Why Did God Have to Make Evil?

[Voter]

Thought there'd be a response by now. Let me repeat the argument. If you define omniscience such that God determines each person's thoughts and actions, and define free will based on possible alternatives, then yes, you can charge that omniscience precludes free will.

However, recall the main argument. People get so hung up on free will, they forget why it's important in the first place. The Bible doesn't come out and say that we have it, so it's not a direct Biblical defense. The point is that most people believe it's unjust to punish someone for an action if the person didn't have sufficient free will to choose to commit or not commit the act. So, critics think that if they establish that God's omniscience precludes man's free will, God is unjust for punishing man.

However, note that there is an unstated presumption in this argument - that man has a right to justice. This needs to be supported. Once on another site I posed the question, What gives something a right to justice? on its own. While opinions varied in detail, they all were based on some sort of autonomy. But, if God determines our every smallest thought, we are not autonomous, and sop we have no right to justice. So, the argument is self-defeating.

Similarly, the argument that omniscience precludes free will can usually be extended to god himself. So, if god has no free will, you have no right to judge him as unjust.

Another response takes omniscience a step further. Suppose omniscience precludes free will. OK as far as it goes, but wouldn't an omniscient god know what your life would be in the absence of an omniscient god? If so, he can justly judge you on that basis. Or a corollary: an omnipotent, omniscient god could determine what we would be like without an omniscient god, and then in his omnipotence create that world.

Then there are the time travel analogies. Suppose there is no god and we have free will. I invent a time machine and go back to last Saturday with videotapes of last Sunday's football games. I keep them to myself. Does the mere existence of those tapes now preclude the players' free will?

And the definition of free will is important. The critic usually uses a definition based on possible alternatives, but you can also define it based on mental processes.

If you've read up on this topic, then you're aware of an interesting scenario that blends the alternatives and processes approaches. Suppose I'm an evil neuroscientist and want to kill Fred. I know that Alan also hates Fred and Alan owns a gun and will have opportunity. So, I proposition Alan to kill Fred, and he agrees. But, I don't trust that, so I drug Alan and implant a chip in his brain that gives me control over his actions. I'll watch him at the opportune time. If he kills Fred on his own, I do nothing. If he changes his mind, I flip the switch and he kills Fred anyway. In this scenario, Alan has no possible alternatives - he will kill Fred. But, is his moral culpability the same either way?

[LegendarySandwich]

Okay Voter, answer me this: how can Satan not know his fate? If he doesn't realize that fighting against an omnipotent, omniscient being isn't going to bode well for a finite being like him, then he must even be stupider than I initially realized.

I'm pretty sure the Bible supports the view that he knows what will happen to him, though. I can't quote specific scripture, just my general memory of it.

[Voter]

Okay Voter, answer me this: how can Satan not know his fate? If he doesn't realize that fighting against an omnipotent, omniscient being isn't going to bode well for a finite being like him, then he must even be stupider than I initially realized.

I didn't say he doesn't know it. I said he doesn't believe it. Same with you:

Okay Voter, answer me this: how can [strike:3bh57gyw]Satan[/strike:3bh57gyw] an atheist not know his fate? If he doesn't realize that fighting against an omnipotent, omniscient being isn't going to bode well for a finite being like him, then he must even be stupider than I initially realized.

So, you're pointing out your own stupidity, which is amusing.

[LegendarySandwich]

Okay Voter, answer me this: how can Satan not know his fate? If he doesn't realize that fighting against an omnipotent, omniscient being isn't going to bode well for a finite being like him, then he must even be stupider than I initially realized.

I didn't say he doesn't know it. I said he doesn't believe it. Same with you:

Okay Voter, answer me this: how can [strike:23x34dxy]Satan[/strike:23x34dxy] an atheist not know his fate? If he doesn't realize that fighting against an omnipotent, omniscient being isn't going to bode well for a finite being like him, then he must even be stupider than I initially realized.

So, you're pointing out your own stupidity, which is amusing.

Oh, okay, okay. So, just like Satan (I am demon-possessed after all), I know God exists, I just don't believe in him. Presumably so I can masturbate without guilt.

Makes perfect sense.

[TheJackel]

No, you have proposed a different usage from the standard dictionary definition.

