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

[QuestioningMind]

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.

IF god needs no excuses then free will certainly is no excuse. You're certainly not saying that because god need no excuses then that means free will IS an excuse. You seem to like to argue just for the sake of arguing.

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.

Good for you... kinda sad that few of you can seem to agree on what that message is... but if it makes you happy who cares if it's true.

 

[muhammad_isa]

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.

Really, how would you know?
You assume that all believers just believe something "because their peers do".
I agree that mankind are tribal in nature, and yet many people look at "the facts" when they decide on a creed.

Clearly, religion lies more in the realm of theology than science .. yet science and logic also plays a part.

 

[QuestioningMind]

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.

Free-will is a human excuse.

Yes it is... I mentioned how it's an excuse I hear some human theists make.

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?

Did you even read the title of my post? I very specifically said I do NOT agree with the argument that free will is an excuse. It's not MY precious argument, it's the argument I've heard theists make... an argument I don't happen to agree with.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Really, how would you know?
You assume that all believers just believe something "because their peers do".
I agree that mankind are tribal in nature, and yet many people look at "the facts" when they decide on a creed.

Clearly, religion lies more in the realm of theology than science .. yet science and logic also plays a part.

Well, for starters, because some of us have spent years on forums like these asking believers to demonstrate the veracity of their God claims, to no avail.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

And that is exactly what most people do, pick the most tasty option rather than looking further down the buffet line for a better option.

 

[firedragon]

Free-will is a human excuse.

Yes it is... I mentioned how it's an excuse I hear some human theists make.

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?

Did you even read the title of my post? I very specifically said I do NOT agree with the argument that free will is an excuse. It's not MY precious argument, it's the argument I've heard theists make... an argument I don't happen to agree with.

I am talking about your argument. You are using other peoples excuse as an excuse to dismiss God or theism or arguments.

Anyway, you expect God to intervene in free will, or kill a dirty guy before he commits a crime.

So you are appealing to the "previous argument" that God is "allowing it". Have you thought of the repercussions of stopping things, not allowing it, from Gods point of view (if God exists that is). You have to answer that methodologically.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Well, for starters, because some of us have spent years on forums like these asking believers to demonstrate the veracity of their God claims, to no avail.

How sad.
Do you think you have learned nothing but how stupid believers are?
I don't know why you bother to stay.

 

[Trailblazer]

IF god needs no excuses then free will certainly is no excuse.

No excuse for NOT doing what you think God should do?
You said: "But why doesn’t god just snap his metaphorical fingers and give the guy a lethal heat attack?"

That is not how logic works.
If God needs no excuses then that means that God needs no excuses for anything that He does or does not do, and that means God needs no excuses for for NOT snapping his fingers and giving the guy a lethal heat attack.

You're certainly not saying that because god need no excuses then that means free will IS an excuse.

If God needs no excuses free will cannot be an excuse.
I am saying that if God needs no excuses then that means that God does not need to be excused for NOT doing what you think God should do.

Do you understand?

 

[SkepticThinker]

How sad.
Do you think you have learned nothing but how stupid believers are?

I don't know why you bother to stay.

I've learned a lot, actually. I haven't said anyone is stupid so please don't put words in my mouth.

Still waiting for some good evidence for God claims though.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I've learned a lot, actually...

Good. I'm pleased for you.

 

[leroy]

When I ask believers why their god would allow a serial killer to abuse and murder a dozen innocent children over the course of his lifetime, I am often told that god is helpless to intervene because he gave us all ‘free will’ and that to intervene would be a violation of that ‘free will’. It sounds reasonable at first glance, but this argument doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.

I agree that if god were to snap his metaphorical fingers and magically take away the serial killer’s perverse desires or temporarily paralyze him any time he attempted to commit a wicked act that it would be a violation of free will. But why doesn’t god just snap his metaphorical fingers and give the guy a lethal heat attack? Obviously god deciding when a person’s life will come to an end isn’t a violation of their free will otherwise every single person who has ever died unwillingly has had their free will violated, which pretty much includes everyone except for people who commit suicide, sacrifice their lives for others, or are experiencing unendurable suffering.

So after this guy kills his first innocent child why doesn’t god decide to bring his life to an end? Even if god wanted to give the guy the chance to repent and seek forgiveness for his sins, why didn’t god give him a heart attack after the second innocent victim or the third? Why would a loving and caring god allow this maniac to kill a dozen little children and end up dying peacefully in his sleep in his late 80’s?


It obviously has nothing to do with god being helpless to intervene because of the killer’s free will.

The problem of evil is much more serious and hard to answer than most theist _(and atheist) realize.

In relation to your comments

It is logically possible to make a world where all people freely decided to do “good” so why disnt God created such a world. (for example in heaven people are suppose to have free will and everybody is suppose to be good)

Honestly I have no answer to this challenge except for:

1 this is a probabilistic argument against the existence of God

2 this argument is relatively weak compared to the positive arguments for the existence of God (Kalam, fine tuning, resurrection etc.)

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

God has to be complete in the Universe and that's impossible without creating evil aspects to it as well as good...

