The Problem of Evil. Again.

[PipeBox]

Just gonna burn into it with a block of quotation from another thread.

Maybe we have the potential to be of perfect character, like Jesus, but we can never be perfect in function.  We are limited in power in many, many ways.

Yes, I suspect that is true.  That is what I was thinking when I put the quotes around perfect, kind of meaning "operating as designed".

As to your claim about being mindless robots, this is patently untrue.  I cannot swim the length of the Atlantic underwater, and God designed me as such, so God can clearly impose limits.

Technically I didn't claim that, but it so happens I do believe that.  And yes, as said above we are talking, I think, about a perfection other than say, omnipotence.

God, being all powerful, could remove the sin from free will and it would have no impact on our ability to make choices.  Just because you can't rape children doesn't mean you can't decide whether to go bowling or to the pool house, and we don't say a toddler has had their free will removed when we prevent them from sticking things in electrical outlets or drinking bleach.  Besides, this raises the question of whether you can sin in heaven.  If the possibility of sin makes us more perfect (IE, the ability to sin is a good thing to possess, and you reckon, for the moment, that it must be, because God created us with this free will, and He is good), then we are more perfect on Earth than in heaven.  Earth would be clearly better by God's own design.

Possibly he could have made it so that any choices we made had no negative consequences, I guess.  But choosing between going bowling and going to the pool house are choices of taste, and not obedience, right?  That is, unless he directed you to choose one above the other - then you would be exercising your right to obey or not obey.  Granting you the right to obey or not obey is significant in that you are elevated above the level of a slave/robot/inanimate object.  Or am I missing your point?

As to what will happen in heaven as regards free will, I have read some opinions on this but I haven't fully formed my own.  It is interesting to hear what other people think about it though.

If he could have made it so all our choices had no negative consequences, why didn't he?

[BadPoison]

Because everyone makes the assumption that God's idea of "Good" is the same as our idea of "Good." This is the same guy who created a world only to have it oblitterated and remade because watching it burn will be fun. And everything he does is good, so this has to include some pretty crazy stuff. God's idea of good is a balance between the natural laws of his creation. There is "evil" and "righteousness" and the balancing act between the two is "good." It's part of his master plan. God is omnibenevolent, but you don't get to define "omnibenevolence" because your idea of "good" just simply isn't God's idea. How can you presume to know what is good when you have such a limited understanding of the subject compared to Him?

[Lawless]

If he could have made it so all our choices had no negative consequences, why didn't he?

Well first, please remember that I used the word "possibly", which is something I normally say when discussing such things, because I don't pretend to divine revelation on this subject.  This is just my opinion.

If you are heading towards "why would he make possible a scenario under which some people would ultimately choose to disobey, and therefore suffer negative consequences?" I don't have an answer - on that and other questions I have and continue to read and consider.

What I think is that, if (for whatever reason) you don't want to force someone to obey you, you give them a choice.  If you give them a choice, you make it possible for them to disobey.

My belief is that:

God is the ultimate moral authority, or he wouldn't be God.

Obeying God is good, and has positive consequences.  Disobedience is bad, and has negative consequences.

[Tanker]

If he could have made it so all our choices had no negative consequences, why didn't he?

Well first, please remember that I used the word "possibly", which is something I normally say when discussing such things, because I don't pretend to divine revelation on this subject.  This is just my opinion.

If you are heading towards "why would he make possible a scenario under which some people would ultimately choose to disobey, and therefore suffer negative consequences?" I don't have an answer - on that and other questions I have and continue to read and consider.

What I think is that, if (for whatever reason) you don't want to force someone to obey you, you give them a choice.  If you give them a choice, you make it possible for them to disobey.

My belief is that:

God is the ultimate moral authority, or he wouldn't be God.


Obeying God is good, and has positive consequences.  Disobedience is bad, and has negative consequences.

I brought this up in another thread but it works here too.

I could come up with many examples but I'll use this one. Do you think child rape is wrong? If you answered no then you are more moral then god. The bible, as far as i know, does not stipulate that it is wrong to abuse children. In fact according to the old testament the age of adulthood is 13, and I don't believe that was corrected in the NT. Following that rule it would be ok for a 60 year old man to marry a 13 year old. Does that seem sick and fucked up to you? if you answered yes that would be finding something god says is ok totaly wrong. God is in no way a moral athourity and by proxy neither is the Bible.

Like I said this is only one example if pressed I could show more but really I just don't feel like doing anymore of your thinking for you right now.

[Ben-AG]

If he could have made it so all our choices had no negative consequences, why didn't he?

Well first, please remember that I used the word "possibly", which is something I normally say when discussing such things, because I don't pretend to divine revelation on this subject.  This is just my opinion.

If you are heading towards "why would he make possible a scenario under which some people would ultimately choose to disobey, and therefore suffer negative consequences?" I don't have an answer - on that and other questions I have and continue to read and consider.

What I think is that, if (for whatever reason) you don't want to force someone to obey you, you give them a choice.  If you give them a choice, you make it possible for them to disobey.

