Free Will and the Problem of Evil

[waitasec]

you are right, evil does not have to exist

if people stopped choosing to act in evil ways, then evil would not exist. But the problem is that mankind are driven to acts of evil by their own selfish desires.

explain the struggle to survive? is that evil?
there is one position available and 2 need to be in this particular position in order to sustain their life. would you consider the one giving up that position good and the one determined to get it evil...?
or are both evil for wanting to live?

 

[idav]

Well, in a way we are biological machines. Why would God have to permit our ability to do evil? How does it prevent free will by limiting our options for evil? We already have many limitations on free will to begin with, why not put limitations that are actually beneficial to us if the God is benevolent?

God would have to permit if he knows what we are doing and has the ability to stop or guide us in another direction. Assuming god doesn't want to do evil, if we just did what he willed then we wouldn't do it either. Our ability to do what god wouldn't do is one way to have free choice.

Think about the laws of the nation and how they tell us what we are permitted to do. If we break the law then we are not abiding but we had the free will to break it assuming the government doesn't swarm down and prevent you.

A god that is benevolent may think our population needs to be reduced if some other species needs us to die down for more balance to come about. He would have to be benevolent specifically for humans otherwise we are just as important as the rest of creation.

Evil is stipulating a condition concerning the prospect of a gift of freewill which by nature and in text dictates no conditions and then punishing all for the stipulation of the condition claimed not to have existed in the first place&#8230;.as it concerns the story of the Garden. Robots wouldn&#8217;t know the difference found in the story of creation, but a reasoning man would recognize them as contradiction, wouldn&#8217;t he. We&#8217;ve been over this already though haven&#8217;t we&#8230;.how are you, best wishes from Jim <Predator> : )

From that story a line was created that we were told not to cross. A robot wouldn't cross the line if they were programmed not to. Would it be non-perfect to have free will?

Good to see some of you from the R&P.

 

[Straw Dog]

God would have to permit if he knows what we are doing and has the ability to stop or guide us in another direction. Assuming god doesn't want to do evil, if we just did what he willed then we wouldn't do it either. Our ability to do what god wouldn't do is one way to have free choice.

Think about the laws of the nation and how they tell us what we are permitted to do. If we break the law then we are not abiding but we had the free will to break it assuming the government doesn't swarm down and prevent you.

A god that is benevolent may think our population needs to be reduced if some other species needs us to die down for more balance to come about. He would have to be benevolent specifically for humans otherwise we are just as important as the rest of creation.

So the value here is in our ability to make free moral choices? How far does it go before an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving deity is held accountable for neglect of his children?

For example, let's examine the case of rape. Are you saying that God values moral free will so much that he respects the rapist's right more than the victim's right to not be raped? I fail to see why God could not allow the rapist to make his moral decision to commit the act, but then intervene to protect the victim from having her rights violated. That way, the man can be judged for his evil choice without the effects of that choice causing unnecessary harm to the woman. If human law enforcement could prevent it, they would. God can, but why doesn't he? What's the value of the evil act itself? The man has already made his choice and God would know the conviction in his heart.

There's also the problem of "natural evil". Earthquakes, famine, diseases, hurricanes, tsunamis, cancer, life perpetuating itself by killing and eating other life, etc, etc... all things in which human beings have no real control over nor free choice in.

 

[TheKnight]

I don't believe that I created a paradox. I was just addressing one that has already been made: that an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving deity refuses to prevent evil.

I'm saying that the paradox itself negates the question. It's like saying "Does this look like a square circle?" The logical answer to that question is "Square circles don't exist and thus I have no frame of reference with which to answer whether or not something looks like a square circle".

Similarly, with this question, one could respond "making a choice when there is only one option isn't a real event. Therefore I cannot imagine the scenario you create where I can still make choices, yet there is only one choice."

So the value here is not in our ability to choose the paths we take in life, but just the moral decisions we make? How valuable is this moral training we're being put through? At what cost?

