‘Free will’ is not an excuse for God allowing atrocities.

[Sgt. Pepper]

If god is omnipresent why wouldn't god be in the rain?

If God is omnipresent (presence in all places simultaneously), then he would be in the rain.

 

[QuestioningMind]

God set up the death sentence for Adam and Eve. Now let's be honest. It's obvious that those believing that evolution is why things are alive on the earth also believe we die because that's the way it is. But Adam & Eve's son Cain killed Abel. Right away. The first children, one killed the other. God warned Cain, but Cain didn't listen.

I'm not sure if you agree with the thread's title or not.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Of course God can intervene, as far as His omnipotence, sovereignty and supremacy are concerned. But, in regard to His divine wisdom, what purpose would it serve: (a) prolong the inevitable, (b) spare someone from death (i.e. hell on earth), (c) give the impression that God does not have something better in store for those who love Him (as opposed to this cesspool called earth), etc...?

Okay, so you don't believe that free will prevents god from intervening... thanks for the clarification.

 

[F1fan]

No. Some people get this idea from Jesus being G-d, or because of language issues mean "He" is used rather than "it".

He means male. The language implies certain things and attributes. If these religions were concerned about accuracy they would have been careful to refer to God as "it". But as we know the ancient social hierarchy was dominated by males. It is a tradition that males dominate, and any God would be male to reject this dominance.

Jesus was a Jew and believed as in the OT that G-d created all the creatures, and hence male and female.
G-d does not procreate. This should be obvious from the fact that He is eternal. The Abrahamic faith is not polytheistic.

First Jesus isn't known to have existed, let alone the stories about this character are accurate. Gender roles of the ancient worlds tend to reflect in their religions and lore. And while the Hebrews were monotheistic, and all other religions adopted this, the pre-Hebrews were polytheistic. Yawheh is thought to be one tribe's war god. Also in the opening of Genesis there is reference to multiple gods, as in man is made in OUR image.

Because it is in our nature to love wealth and power, and are often prepared to lie and cheat to obtain it.

The nature that God created.

Remembering G-d is prescribed so that we may ward off evil.

Why didn't God simplify it all and just not create evil? It's like God created us all junkies and dangles drugs in front of us all the time as cruel tests.

Even then, there is none that do not sin.

God created us as "no win" beings.

If you believe, no way you will ever win. Never. You will never be a winner.

Pointless questions, as far as I'm concerned.
Reality is reality.

No gods are known to exist in reality. Now what?

You give the impression that reality is evil, and there is nobody in the world that is having "a good time".
I doubt that very much.
Look at the flowers, and not the weeds.

Ironic since it is believers who claim evil exists. In science there is no references to evil in human behavior, rather mental disturbances and faults that prevent rational and mature thinking. Arguably atheists are more rooted in rational thought which is a huge advantage. Atheists and theists can see flowers, but only some theists will see flowers of a fallen world. Atheists won't. See how it works?

 

[DNB]

If god is omnipresent why wouldn't god be in the rain?

Because He created it.

 

[QuestioningMind]

And my point continues to be that I clearly do not agree with the title because God does not need any excuses for allowing atrocities.

LOL No, you agree with the title BECAUSE you don't believe god needs any excuses for allowing atrocities, therefor you agree that free will isn't an excuse. How could it possibly be, if you claim god doesn't need any excuses?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Because He created it.

If your god isn't in the rain he isn't omnipresent.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Okay... so you take the 'It's all part of god's plan' point of view... that we'll never understand the big picture so we should just forget about it and move on. Thanks for sharing.

BTW. After reviewing what you wrote above I noticed something. Please note: that there are elements of my response that deal with your OP. I.e. the question of why doesn't a "god" resolve an issue in a particular way. If that is the question you would need to know what a god is and what it is not to start to deal with the question of "why" this or and why not that.

If the expectation, from a human perspective, is why doesn't a god act in one way or another at one time or another one would have to then know how said "god" sees reality, involves itself in reality, and whether or not said "god" may expect humans to resolve the problems you mentioned.

