rational, because it is obvious that the holy books in which god is written are ancient myths and fairy tales. So by not making himself known in the relative here and now, god would be (this is still hypothetical, remember) taking away my free will, because he (hypothetically) created my brain, knowing that I would lean toward rational, logical thought and would require more than a two-thousand-year-old book filled with utter nonsense to convince me of his existence.

[Court]

I'm sorry, I don't know why it wrote that twice.

[Court]

And I'm still not really getting your point. Are you saying that the universe we live in was the only option for a loving god?

[Whitney]

Because there is a lot to respond to here...this reply concerns whether a choice between good and evil is required for free will to exist.

Humans do no possess the ability to fly without resorting to mechanical methods.  It is beyond the scope of our free will for a human to jump from a cliff and choose to remain airborne.  With the way the world is, there are many things humans can't do.  We can't regrow lost limbs, we can't live forever on earth, we can't remain physically young...the list of things humans can't do is very long.  What controls what we can and can't do is related to environmental aspects.  In this way, the ability to choose evil is also the result of environment.  In a different world, one unlike this one, it would be possible for the environmental effects which lead to evil to be simply nonexistent and therefore beyond the scope of free will.  Just like we can't use our free will to, for instance, jump off a cliff and not fall in this other world the choice of evil wouldn't exist as part of our free will.

Free will is essentially the ability to make unrestrained choices between two or more possible actions.  We have the free will to choose to jump off a cliff or not jump off a cliff.  However after we make the choice to jump off the cliff we can't use our free will to choose not to fall.  In a different world, falling after jumping off a cliff could be equated with always choosing good...both would just be brute facts about the way the world is.  It would be human nature to be good just like it is within our nature to breathe.

[Court]

Thank you, laetus. That's exactly what I mean. And even if being "good" inherently did somehow mess up free will, so what? If I was god, I would much rather have my creations happy instead of suffering. I would rather their nature make it impulsory for them to choose goodness and have them happy and safe, even if I felt the love I received from them was a bit superficial.

Let's say you and I lived in that kind of universe. We didn't know what evil is, we never have evil impulses, we don't WANT to lie, cheat, steal, murder. Ever. How would that be a loss? Wouldn't we be incredibly happy? Wouldn't we be incredibly willing to love (truly) the god that made such a wonderful utopia for us? I don't see that as robotic or automatic. Our natures would be different, yes, but it wouldn't be infringing on our free will, because we would readily choose the good things.

[iplaw]

It's difficult to respond to two posters at one time, but I will try and divide this so I answer both questions in a coherent manner.

Laetusatheos

Free will is essentially the ability to make unrestrained choices between two or more possible actions. We have the free will to choose to jump off a cliff or not jump off a cliff. However after we make the choice to jump off the cliff we can't use our free will to choose not to fall. In a different world, falling after jumping off a cliff could be equated with always choosing good...both would just be brute facts about the way the world is. It would be human nature to be good just like it is within our nature to breathe

Okay... but I fail to see how this is not option #2.  If it is simply our nature to be good as a brute fact, whether in the action or the inevitable outcome, then what does good actually mean?  In this world the term good implicitly has no meaning because evil simply does not exist.  There is no reason for a distinction between good and evil because the lack of the ability for humans to do evil is nonexistant.  If we cannot chose evil for whatever reason be it environmental or else, we end up with #2.

In the case you describe above, humans simply choose to be good just as they breath.  If every action leads to good behavior then what value would there be in what we call a virtue?  Love, compassion, kindness, joy, all of these have evil counterparts, the yin to the yang.  Without the dichotomy neither have meaning.  If a universe only consisted of good acts the label "good" would be redundant, the same in a purely evil one.

What makes an act of compassion...well...compassionate as opposed to one that is uncompassionate?  It's in the existential experience of seeing both in action and appreciating above the other.  You can't appreciate compassion until you understand what the alternative is.