For many who ascribe to that position, the entire point is about making the choice between paths of moral behavior and immoral behavior.

For example, let's examine the case of rape. Are you saying that God values moral free will so much that he respects the rapist's right more than the victim's right to not be raped? I fail to see why God could not allow the rapist to make his moral decision to commit the act, but then intervene to protect the victim from having her rights violated. That way, the man can be judged for his evil choice without the effects of that choice causing unnecessary harm to the woman. What's the value of the evil act itself? The man has already made his choice and God would know the conviction in his heart.

Ahh, I see what you're saying. I don't know what the response would be to that except for maybe if we could decide to do things, but never actually be able to do them, then we wouldn't have a realistic framework. For instance, the rapist doesn't know with rape is if he decides to rape yet isn't actually able to do it. After all, if evil never actually happened, how would people know what it is?

There's also the problem of "natural evil". Earthquakes, famine, diseases, hurricanes, tsunamis, cancer, life perpetuating itself by killing and eating other life, etc, etc... all things in which human beings have no real control over nor free choice in.

That doesn't really have anything to do with morality or with free will.

 

[idav]

So the value here is in our ability to make free moral choices? How far does it go before an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving deity is held accountable for neglect of his children?

For example, let's examine the case of rape. Are you saying that God values moral free will so much that he respects the rapist's right more than the victim's right to not be raped? I fail to see why God could not allow the rapist to make his moral decision to commit the act, but then intervene to protect the victim from having her rights violated. That way, the man can be judged for his evil choice without the effects of that choice causing unnecessary harm to the woman. If human law enforcement could prevent it, they would. God can, but why doesn't he? What's the value of the evil act itself? The man has already made his choice and God would know the conviction in his heart.

There's also the problem of "natural evil". Earthquakes, famine, diseases, hurricanes, tsunamis, cancer, life perpetuating itself by killing and eating other life, etc, etc... all things in which human beings have no real control over nor free choice in.

Thought crime isn't exactly a good way to run things. Also limiting some peoples free will and not others is problematic. Once the free will is given it isn't free if God has some sort of kill switch. When you have billions of children trying to do harm on one another where do you draw the line on certain childrens free agency? It is hard enough to decide when it is just two kids like Cain and Abel. Should god have intervened before Cain killed Abel especially if Abel was favored?

As for nature I don't take what it does to us personally.

 

[Straw Dog]

I'm saying that the paradox itself negates the question. It's like saying "Does this look like a square circle?" The logical answer to that question is "Square circles don't exist and thus I have no frame of reference with which to answer whether or not something looks like a square circle".

But most popular conceptions of deity tend to be like "square circles". They don't make sense really. I'm just working with what monotheists have given me. If the question is negated then we're pushed into a position of ignosticism (what do we even mean by God?)

Similarly, with this question, one could respond "making a choice when there is only one option isn't a real event. Therefore I cannot imagine the scenario you create where I can still make choices, yet there is only one choice

For many who ascribe to that position, the entire point is about making the choice between paths of moral behavior and immoral behavior.

Maybe I'm not quite understanding what you're getting at. When did I say there was only ever one choice to make in action? There are many possible good and neutral choices available for people. You can choose to work at a soup kitchen or stay home for example. Perhaps a better testing scenario without the need for extreme evil to exist would be choices between empathy and apathy. Apathy maybe a type of passive evil, but it's not as destructive as many other aggressive actions and it would test the ethical convictions of people if that's what God is so interested in to begin with. Just a thought.

Ahh, I see what you're saying. I don't know what the response would be to that except for maybe if we could decide to do things, but never actually be able to do them, then we wouldn't have a realistic framework. For instance, the rapist doesn't know with rape is if he decides to rape yet isn't actually able to do it. After all, if evil never actually happened, how would people know what it is?