In order to see it from a non-human perspective you would need the view of the one who decides to do one thing at one time or another. It could be that humans have the ability to understand enough of this "bigger picture" it may be that humans do not. Kind of like at the concept of understanding Space-Time developed.

The Jewish perspective posits that the Source of creation gave humans the proper tools to know enough of the "bigger picture" to deal with and resolve the problems you brought up, personally and socially.

I hope that explains it a bit more.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Why should God should God step in and stop the evil that humans do?
Give me one good reason why God should do that.

'Because God is omnipotent' is not a good reason. God could also wipe out the entire earth in one split second, do you think God should do that too? Why then should God use His power to rescue humans from their own evil behaviors?

It is a non sequitur to conclude that God has no interest in you or your fellow humans because God does not act like Superman. God is not Superman, God is God. God shows His caring by sending Messengers who reveal teachings and laws. If everyone followed those teachings and laws there would be no evil in the world.

Why should God should God step in and stop the evil that humans do?

Give me one good reason why God should do that.


'Because God is omnipotent' is not a good reason. God could also wipe out the entire earth in one split second, do you think God should do that too? Why then should God use His power to rescue humans from their own evil behaviors?

I’m not arguing that your god should do anything. I’m simply clarifying what you claim your god does and does not care about doing. If you say there’s absolutely no good reason for your god to want to intervene, I’ll take your word for it.


It is a non sequitur to conclude that God has no interest in you or your fellow humans because God does not act like Superman. God is not Superman, God is God. God shows His caring by sending Messengers who reveal teachings and laws. If everyone followed those teachings and laws there would be no evil in the world.


Again, if you say so. It just sounds to me like your god is akin to an absent father who tosses messages in bottles into the sea in hopes that his children on the other side of the world might someday happen stumble onto them. If that’s the level of caring he has for his children then he shouldn’t be surprised if his children don’t end up caring much about him.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Dis-belief is the work of the devil, it gets children hurt. When you say you do not believe do actually know what you are saying? Let me believe, or face hell. You have prejudice in your heart, and you can die to the Angels of Heaven. If you don't have belief, its like saying you are a hopeless liar, in your death bead. Complete your science and die.

 

[Trailblazer]

LOL No, you agree with the title BECAUSE you don't believe god needs any excuses for allowing atrocities, therefor you agree that free will isn't an excuse. How could it possibly be, if you claim god doesn't need any excuses?

But I do not agree that free will isn't an excuse since God needs no excuses.
I don't believe God needs any excuses for allowing atrocities, since God needs no excuses, period.

 

[Trailblazer]

Again, if you say so. It just sounds to me like your god is akin to an absent father who tosses messages in bottles into the sea in hopes that his children on the other side of the world might someday happen stumble onto them. If that’s the level of caring he has for his children then he shouldn’t be surprised if his children don’t end up caring much about him.

The thing is that most of God's children are believers and most believers care very much about God and most believers love God. They do not require God acting like Superman as a condition of their love. Only atheists have such requirements. Believers are happy with the message in the bottle.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Arguably atheists are more rooted in rational thought which is a huge advantage..

I don't think that believers in G-d are looking for any particular advantage in this life.
Due to what you call "irrationality", they have a different outlook on life.

Why didn't God simplify it all and just not create evil?

There is no point in trying to explain to you.
You do not believe that Jesus existed.

First Jesus isn't known to have existed, let alone the stories about this character are accurate.

I will let you carry on with your irrational, hypothetical rhetoric.
i.e. if G-d is real, then why do we talk such rubbish etc.

 

[firedragon]

That's a good OP, and it's very thoughtful, in my opinion. You and I seem to be thinking the same thing. I started this thread, Is it reasonable to believe in a 'loving, merciful' God? just the other day with a similar OP. FWIW, I agree with your assessment.

How would you reconcile God being good, the existence of suffering, and God being all knowing?

Your premises for this argument should take into account all of Gods attributes. Not one.

Let me know. Thanks.

 

[firedragon]

LOL No, you agree with the title BECAUSE you don't believe god needs any excuses for allowing atrocities, therefor you agree that free will isn't an excuse. How could it possibly be, if you claim god doesn't need any excuses?