Court

Thank you, laetus. That's exactly what I mean. And even if being "good" inherently did somehow mess up free will, so what? If I was god, I would much rather have my creations happy instead of suffering. I would rather their nature make it impulsory for them to choose goodness and have them happy and safe, even if I felt the love I received from them was a bit superficial.

As much as I understand where you are coming from with this and understand that it is personal opinion and conjecture on your part, but simply by stating that you would accept this doesn't make it liveable or viable.  You have to explore the ramifications of that conjecture which you didn't do.  

Here is a good test for your scenario.  I don't know if you are married yet and I don't want to assume, but I can't think of anything more repugnant than a spouse who's love for you was "a bit superficial."  Humans beings typically despise patronization in any form.  I would much rather deal with concomitant pain and joy and experience genuine love with my spouse than a thousand lifetimes that consisted of even mildly superficial experiences.  Though this is also conjecture on my part I am whole heartedly convinced this would be the response of most, if not all, sensible individuals.  It only seems sensible to assume the same would apply to a relationship with a creator if it existed, whom we are supposedly made in the image of.  BTW, I'm not good with the who, whom thing so my apologies if I am wrong.

"The fact is that we have been given one of the greatest privileges as human beings—Our free will. The privilege of self determination. That freedom is a necessary moral component of love. One cannot be credited with love, unless it is also the prerogative of that person not to love. For us to be truly free, there entails the possibility of us rejecting love..." -- Ravi Zacharias

We didn't know what evil is, we never have evil impulses, we don't WANT to lie, cheat, steal, murder. Ever. How would that be a loss? Wouldn't we be incredibly happy? Wouldn't we be incredibly willing to love (truly) the god that made such a wonderful utopia for us?

Again, how would we ever know understand happiness without the ability to experience sadness to compare it with?  What is more important to you, the ability to choose your destiny or the ability to live without evil and pain?  Most would say that a life spent avoiding pain is the life of a coward.  Poets and philosophers since the dawn of time have written as much.

I don't see that as robotic or automatic.

I can't think of a better definition of robotic than what you just described.

[iplaw]

Crap, Court... I forgot to respond to your other post.  I will do that if I have time today.  I'm sorry for not addressing it before I responded to laetusatheos.  Going on a 4 day weekend always puts my brain in neutral.

[Whitney]

In that last post I was essentially attempting to show that such a dichotomy between good and evil does not have to exist in order to appreciate good.  However, apparently I wasn't successful.  It makes sense to me...I just need to think of a way of expressing my thoughts clearly.  It's hard to explain since we live in a world where defining things by their opposites is so common.

[iplaw]

No,  I think you were clear in your attempt and I understand where you were going.  This is always where the intellectual rub in this particular debate exists.  Value and meaning in the terms only exist where the dichotomy exists as well.

[iplaw]

No,  I think you were clear in your attempt and I understand where you were going.  This is always where the intellectual rub in this particular debate exists.  Value and meaning only exist where the dichotomy exists as well.  If evil does not exist how do you know  that what you are doing is good?  If only good exists or is permitted wouldn't the term good be irrelevant?  In essence, you have labeled an empty bottle.

[Court]

In that last post I was essentially attempting to show that such a dichotomy between good and evil does not have to exist in order to appreciate good.  However, apparently I wasn't successful.  It makes sense to me...I just need to think of a way of expressing my thoughts clearly.  It's hard to explain since we live in a world where defining things by their opposites is so common.

I completely agree with you. We are limited by our language here. You can only perceive words by their opposites and connotations evolved over thousands of years. However, just because words make it difficult to describe does not mean it is impossible. If I remember my bible correctly, Adam and Eve were perfectly happy in Eden (without any knowledge of evil) and were perfectly in love with god. Do you think their love was superficial? I think it was a fairy tale, but I think that if that situation were possible, the answer would be no. Another difference is that god was an active participant in their world. They knew, without a doubt, that he existed. Did this take away from their free will? If god had made them innocent and never placed temptation in front of them, would life really be worse than it is now? It's easy for you to say, well, he wanted real and genuine love, but how could he want it at the expense of all the poverty, violence, and starvation of innocents that we have now? If that kind of free will is a gift, I don't want it.


