Free Will and the Problem of Evil

[Drax]

i just saw my typo...perhaps it was a freudian slip

Why tolerate intolerance? To excel, of course!

 

[waitasec]

Why tolerate intolerance? To excel, of course!

you mean to regress...right?

 

[Drax]

you mean to regress...right?

Regression leads to eventual evolution in a new form.

 

[waitasec]

Regression leads to eventual evolution in a new form.

no it doesn't.

 

[Drax]

no it doesn't.

Yes it does. Society has collapsed numerous times in history and it has learned to evolve/adept to the new world provided.

 

[waitasec]

Yes it does. Society has collapsed numerous times in history and it has learned to evolve/adept to the new world provided.

maybe the word you are looking for is experience.


edit:
or better yet, observation.
we really can't regress actually, we can only stagnate and keep ourselves from catching up with our knowledge

 

[Skwim]

Regression leads to eventual evolution in a new form.

no it doesn't.

Yes it does. Society has collapsed numerous times in history and it has learned to evolve/adept to the new world provided.

Your original statement, "Regression leads to eventual evolution in a new form," is unqualified and therefore stands as a universal: in all cases regression leads to eventual evolution in a new form. But this isn't true. sometimes regression leads to the collapse and death of a society. The Canary Island society was in serious decline---continual warfare was decimating its population---by the time the Spanish discovered them. They had devolved from living in cities to living in huts, and it never regained its former status.

 

[Matthew78]

I don't buy into the "free will" resolution of the problem of evil. I think the best rebuttal I have ever read was written (typed, technically speaking) by Raymond D Bradley. He wrote a paper called "The Free-Will Defense Refuted and the Existence of God Disproved". Michael Martin has also written a rebuttal of the free-will defense in his book Atheism: A Philosophical Justification. I'm convinced that Bradley has succeeded in constructing a sound logical argument from evil and that Martin has succeeded in constructing a cogent evidential argument from evil. But, however, both of these arguments succeed against a divine being who is believed to be, simultaneously, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

I think it's possible to argue for some kind of "finite theism" or "finite deism" by which a divine being is not omnipotent and/or omniscient. Or maybe a divine being is morally neutral or necessarily amoral. I can see this as potentially resolving the problem of evil. My chief problem with any kind of "finite theism" or "finite deism" is that if a divine being is not omnipotent or omniscient, just how powerful or knowing is such a being? How much would a being need to be to reduce the suffering and evil in this world, even if it's just a tiny bit less than it is? If a divine being is not all-powerful, just how powerful must such a being be in order to prevent just one act of evil or reduce the suffering of just one person?

 

[asm Jenkins]

I know the problem of evil has been done to death, but it's one of the strongest arguments against the belief in an all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing God. If you don't view God as having all three characteristics then the problem of evil would be nonexistent (see Zoroastrianism). It's also not a problem for me since I don't believe in God. I don't believe is complete free will either, but take a compatibilist position. Regardless, many believers do believe in free will and it's their domain in which I'm debating. This thread is just meant to address the most popular monotheistic solution to the problem of evil. It is argued that God is loving and benevolent, but that evil was a necessary component in order to create free will. Without evil, free will would not be possible.

I would argue that this position is flawed and it can be easily demonstrated to be so using common everyday examples. For instance, we freely make decisions all the time that have nothing to do with evil. We can choose to drink water or tea, we can choose to go to a movie with our friends or stay home and read a book, we can choose to donate blood or work in a soup kitchen for the poor, we can choose to take a walk in a forest or along the beach, etc, etc... and I just framed each of these as if there were only two options.

The point is that there are plenty of possible choices that we can make without the need for evil options to exist at all. Evil is not a necessary component for free will to exist. The question arises then that why wouldn't an all-loving God create the world in such a manner that only good or neutral options were available? If she were all-powerful and all-knowing, then there would be no excuse for allowing the existence of evil in the first place since free will could still be preserved.

And before someone says that it would be an incomplete free will without evil because it would be putting limitations on our options, it would seem that we already always have limitations on our options. I cannot choose to fly. I cannot choose to avoid death forever. I cannot choose to manipulate the laws of physics. I cannot choose a lot of different options due to natural limitations. We don't have totally free will to do anything anyway. Why wouldn't an all-loving God also put a limitation on our ability to make evil choices then? What is the value of evil that such a God would deem worthy of preserving?