My belief is that:

God is the ultimate moral authority, or he wouldn't be God.


Obeying God is good, and has positive consequences.  Disobedience is bad, and has negative consequences.

I brought this up in another thread but it works here too.

I could come up with many examples but I'll use this one. Do you think child rape is wrong? If you answered no then you are more moral then god. The bible, as far as i know, does not stipulate that it is wrong to abuse children. In fact according to the old testament the age of adulthood is 13, and I don't believe that was corrected in the NT. Following that rule it would be ok for a 60 year old man to marry a 13 year old. Does that seem sick and fucked up to you? if you answered yes that would be finding something god says is ok totaly wrong. God is in no way a moral athourity and by proxy neither is the Bible.

Like I said this is only one example if pressed I could show more but really I just don't feel like doing anymore of your thinking for you right now.

If you have a relationship with God surrounded with love, you do not need the Bible to tell you what is morally right and what is morally wrong.  You don't need instructions, you need an example and that example is Jesus Christ.  God doesn't stipulate a lot of things in the Bible, does that make it alright to do them?  Would you know if you weren't a Christian?  The entirety of God is unfathomable and goes beyond what is encapsulated in the Bible.  Not to mention, there are a lot of things in the Bible of which atheists think they understand but can NEVER understand without a true genuine relationship with God.  Even with that, still may not understand.  So, with that, God is absolutely a moral authority.

[Lawless]

I'm not sure how this progressed to a discussion of the Bible, but I wouldn't stipulate that the Bible implies that child rape is OK.  I normally wouldn't try to use the Bible to lend weight to an argument for several reasons.

Maybe you are suggesting that if I don't argue from the Bible, I have no legitimate argument for any kind of absolute moral standard.

But anyway, If I'm reading your argument right:

If we don't find explicit condemnation of something in the Bible, then it is in the category of "Go for it".

If we personally find something morally objectionable, and it is in the "Go for it", category, then we have shown that God has no moral authority.

And I suppose by extension you might argue that God must not exist, since a God with no moral authority is not God (at least in my definition).

I'm don't quite follow how you came to the conclusion that you were doing my thinking for me here, but even if that comment was part of your original quote, politeness makes me assume you chose to leave it in when you copied it, and I'm taxing your patience. Thank you for your responses so far though.  

Because in all sincerity, anytime I have a discussion with someone else who disagrees with me, I have to occasionally consider the possibility that "this person is so much smarter than me, or more rigorous in their reasoning, or honest, that for them this discussion is an act of charity".  So if that is the case and I'm just unable to comprehend it, thank you for your generosity.

[PipeBox]

Sorry, didn't notice you had replied.

If you are heading towards "why would he make possible a scenario under which some people would ultimately choose to disobey, and therefore suffer negative consequences?" I don't have an answer - on that and other questions I have and continue to read and consider.

What I think is that, if (for whatever reason) you don't want to force someone to obey you, you give them a choice.  If you give them a choice, you make it possible for them to disobey.

Then it must be that God finds giving us the choice to disobey him is either necessary or superior to giving us no choice, if we want God to remain good and not malevolent.  This means heaven is full of sin, as the choice to sin, and by extension the associated suffering, must remain (it is either necessary or superior if God is not malevolent).  The alternative is that God made a place worse than Earth for you when you die, so that you could be stripped of your either necessary or superior ability to sin.  The ramifications of either option will strip God down to not being good, as if God can bear sin in heaven people ought not go to hell, the pervasive "rule" of sin sending us there becomes nonsense, and if heaven is a worse place than earth, devoid of the necessary or superior ability to sin, then God is evil for bringing you there for all eternity.  He should reincarnate you, instead.

Thanks for trying to reply, I don't expect you to have divine revelation, and I'd rather not put words in your mouth.  If I have bastardized your thoughts, please work me through your own conclusions, I see what I have written as the only logical conclusions.  If I have not bastardized your thoughts, this belief in an all powerful and good god will start to seem silly.  You can have one or the other, goodness or omnipotence, not both.

[Lawless]

Then it must be that God finds giving us the choice to disobey him is either necessary or superior to giving us no choice,

With you so far.

This means heaven is full of sin, as the choice to sin, and by extension the associated suffering, must remain (it is either necessary or superior if God is not malevolent).  The alternative is that God made a place worse than Earth for you when you die, so that you could be stripped of your either necessary or superior ability to sin.

As I said somewhere else (original thread maybe), I haven't come to a conclusion on this, but for the sake of discussion...

If it is true that being able to choose is necessary or superior now, does that require that for each individual, it must always remain so in exactly the same way as it does here and now?

For example, if I am in heaven and in the presence of God, and I find myself enthralled and full of the desire to worship and obey him, one could argue that the likelihood of my choosing to disobey would be greatly reduced, though the opportunity perhaps exists.  Maybe by freely seeking to obey and be reconciled with God now,  this is the hoped-for outcome, part of the "good consequences"?  

Or perhaps having previously been reconciled,  if I then disobey and repent, there is still opportunity to be forgiven and reconciled?