We all have imaginations. We can visualize. The rapist-to-be would know what he was about to do. Jesus even taught that sins in the mind were just as bad as actually committing them. People would know about evil by being corrected by God for their conscious choices to pursue it. We are often called the children of God so it would be in the manner of a father stopping his child from acting out violently against a household pet or running straight forward into the fireplace. Eventually the child will learn, hopefully. Why is pain and suffering so important for people to learn? Can't they simply be educated and corrected over time? What is the value of evil acts, both human and natural?

 

[Straw Dog]

Thought crime isn't exactly a good way to run things. Also limiting some peoples free will and not others is problematic. Once the free will is given it isn't free if God has some sort of kill switch. When you have billions of children trying to do harm on one another where do you draw the line on certain childrens free agency? It is hard enough to decide when it is just two kids like Cain and Abel. Should god have intervened before Cain killed Abel especially if Abel was favored?

As for nature I don't take what it does to us personally.

Well, it worked for the most part in Minority Report lol. I agree though that I would not want Jehovah in charge of it. Perhaps Jesus would be okay. They're both apparently all-knowing so they should be able to handle it.

Like I said before, our free will already has limitations to it. It's not completely free as it is. It's not even totally free morally. The rape victim did nothing morally wrong (forget all that "she showed her face" BS). Why does she deserve to have her rights violated while the rapist is free to commit evil? Think of it as preserving and defending negative rights. Human law enforcement would intervene if they could. God can, but chooses not to. Why does God value evil actions so much?

 

[TheKnight]

. Why is pain and suffering so important for people to learn? Can't they simply be educated and corrected over time? What is the value of evil acts, both human and natural?

So, it is obvious to me that your question isn't about evil and free will, it's about suffering. For some, such as myself, suffering exists solely for us to fix and alleviate it.

 

[Straw Dog]

So, it is obvious to me that your question isn't about evil and free will, it's about suffering.

What causes more suffering than evil?

For some, such as myself, suffering exists solely for us to fix and alleviate it.

We have to fix and alleviate suffering because it happens to exist. If given a choice would you wish for the presence of suffering to continue in the world or end?

 

[idav]

Well, it worked for the most part in Minority Report lol. I agree though that I would not want Jehovah in charge of it. Perhaps Jesus would be okay. They're both apparently all-knowing so they should be able to handle it.

Like I said before, our free will already has limitations to it. It's not completely free as it is. It's not even totally free morally. The rape victim did nothing morally wrong (forget all that "she showed her face" BS). Why does she deserve to have her rights violated while the rapist is free to commit evil? Think of it as preserving and defending negative rights. Human law enforcement would intervene if they could. God can, but chooses not to. Why does God value evil actions so much?

It failed in the minority report because the choice has to actually be made. They had to release everyone at the end of the movie.

If I were a deity I would draw the line with corruption of innocence but I don't think god has the power to intervene like we are speculating. We have to let the collective of humanity know but we are limited in our ability to be on top of everything and end up stopping things after the fact. Major events do cause a global shifts of perception but the changes still take time to trickle through to everything and everyone. Even then there still should be some sort of balance between being controlled like hive mentality and being able to be an individual at the same time.

 

[idav]

What causes more suffering than evil?




We have to fix and alleviate suffering because it happens to exist. If given a choice would you wish for the presence of suffering to continue in the world or end?

Suffering isn't evil it is an indication that a threshold is being crossed. If we had higher tolerance for pain our main complaint would be our rights being violated by others. To me "evil" has more to do with intentionally inflicting suffering.

 

[Straw Dog]

Suffering isn't evil it is an indication that a threshold is being crossed. If we had higher tolerance for pain our main complaint would be our rights being violated by others. To me "evil" has more to do with intentionally inflicting suffering.

Yeah I guess you're right. He was distracting from the topic of evil and free will and I was trying to tie it back in. There is a thing called "natural evil" in contrast to "moral evil" in religious philosophy and theology. I'm also trying to maintain the view point of mainstream monotheistic conceptions of evil as an active invisible force in the world causing hate and suffering. I'm willing to use a different concept of evil from a monotheistic perspective if it's put forward. I was just being safe by going with the popular notion, at least in the U.S. I have to for this discussion to even make sense lol.