That is incorrect.. Learn how to use the damn dictionary! And do learn that the OXford Dictionary defines it as:

information(in·for·ma·tion)
Pronunciation:/ˌinfərˈmāSHən, ˌɪnfərˈmeɪʃən/
noun

    *
      1 facts provided or learned about something or someone:a vital piece of information
    *
      Lawa formal criminal charge lodged with a court or magistrate by a prosecutor without the aid of a grand jury:the tenant may lay an information against his landlord
    *
      2 what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things, or things of representation and value:genetically transmitted information
    *
      Computingdata as processed, stored, or transmitted by a computer.
    *
      (in information theory) a mathematical quantity expressing the probability of occurrence of a particular sequence of symbols, impulses, energy, matter., as contrasted with that of alternative sequences.

Or:

Things that are or can be known about a topic; Data that have been processed into a format,  Any unambiguous abstract data, the smallest possible ...
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/information

Or:

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Information
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Physical_information
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Free_I ... astructure
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Information_theory
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Medium
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Information_processing
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Observation
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Entropy
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Systems_theory
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Cybernetics

I can literally sit here all day ripping apart your argument Voter!

Heck, anyone can win any argument if they give themselves sole authority to define the terms. I'm not giving you that. Without unorthodox definitions, you have nothing.

Heck, anyone can win with an education without playing intentionally ignorant!. Many dictionaries use basic examples to define "information" because Information is the sum to all to which can be knowable! It's any pattern, sequence, object, thing, place, volume, substance, representation, structure, and complexity. There is a reason why an order of sand grains in a sand dune are considered pieces of information that have sequenced to form a sand dune. Same with the arrangements of atoms in a sand grain! This include equilibrium of patterns, or states of existence!  

Please Voter, stop being that GUY to which denies reality! My argument only means that things are real, and that all things with complexities greater than ground-state are products of existence, or emerging properties! There is no "Creator" to existence Voter, that is as impossible as nothing being an existent object!. If you want to be more realistic and worship some possibly more powerful and intelligent being than man, you go do that! But when you start pulling logical fallacies out and start proclaiming magical sky fairy done it, it can't help but notice someone so ignorant to reality!

[Voter]

Okay Voter, answer me this: how can Satan not know his fate? If he doesn't realize that fighting against an omnipotent, omniscient being isn't going to bode well for a finite being like him, then he must even be stupider than I initially realized.

I didn't say he doesn't know it. I said he doesn't believe it. Same with you:

Okay Voter, answer me this: how can [strike:nxexwjm8]Satan[/strike:nxexwjm8] an atheist not know his fate? If he doesn't realize that fighting against an omnipotent, omniscient being isn't going to bode well for a finite being like him, then he must even be stupider than I initially realized.

So, you're pointing out your own stupidity, which is amusing.

Oh, okay, okay. So, just like Satan (I am demon-possessed after all), I know God exists, I just don't believe in him. Presumably so I can masturbate without guilt.

Makes perfect sense.

You both know your fate and don't believe it. Neither of you believes in an omnipotent, omniscient being. There are some differences, but mostly similarities.

[LegendarySandwich]

You both know your fate and don't believe it. Neither of you believes in an omnipotent, omniscient being. There are some differences, but mostly similarities.

You and all the other Christians know your fate and don't believe it (that there's no afterlife and you'll just die). None of you believes in a materialistic universe. There are some differences, but mostly similarities.

[Davin]

I see, so your definition of a troll is someone who asks for clarification of your position?

No, my (rather a) definition of troll in this case is someone who doesn't follow the thread and then asks stupid questions. Those two points were repeats, and were two of a number of independent arguments previously submitted but which had not been addressed by the opposition.

ETA: Look three or so posts down for a repeat of the original. Your position that the two I later posted were, in my view, the only options is shown to be incorrect.

As can be seen by this link, this is the entire post:

If God is continuously omniscient, by your definitions he would lack free will himself, and cannot justly be judged for his actions.

If you accept material determinism, then none of us have free will. Yet, we judge and punish unjustly.

Secondly look at my wording: "You gave two options, I was seeing whether you considered there to be more options than the ones you provided[...]" it contradicts your statement that I hold the position that you view the two options provided as the only two options. In fact not once did I ever say that you thought those were the only two options, I did the opposite of that and asked you a question.