Free-will is a human excuse. And you have found that an excuse for your most precious argument. That is your excuse to dismiss something you want to dismiss. Do you understand?

But this is not an excuse used by theists at a philosophical level for lets say "rain". So you are indirectly using a strawman, which is also your excuse to dismiss what you wish to dismiss.

Not a good argument QM.

 

[F1fan]

Dis-belief is the work of the devil, it gets children hurt.

How is this a true statement? Disbelief in WHAT, exactly, gets children hurt? Use facts.

When you say you do not believe do actually know what you are saying?

Yeah, I'm saying I don't believe. I can give a coherent explanation as to why I doubt the claims made by various believers.

Let me believe, or face hell. You have prejudice in your heart, and you can die to the Angels of Heaven. If you don't have belief, its like saying you are a hopeless liar, in your death bead. Complete your science and die.

Sounds like someone has told you things that have made you respond in fear. Who told you to believe what you believe?

 

[F1fan]

The thing is that most of God's children are believers and most believers care very much about God and most believers love God.

Most humans, about 85%, are "wired for God", in that they have the evolved trait that makes them attractive to religious belief. This is a natural trait, not a supernatural phenomenon. That what most believers adopts as their religious framework includes supernatural concepts is part of the ancient traditions of early civilized humans.

They do not require God acting like Superman as a condition of their love.

Gods tend to have the best or extreme attributes of humans, so in essence ARE superhuman. God concepts have evolved with cultures, and they tend to change with the prevalence of believers and their authority figures. How believers will "love" their God will depend on many personality factors and the concept the person has adopted or formed in their mind.

Only atheists have such requirements. Believers are happy with the message in the bottle.

Believers follow the path of least resistance usually. They pick the concepts that brings them the most satisfaction. This is why we see some 42,000 sects of Christianity, from very liberal to the KKK. Christianity covers all these diverse believers. So some believers will be happy with whatever arbitrary bottle they find, while others will look for the message in the bottle they want to find.

 

[Trailblazer]

So some believers will be happy with whatever arbitrary bottle they find, while others will look for the message in the bottle they want to find.

Most believers will do that but a numbered few believers will look and look and look until they finally find the message in the bottle that has the new message from God rather than old time worn messages.

 

[F1fan]

I don't think that believers in G-d are looking for any particular advantage in this life.
Due to what you call "irrationality", they have a different outlook on life.

You could be correct that many theists don't pick their religion from a list after doing an in depth investigation of each of them. Most believers simply adopted the religion they were exposed to as children. This is why if you were born in the Middle east you are most likely Muslim. Or if you were born in India you are most likely Hindu. Or around Boston you are most likely Catholic. Or in the American South you are most likely Baptist. Geography and the local religion will be the most likely religion adopted. That is a pay off for believers because that will help create social trust and belonging, two very important things for humans.

This all functions in the subconscious and developing brain. Seldom do believer reflect and make deliberate religious choices. Those who are attracted to religious belief will tend to go along with that search because it will satisfy something to the brain and the self's experience in life. Much of the beliefs in religion are not ideas that an objective and rational mind would judge true via facts and data. They are social ideas that appeal to the reward center of the brain.

There is no point in trying to explain to you.
You do not believe that Jesus existed.

The typical reason is because believers have no facts, nor a compelling argument. No believer comes to a conclusion that God, or the myth of Jesus, is true via facts.

I will let you carry on with your irrational, hypothetical rhetoric.
i.e. if G-d is real, then why do we talk such rubbish etc.

Thank you.

But your lack of defending your beliefs suggest you are projecting your own dilemma, that your beliefs have no rational basis. As you can see I presented a rational explanation to religious belief, and you can only respond with misrepresentations, denial, and a refusal to explain how your beliefs are rational. It's as if you know they aren't rational and are bluffing. Well, the bluff doesn't work.

 

[F1fan]

Most believers will do that but a numbered few believers will look and look and look until they finally find the message in the bottle that has the new message from God rather than old time worn messages.

That's the advantage of there being many, many, many religions out there in the religious buffet for a religious consumer to pick the most tasty option out there. How many think: maybe I should diet?