I know the problem of evil has been done to death, but it's one of the strongest arguments against the belief in an all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing God. If you don't view God as having all three characteristics then the problem of evil would be nonexistent (see Zoroastrianism). It's also not a problem for me since I don't believe in God. I don't believe is complete free will either, but take a compatibilist position. Regardless, many believers do believe in free will and it's their domain in which I'm debating. This thread is just meant to address the most popular monotheistic solution to the problem of evil. It is argued that God is loving and benevolent, but that evil was a necessary component in order to create free will. Without evil, free will would not be possible.

I would argue that this position is flawed and it can be easily demonstrated to be so using common everyday examples. For instance, we freely make decisions all the time that have nothing to do with evil. We can choose to drink water or tea, we can choose to go to a movie with our friends or stay home and read a book, we can choose to donate blood or work in a soup kitchen for the poor, we can choose to take a walk in a forest or along the beach, etc, etc... and I just framed each of these as if there were only two options.

The point is that there are plenty of possible choices that we can make without the need for evil options to exist at all. Evil is not a necessary component for free will to exist. The question arises then that why wouldn't an all-loving God create the world in such a manner that only good or neutral options were available? If she were all-powerful and all-knowing, then there would be no excuse for allowing the existence of evil in the first place since free will could still be preserved.

And before someone says that it would be an incomplete free will without evil because it would be putting limitations on our options, it would seem that we already always have limitations on our options. I cannot choose to fly. I cannot choose to avoid death forever. I cannot choose to manipulate the laws of physics. I cannot choose a lot of different options due to natural limitations. We don't have totally free will to do anything anyway. Why wouldn't an all-loving God also put a limitation on our ability to make evil choices then? What is the value of evil that such a God would deem worthy of preserving?

I know the problem of evil has been done to death, but it's one of the strongest arguments against the belief in an all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing God. If you don't view God as having all three characteristics then the problem of evil would be nonexistent (see Zoroastrianism). It's also not a problem for me since I don't believe in God. I don't believe is complete free will either, but take a compatibilist position. Regardless, many believers do believe in free will and it's their domain in which I'm debating. This thread is just meant to address the most popular monotheistic solution to the problem of evil. It is argued that God is loving and benevolent, but that evil was a necessary component in order to create free will. Without evil, free will would not be possible.

I would argue that this position is flawed and it can be easily demonstrated to be so using common everyday examples. For instance, we freely make decisions all the time that have nothing to do with evil. We can choose to drink water or tea, we can choose to go to a movie with our friends or stay home and read a book, we can choose to donate blood or work in a soup kitchen for the poor, we can choose to take a walk in a forest or along the beach, etc, etc... and I just framed each of these as if there were only two options.

The point is that there are plenty of possible choices that we can make without the need for evil options to exist at all. Evil is not a necessary component for free will to exist. The question arises then that why wouldn't an all-loving God create the world in such a manner that only good or neutral options were available? If she were all-powerful and all-knowing, then there would be no excuse for allowing the existence of evil in the first place since free will could still be preserved.

And before someone says that it would be an incomplete free will without evil because it would be putting limitations on our options, it would seem that we already always have limitations on our options. I cannot choose to fly. I cannot choose to avoid death forever. I cannot choose to manipulate the laws of physics. I cannot choose a lot of different options due to natural limitations. We don't have totally free will to do anything anyway. Why wouldn't an all-loving God also put a limitation on our ability to make evil choices then? What is the value of evil that such a God would deem worthy of preserving?

I think God trusts us not to do evil things.

 

[Etritonakin]

I just thought of this simple analogy.

Free will is like the engine in a car. It allows the car to move -to take people where they decide they want to go.

Evil is everyone going where they want without obeying traffic laws and without applying the brakes -and all hell breaking loose.

Each individual must learn the laws -the same laws -and apply the brakes when appropriate.

So.... this present world is essentially driver's ed.

Later, many tow trucks will clear all of the wreckage -we'll be given brand new cars -and we won't have accidents anymore.