Forget it!

Fine by me... seems easily enough forgotten.

You all won't understand!

Based on your start, I do indeed have to admit that I am far from reaching an understanding of where you were going. You can't just say things like the sentence you started out with and expect that it will just be accepted, or even that it makes sense. What does "being complete in the Universe" even mean? Is it a "god" thing and therefore I am not expected to understand it? Do YOU fully understand it? And can you explain how it is impossible to "be complete in the Universe" (after you have explained that bit, of course), without "creating evil?" Why is this impossible? Does the very definition of "being complete in the universe" include "creating evil?"

Also, we have a problem from the start, because you must first also establish that what God deems "evil" is what is detrimental TO HUMANS. Because, to be sure, when we humans invoke the term "evil" we are specifically referencing the intent of beings who intend harm to other beings... and that being mostly harm TO HUMANS specifically. Because, let's face it, I don't think you find what your local butcher does to a chicken to be considered "evil" but if he were to do the exact same thing to a human being then you would most certainly classify this as "evil." And this specifically because YOU ARE A HUMAN. Do you understand? The point being - God is NOT a human, right? And so can we be assured that what is deemed "evil" by God necessarily matches up to what is deemed "evil" by human beings? That is, that it conforms to being those things with deleterious intent toward human beings? For that matter, can YOU be assured that what YOU deem as "evil" is even matched to what I, personally, deem as "evil?" And the main sticking point that is meant to raise is that if you can't even be sure what your fellow man (who you are capable of communicating with DIRECTLY) deems as evil matches your own expectations, then how could you ever possibly expect to have a grasp of what God deems as evil, and that that matches up to your own expectations, when you can't directly communicate with Him, and the communications from Him (e.g. The bible) regarding what is deemed evil are either incomplete or seem to gloss over or accept some pretty horrible things (slavery, the taking of women as spoils of war, genocide committed by God Himself, the killing of first born males regardless of age for the "sins" of their parents, killing a huge portion of land animals because of what he didn't like in humans alone, blowing up entire cities and turning people into salt for merely turning around, sending bears to maul a bunch of kids just for poking fun at a bald man, requesting that a father kill His son and being pleased with the man for being willing to go through with it, even though He really didn't want the man to do it because that would be disgusting and wrong, etc. etc. etc.)

 

[clara17]

When I ask believers why their god would allow a serial killer to abuse and murder a dozen innocent children over the course of his lifetime, I am often told that god is helpless to intervene because he gave us all ‘free will’ and that to intervene would be a violation of that ‘free will’. It sounds reasonable at first glance, but this argument doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.

I agree that if god were to snap his metaphorical fingers and magically take away the serial killer’s perverse desires or temporarily paralyze him any time he attempted to commit a wicked act that it would be a violation of free will. But why doesn’t god just snap his metaphorical fingers and give the guy a lethal heat attack? Obviously god deciding when a person’s life will come to an end isn’t a violation of their free will otherwise every single person who has ever died unwillingly has had their free will violated, which pretty much includes everyone except for people who commit suicide, sacrifice their lives for others, or are experiencing unendurable suffering.

So after this guy kills his first innocent child why doesn’t god decide to bring his life to an end? Even if god wanted to give the guy the chance to repent and seek forgiveness for his sins, why didn’t god give him a heart attack after the second innocent victim or the third? Why would a loving and caring god allow this maniac to kill a dozen little children and end up dying peacefully in his sleep in his late 80’s?


It obviously has nothing to do with god being helpless to intervene because of the killer’s free will.

You have to actually listen to what God says if you want to understand.
This is not life, this is death.
Every person, plant, animal, life form, and the earth itself are in the process of dying.
This is what Jesus spent much of his life trying to teach.
He also showed the example of what has to happen to receive life,
we must first suffer through death.
Life is eternal, and far too valuable a gift to give away without a price.
And we dont have to spend our time here in constant fear of death,
as if it were the worst thing possible. He is more powerful than death.
God allowing his Son to suffer death was the only way their could be a resurrection.
And seeing evil is the only way to know what good is.
That's why its referred to as a gospel. It's good news.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I am talking about your argument. You are using other peoples excuse as an excuse to dismiss God or theism or arguments.

Anyway, you expect God to intervene in free will, or kill a dirty guy before he commits a crime.

So you are appealing to the "previous argument" that God is "allowing it". Have you thought of the repercussions of stopping things, not allowing it, from Gods point of view (if God exists that is). You have to answer that methodologically.

All I've said is that I do not think the claim that god can't intervene to stop atrocities because it would violate free will stands up to scrutiny. How you jumped to the bizarre conclusion that I expect god to intervene in free will or 'kill a dirty guy' is beyond me. Or that I'm using other people's excuses to dismiss god or theism. My post dismissed the single argument that god can't intervene because of free will for the reasons I stated. Why you want to go and make false assumptions about anything else I think is beyond me.