From a Taoist and Pantheist perspective, there is no personal deity put forth to begin with so naturally we differ in all corresponding views on evil and suffering.

 

[Straw Dog]

It failed in the minority report because the choice has to actually be made. They had to release everyone at the end of the movie.

If I were a deity I would draw the line with corruption of innocence but I don't think god has the power to intervene like we are speculating. We have to let the collective of humanity know but we are limited in our ability to be on top of everything and end up stopping things after the fact. Major events do cause a global shifts of perception but the changes still take time to trickle through to everything and everyone. Even then there still should be some sort of balance between being controlled like hive mentality and being able to be an individual at the same time.

I forget the end. Well, those were fallible humans in control lol.

If you want to put forth the position that God is not all-powerful, that would successfully evade the problem of evil. The argument only defeats the concept of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving Creator. Change one and we can find an excuse.

I think it would be fair to defend the innocent at least in terms of preserving negative rights. You know, you have a right not to be murdered. You have a right not to be raped. You have the right not to be obliterated in a tsunami, etc. God is the ruler of existence and he can't even defend these basic rights? It's the least he could do. We could even work for our happiness then since evil and suffering wouldn't be such a burden holding us back. Most of our energy is expelled in defending against moral and natural evil. Imagine how we could spiritually flourish if God actually acted like the Father many claim him to be?

I realize that ethical and political philosophy has evolved a great deal since the time that the Bible and Qu'ran were composed. The popular conceptions of deity described in them aren't all quite up-to-speed with the modern zeitgeist in many ways unfortunately. It makes it difficult to argue from a historically relative position.

 

[TheKnight]

What causes more suffering than evil?

I don't believe in evil. I do, however, believe in suffering.

We have to fix and alleviate suffering because it happens to exist. If given a choice would you wish for the presence of suffering to continue in the world or end?

Of course I want it to end. The real question is, given the option would I have never allowed suffering to exist.

 

[Straw Dog]

I don't believe in evil. I do, however, believe in suffering.

Of course I want it to end. The real question is, given the option would I have never allowed suffering to exist.

Well, I do believe in moral evil. I think it stems from the ignorance that one is separate from the natural world and the arrogance that one's ego should dominate over others. I would say that Hitler was evil for example.

Personally, I don't really believe in natural evil. If there was a Creator God though, I would then believe in natural evil since an apparently omnipotent and conscious being is said to have created it in the first place. Hence my use of the belief in this debate.

I see what you mean by your differences with popular monotheistic and Jewish beliefs. It's sometimes difficult to pinpoint exactly what other people believe about things. Can you tell me more of your conception of deity? For instance, do you believe God is omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly benevolent? If not, then your God beliefs pass the problem of evil without inconsistency. If so, then I'd replace 'evil' with 'suffering'. Why does God allow suffering to exist?

Would you never have allowed suffering to exist in the first place then?

 

[ForeverFaithful]

Of course I want it to end. The real question is, given the option would I have never allowed suffering to exist.

But just how humans are, and for all I know anything in creation, we need contrast to understand, I can not appreciate how much I have if it was the least of all, I mean no disrespect, but a huge motivation for my charity is my knowledge of the existence of suffering and it's contrast to my situation. For all we know this could be the best and least suffering possible, in theory of course.

 

[Walkntune]

Suffering isn't evil it is an indication that a threshold is being crossed. If we had higher tolerance for pain our main complaint would be our rights being violated by others. To me "evil" has more to do with intentionally inflicting suffering.

Its best to catch it while it is in the conviction stage.

 

[TheKnight]

I see what you mean by your differences with popular monotheistic and Jewish beliefs. It's sometimes difficult to pinpoint exactly what other people believe about things. Can you tell me more of your conception of deity?