And if people's free will is needed for god to accept their love as genuine, what would happen in heaven? Does he take away your free will then? How can it work, if you say that if we all choose good things because of our make, our love is superficial? Sin cannot happen in heaven, so why bring flawed sinners up there? How is that possible?

[iplaw]

If I remember my bible correctly, Adam and Eve were perfectly happy in Eden (without any knowledge of evil) and were perfectly in love with god. Do you think their love was superficial? I think it was a fairy tale, but I think that if that situation were possible, the answer would be no. Another difference is that god was an active participant in their world. They knew, without a doubt, that he existed.

I think the story itself answers the question.  I think the simple fact that Adam and Eve sinned evidenced a lack of genuine love by them.  I don't think that tree would actually have been a temptation had they not been hungering for something else, something echoing within them as it did with their creator when he created them.  Remember, humanity created in god's image.  If god possesses and values free will so must its creation.  You may think it evil of god to setup us up to fail, but is it?  Or was it the only way for us to truly have a meaningful relationship?

Free will and choice were clearly in existence in the beginning with Eden, as it was created specifically to include the tree of the knowledge of good/evil.  It was placed squarely in front of Adam and Eve.  I think that it's clear from the story that never at any point in time did god assume the relationship with humanity could exist without giving us the choice to ignore him.  If Adam and Eve never chose to sin... so be it... but it would have still been a choice born out of their free will so no conundrum exists.

Obviously there was disfunction before they comitted sin, because even direct, overt contact with god did not absolve the ability of man to seek his own destiny.  So to aledge that man was purely good in the terms you have formerly asserted is clearly in error, as man chose evil even in the presence of god.

If god had made them innocent and never placed temptation in front of them, would life really be worse than it is now?

That is up to each to debate for themselves, but life and relationships would see to me to be meaningless in this scenario as we discussed above.

It's easy for you to say, well, he wanted real and genuine love, but how could he want it at the expense of all the poverty, violence, and starvation of innocents that we have now? If that kind of free will is a gift, I don't want it.

And what I have argued is that without these things to illuminate what love actually is you end up arguing about a term which carries no meaning.

And if people's free will is needed for god to accept their love as genuine, what would happen in heaven? Does he take away your free will then?

As far as I can remember about scripture, free will does not drop dead at the gates of heaven else lucifer would not exist.

Sin cannot happen in heaven, so why bring flawed sinners up there? How is that possible?

Free will should never be confused with sin, which I think is happening here.  Free will is the ability to choose good or evil.  Humanity can and will enter heaven with free will intact.  Flaws in humanity are not what exclude humanity from heaven, denial of god is, that is a misstatement of doctrine.  Presumably, humanity even in heaven is allowed to choose to ignore god...again, reference lucifer.

[Court]

I'm completely frustrated with the picture of god you have painted. He is willing to allow three quarters of his creation to burn in hell forever because HE wants a meaningful relationship and real worship and groveling, not just superficial. Well, that's lovely. Perhaps if he wanted a true relationship with humans he should have made his books and works a bit more obvious (ie-not violent, scientifically false, and many times, just plain ridiculous) and ancient.

If god is the way he presents himself, I'm glad he's imaginary. Because his existence would make either after-life option, heaven or hell, pretty damn awful. But as his existence lacks any sense, I know he doesn't.

Laetusatheos is making a good argument that if god exists, the type of universe he made attests to his non-sensical selfishness and unfeeling nature (for example, infinite punishment for finite sins). It is one of many arguments against him, as it is completely contradictary to our idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent god. Sure seems easy to blame it on us, doesn't it? But the only sin we have committed is believing in this mythical god.