I have not been rude to you, I have not implied that you're lacking in mental faculties and/or education, I have not implied that your questions are stupid... and yet you call me a troll. A bit of the pot calling the flame black.

[TheJackel]

You both know your fate and don't believe it. Neither of you believes in an omnipotent, omniscient being. There are some differences, but mostly similarities.

FAIL!

I have not been rude to you, I have not implied that you're lacking in mental faculties and/or education, I have not implied that your questions are stupid... and yet you call me a troll. A bit of the pot calling the flame black.

That is true.. However, I have been rude to him in the form of trying to keep him honest. He can't seem to do that. I don't think he "lacks education" because we all do in many areas of life and the world around us. However, I am nearly 100 percent sure that he is definitely playing an intentional game of ignorance. The biggest clue is his circular logic, irrationality, and inability to seemingly grasp very basic concepts to which shows all the signs of being intentionally ignorant. As in "LALALALALLALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

Prime example: I have asked him to try and post without using information (energy, matter, and material-physicality).. I would like to see him even try to make a choice or decision without the weighing of information between two choices

[Voter]

Then we have free will.

Reality isn't what we accept or not, reality exists independently of whether people accept it or not.

I just read this again this to make sure I'm not being unreasonable. I'm not. Your reply was a total troll move.

[TheJackel]

I just read this again this to make sure I'm not being unreasonable. I'm not. Your reply was a total troll move.

False, that was stating an obvious fact about reality!  Hence, consciousness is not required for reality to exist, it's the other way around! Once you realize that, the better off you will be in this discussion Voter. Existence simply exists because the opposite is literally impossible to exist! Consciousness is entirely irrelevant to it. If you were reasonable, you would have addressed the context of it.  Is it that hard to be honest? Hell, I even still believe that some entity could have possibly sparked the Big Bang voter, it's a matter of physics. But I would never worship such things as "GODS". That would be equal to micro organisms being cultivated in a science lab worshiping Man as if they were "GODS". I just make the realization that no entity can represent the source origin to existence, or be the creator of. Especially when consciousness requires far more cause to support its existence than 99.999(infinite) other percent of existence.  Causation doesn't start with consciousness, it starts with information and then the increasing complexity of it in order to have emerging properties such as consciousness!

There is no you Voter without the information that makes you who you are!, and you are made of the same substance as the rest of existence is (energy). You are your own individual conscious and finite representation of existence just as every mind or conscious entity is.  It means that you are real, your feelings and emotions are real! It means you have actual purpose and value. Without it, you simply wouldn't exist regardless of what your beliefs are.  It's that simple!

However, this doesn't mean that our consciousness won't transcend (stay intact) after we die, and that is because nobody can answer that question with 100 percent certainty. We don't know if it can escape, or if it will fade, disperse, or merge with other states of energy. However in all cases, there is never a loss of purpose. So, I am spiritually not worried at all myself. I in fact find more worth in being truly unique as an emerged property from a system of chaos than being a pre-fabricated doll on some magical assembly line. I also find more worth in knowing that regardless of what form I end up in, I will always have a purpose.

[Voter]

I just read this again this to make sure I'm not being unreasonable. I'm not. Your reply was a total troll move.

False, that was stating an obvious fact about reality!  Hence, consciousness is not required for reality to exist, it's the other way around! Once you realize that, the better off you will be in this discussion Voter. Existence simply exists because the opposite is literally impossible to exist! Consciousness is entirely irrelevant to it. If you were reasonable, you would have addressed the context of it. :bananacolor:  :bananacolor:  

[TheJackel]

:bananacolor:  :bananacolor:

A very poor attempt at a reversal

[elliebean]

Who was that who once said something to the effect, "if you don't have a real argument, don't bother posting"? Hmmm... wait, I think I remember...

FAIL
 :bananacolor:  :bananacolor:

[Voter]

Who was that who once said something to the effect, "if you don't have a real argument, don't bother posting"? Hmmm... wait, I think I remember...

FAIL
 :bananacolor:  :bananacolor:

I've been (quite obviously) mocking him with stuff like that for some time now.