I believe in a non-dual panentheistic God. Essentially, I believe that God doesn't just exist, He is the quintessential existence or, in simpler terms, He is existence itself. Is He omnipotent? It depends on what you mean by that. If we say that He is existence, then He is omnipotent in the sense that He is able to affect existence, being existence Himself. Is He omniscient? Well, the only things to know would be those things that exist, given that He is existence and existence is present wherever things exists, then He would, of course, know what is going on. Wholly benevolent? I don't believe that He is specifically benevolent. That would require a definition of benevolent that could apply to Him yet exist beyond Him, and I don't think anything exists external to Him.

The real trouble for me is logically justifying God's sentience. I do believe that He is, but I haven't been able to articulate why with logic.

Would you never have allowed suffering to exist in the first place then?

I think there is a significant amount of value gained from the experience of overcoming suffering, and thus I would probably have allowed it.

 

[Straw Dog]

I believe in a non-dual panentheistic God. Essentially, I believe that God doesn't just exist, He is the quintessential existence or, in simpler terms, He is existence itself. Is He omnipotent? It depends on what you mean by that. If we say that He is existence, then He is omnipotent in the sense that He is able to affect existence, being existence Himself. Is He omniscient? Well, the only things to know would be those things that exist, given that He is existence and existence is present wherever things exists, then He would, of course, know what is going on. Wholly benevolent? I don't believe that He is specifically benevolent. That would require a definition of benevolent that could apply to Him yet exist beyond Him, and I don't think anything exists external to Him.

The real trouble for me is logically justifying God's sentience. I do believe that He is, but I haven't been able to articulate why with logic.

I think there is a significant amount of value gained from the experience of overcoming suffering, and thus I would probably have allowed it.

I see. Interesting. If it's not wholly benevolent, or all-loving, but only benevolent in some respects and not in others or any other combination then it could be excused from the problem of evil because of its non-dual nature. Most conceptions of personal deities tend to be wholly-good and oppose all evil and suffering. Perhaps your conception doesn't view evil as totally alien to itself so would have no real motive to oppose it outright. It's always difficult to logically justify sentience in any belief in an intelligent personal God. It's part of the reason I abandoned it a long time ago.

Taoism is most closely related to the Western beliefs of naturalistic pantheism. I chose to abandon "pantheism" (god is all) in favor of a more semantically neutral term, the Tao or "the Way". It refers to the way of nature or the flow of the universe. Plus I believe in all the associated beliefs about the transcendence of duality, action through inaction, simplicity, integrity, compassion, humility, etc. I believe in evil on the level of the human taos, but all dualities are transcended by the Great Tao.

I appreciate your view on suffering and, from a Taoist perspective, I agree in its value for teaching personal cultivation. I don't know that I could allow it to exist in the first place, though, as much suffering goes beyond the threshold for positive transformation into purely destructive results and many people might not appreciate it being released upon them. It only becomes unjustifiable whenever we introduce a personal creator deity with more anthropomorphic traits like love, jealousy, etc.

 

[idav]

Yeah I guess you're right. He was distracting from the topic of evil and free will and I was trying to tie it back in. There is a thing called "natural evil" in contrast to "moral evil" in religious philosophy and theology. I'm also trying to maintain the view point of mainstream monotheistic conceptions of evil as an active invisible force in the world causing hate and suffering. I'm willing to use a different concept of evil from a monotheistic perspective if it's put forward. I was just being safe by going with the popular notion, at least in the U.S. I have to for this discussion to even make sense lol.

From a Taoist and Pantheist perspective, there is no personal deity put forth to begin with so naturally we differ in all corresponding views on evil and suffering.

The only thing I can think to help the monotheistic god is arguing that this is the best of possible worlds and there is some reason for everything. Ultimately with an all powerful god in charge everything that happens is the way it is because god wants it this way. I have no idea whether the extremes would cancel out but even from the broad perspective there are more births than there are deaths every minute in this world but is that positive for this world?