 

[firedragon]

All I've said is that I do not think the claim that god can't intervene to stop atrocities because it would violate free will stands up to scrutiny. How you jumped to the bizarre conclusion that I expect god to intervene in free will or 'kill a dirty guy' is beyond me. Or that I'm using other people's excuses to dismiss god or theism. My post dismissed the single argument that god can't intervene because of free will for the reasons I stated. Why you want to go and make false assumptions about anything else I think is beyond me.

I think you did not understand what I said.

Anyway, IF God exists, and as I said you have to approach this statement methodologically, we dont know why God doesnt do something. Because we cannot speak to God and question God. So if someone is giving you this free-will answer, it is an attempt at philosophising your question.

Hope you understand.

 

[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.

Ofd course you offer no way for any flawed human to know a message is from an actual God versus some guy claiming it's from God. So, everyone is in the same boat of uncertainty.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Fine by me... seems easily enough forgotten.

Based on your start, I do indeed have to admit that I am far from reaching an understanding of where you were going. You can't just say things like the sentence you started out with and expect that it will just be accepted, or even that it makes sense. What does "being complete in the Universe" even mean? Is it a "god" thing and therefore I am not expected to understand it? Do YOU fully understand it? And can you explain how it is impossible to "be complete in the Universe" (after you have explained that bit, of course), without "creating evil?" Why is this impossible? Does the very definition of "being complete in the universe" include "creating evil?"

Also, we have a problem from the start, because you must first also establish that what God deems "evil" is what is detrimental TO HUMANS. Because, to be sure, when we humans invoke the term "evil" we are specifically referencing the intent of beings who intend harm to other beings... and that being mostly harm TO HUMANS specifically. Because, let's face it, I don't think you find what your local butcher does to a chicken to be considered "evil" but if he were to do the exact same thing to a human being then you would most certainly classify this as "evil." And this specifically because YOU ARE A HUMAN. Do you understand? The point being - God is NOT a human, right? And so can we be assured that what is deemed "evil" by God necessarily matches up to what is deemed "evil" by human beings? That is, that it conforms to being those things with deleterious intent toward human beings? For that matter, can YOU be assured that what YOU deem as "evil" is even matched to what I, personally, deem as "evil?" And the main sticking point that is meant to raise is that if you can't even be sure what your fellow man (who you are capable of communicating with DIRECTLY) deems as evil matches your own expectations, then how could you ever possibly expect to have a grasp of what God deems as evil, and that that matches up to your own expectations, when you can't directly communicate with Him, and the communications from Him (e.g. The bible) regarding what is deemed evil are either incomplete or seem to gloss over or accept some pretty horrible things (slavery, the taking of women as spoils of war, genocide committed by God Himself, the killing of first born males regardless of age for the "sins" of their parents, killing a huge portion of land animals because of what he didn't like in humans alone, blowing up entire cities and turning people into salt for merely turning around, sending bears to maul a bunch of kids just for poking fun at a bald man, requesting that a father kill His son and being pleased with the man for being willing to go through with it, even though He really didn't want the man to do it because that would be disgusting and wrong, etc. etc. etc.)

You missed it; humans have the power to hurt each other. Good and evil are not absolute to me. Oh, and God is a personage.

 

[Trailblazer]

Of course you offer no way for any flawed human to know a message is from an actual God versus some guy claiming it's from God. So, everyone is in the same boat of uncertainty.

I cannot offer a way for every human to know a message is from an actual God, but I already found my way.

 

[QuestioningMind]

No excuse for NOT doing what you think God should do?
You said: "But why doesn’t god just snap his metaphorical fingers and give the guy a lethal heat attack?"

That is not how logic works.
If God needs no excuses then that means that God needs no excuses for anything that He does or does not do, and that means God needs no excuses for for NOT snapping his fingers and giving the guy a lethal heat attack.

If God needs no excuses free will cannot be an excuse.
I am saying that if God needs no excuses then that means that God does not need to be excused for NOT doing what you think God should do.

Do you understand?

No excuse for NOT doing what you think God should do?
You said: "But why doesn’t god just snap his metaphorical fingers and give the guy a lethal heat attack?"

Did you even read my OP? I'm talking about an argument that some theists make. THEY claim that the reason god doesn't intervene to stop atrocities is because it would violate human's free will. It has NOTHING to do with what I think god should or shouldn't do. And yes, I DID mention that god could snap his fingers and give people heart attacks... but the reason WHY I mentioned it was to demonstrate that this god could stop the murderer from committing more crimes WITHOUT violating his free will. I never claimed that I think this is what god SHOULD do, only that he COULD and it wouldn't violate anyone's free will.

I am saying that if God needs no excuses then that means that God does not need to be excused for NOT doing what you think God should do.

Again, you keep going on about what 'you think god should do' when I haven't advocated for god doing anything. I'm repeating an argument I've heard some theists make. If you say If God needs no excuses free will cannot be an excuse, then you AGREE with me that it isn't a valid argument. The fact that the reason you agree with me is because you don't think god needs excuses is a completely different matter and doesn't change the fact that you agree that this claim made by some theists is false. You keep trying to make this far more complicated than it needs to be.

 

[DNB]

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

If your god is in the rain, then he isn't omnipotent.