Or maybe, if in the end I somehow reverse course and refuse to repent, I do get booted out, and the sanctity of heaven is once again preserved?

But as I said I haven't fully formed an opinion on this yet.

[PipeBox]

If it is true that being able to choose is necessary or superior now, does that require that for each individual, it must always remain so in exactly the same way as it does here and now?

Yes, if the state of being able to sin is not inherently superior or necessary, why would it be the case here unless God was malevolent or indifferent?  He definitely could not be good if there was an equally valid system that was withheld from us where the suffering and ability to sin was neither necessary nor superior.

For example, if I am in heaven and in the presence of God, and I find myself enthralled and full of the desire to worship and obey him, one could argue that the likelihood of my choosing to disobey would be greatly reduced, though the opportunity perhaps exists.  Maybe by freely seeking to obey and be reconciled with God now,  this is the hoped-for outcome, part of the "good consequences"?

What I said above, and also this would mean God should reveal himself to the world spectacularly to eliminate as much sin and suffering as possible, since he eliminates the desire, but not possibility, and this still counts as free will, which is apparently required in heaven because you have chosen its existence as being superior or required over heaven being a worse place than Earth.

Still, let's give you this heaven.  It is no justification for he suffering resulting from and apart from sin, which God would be expected to alleviate unless the suffering is necessary or superior, or God is callous.  So you might expect heaven to be exactly like Earth, except with God.  Or not even, because if God's presence is a good thing he should be manifest to us all now, and not just manifest in heaven.  Rather, his conspicuous absence must either be necessary or provide us with a superior universe.  This is why it's called the problem of evil, and not the problem with the ability to sin.  I'm sorry I was compressing it so much in my last post.  Bottom line, God cannot be good if he is also omnipotent.

Or perhaps having previously been reconciled,  if I then disobey and repent, there is still opportunity to be forgiven and reconciled?

We would expect to be born into heaven and then take it from there.  If heaven is the superior universe, it should be our universe if God was good and it did not injure our ability to sin, the preservation of which is the only reason we're going down this path.  Note this does not cope with earthly suffering, nor the absence of manifest God on Earth.

Or maybe, if in the end I somehow reverse course and refuse to repent, I do get booted out, and the sanctity of heaven is once again preserved?

This is not really a separate model of heaven from the previous one, but it does open up all kinds of questions as to the deadline to repent in heaven and why the repentance is necessary if heaven can suffer sin, unless God cannot handle it without the repentance, and again, how long God can handle it without repentance (should be forever, if he is omnipotent).  It also raises the question of why God would boot you out.  If God doesn't want sin in heaven because God is good, but he made your nature sinful...

Again, no justification is this for the suffering of the world, nor whatever else God or man may call evil, it is just a way to maintain the same free will you have on Earth in heaven.

But as I said I haven't fully formed an opinion on this yet.

My opinion is that if God exists, he's either callous or impotent.  I'm hoping for impotent, if he exists, so that way the devil and him can square off in some epic battles, Revelation style but better.  Yes, this is childish of me, but since it's all fancy with the problem of evil around, why not?  The other possibilities are that he is insane or not subject to logic.  If you meant your opinion on heaven, there is no opinion short of ineffability that will solve the above dilemma.  At least, no one has come up with it yet.  I respect the fact that you do not claim to know, though.  I just know that if a god exists it cannot be both good and omnipotent.

[justkeepthatinmind]

If he could have made it so all our choices had no negative consequences, why didn't he?

My belief is that:

God is the ultimate moral authority, or he wouldn't be God.

Obeying God is good, and has positive consequences.  Disobedience is bad, and has negative consequences.

This is where my problem comes it personally.It seems a lot like God is immoral being.Regardless what religion you are into.In the Bible and I forget where,it says God is a jealous God.What would an omnipotent and immortal being have to be jealous of us for?

He seems either like a big bully with pet hampster,as long as you stay on the wheel,your fine,but step off the wheel and he will squish you with his hands.Its a bit like a lion waiting for his prey to screw up so he can pounce on them for it.I want a god like this

Sorry if my post is irrelevant to the topic but I wanted to say my opinion,and just claiming,its just an opinion.

[Sophus]

My belief is that:

God is the ultimate moral authority, or he wouldn't be God.

Obeying God is good, and has positive consequences.  Disobedience is bad, and has negative consequences.

This is where my problem comes it personally.It seems a lot like God is immoral being.Regardless what religion you are into.In the Bible and I forget where,it says God is a jealous God.What would an omnipotent and immortal being have to be jealous of us for?

He seems either like a big bully with pet hampster,as long as you stay on the wheel,your fine,but step off the wheel and he will squish you with his hands.Its a bit like a lion waiting for his prey to screw up so he can pounce on them for it.I want a god like this :cat:  Ha ha even some Buddhists too (I think). But you're right - most theistic gods are monsters.

God is the ultimate moral authority, or he wouldn't be God.

Well there you have it. Morality is man-made. Thus so is god.