Free will

[Raithie]

The most common response I've seen by theists (Christians in particular, so this is directed at them primarily) to explain the suffering in this world is regarding free will.

Firstly, I fail to understand how an omnipotent creator couldn't have designed us perfectly, all whilst keeping free will in tact. He is omnipotent, after all... and he's atleast powerful enough to be able to create the universe.

Secondly, let's say he tossed his omnipotent card aside for a while. Could he still minimize suffering? I'd say yes. Easily. The most simple option would be to reduce our animalistic behaviours and instincts, ie, lust, aggression, anger etc., since all of these are chemically wired into our brain. God could simply alter our brain chemistry to mitigate the potential that these parts have for overwhelming emotions of fury, hate, lust etc. By doing so, we would be less inclined to lash out violently and commit other terrible things.
He could simply use those divine powers of his to sculpt us to be better people, while still keeping the potential to sin and thus, free will intact.

There are other options, I was just wondering what response a theist would give to this particular scenario.

Thoughts?

 

[Tarheeler]

The most common response I've seen by theists (Christians in particular, so this is directed at them primarily) to explain the suffering in this world is regarding free will.

Firstly, I fail to understand how an omnipotent creator couldn't have designed us perfectly, all whilst keeping free will in tact. He is omnipotent, after all... and he's atleast powerful enough to be able to create the universe.

Secondly, let's say he tossed his omnipotent card aside for a while. Could he still minimize suffering? I'd say yes. Easily. The most simple option would be to reduce our animalistic behaviours and instincts, ie, lust, aggression, anger etc., since all of these are chemically wired into our brain. God could simply alter our brain chemistry to mitigate the potential that these parts have for overwhelming emotions of fury, hate, lust etc. By doing so, we would be less inclined to lash out violently and commit other terrible things.
He could simply use those divine powers of his to sculpt us to be better people, while still keeping the potential to sin and thus, free will intact.

There are other options, I was just wondering what response a theist would give to this particular scenario.

Thoughts?

You're making a huge assumption.

Why do you believe we are not a perfect creation? How do you know that we are not exactly the way we are meant to be at this time?

Just because God has the power to do something does not mean it is His desire to do so. Perhaps in giving us free will, the Creator has decided that the amount of suffering we will cause to ourselves will serve a purpose.

 

[Thief]

From another thread...I quote myself....

For every effect there is a cause....and for every cause there is an effect.

Physically...I see this as true.

However, the topic title is omnipotent versus free will.
To be omnipotent, and to lack free will?

Then even the most basic of statements becomes impossible.

God said..'I AM'.
If God lacks the will to say this, then there is no creator.
No creator...and therefore...substance begets spirit....your spirit.
You are then the sum of your chemistry and completely subject to it.
You cannot resist...you cannot say 'no'.
Whatever your chemistry desires, it becomes what you will do.

There is then...no sin.
Law breaking is brought on by poor chemistry.
Imprisonment is therefore not a deterrent, and the convict should not be released.....ever.
Parole is wishful thinking....because no convict can learn his 'lesson', and the convict is not at fault for his lack will...he simply is what he is, and cannot be 'saved'.

I suspect this topic runs deeper than terms expressed so far.

God has the ability to say...I AM. If not, then how is it ...that you do?
If you refrain the words.... how are you more than any mindless item?


And still you could try again to leave God out of it.
Say to the judge....it's not my fault....I have no will of my own.

 

[CarlinKnew]

For free will to be real, the will would need to be free from its own nature, but that defines it out of existence. So not even the Abrahamic god could have free will, not to mention his creations.

 

[Raithie]

You're making a huge assumption.

Why do you believe we are not a perfect creation? How do you know that we are not exactly the way we are meant to be at this time?

Just because God has the power to do something does not mean it is His desire to do so. Perhaps in giving us free will, the Creator has decided that the amount of suffering we will cause to ourselves will serve a purpose.

That's a fairly wicked condemnation of the people that born into less fortunate areas or lifestyles, due to no fault of their own - only chance of birth. If God doesn't have the desire to help quench some peoples staggering pain and misery, I wouldn't be all that quick to consider him benevolent or offer him worship.
To your point about some peoples pain acting to "serve a purpose". That's lame. So Gods plan is to let some people get of scott free, whilst leaving others in constant torment in order for the humans to establish their own sense of morality? He's supposed to be omnipotent, so why create a plan that involves so much pain for others?

In regards to your "perfection" point, because the reality of the horrific suffering here on Earth, caused by us (and natural disasters etc.), I wouldn't consider us perfect. Physiologically wise, we aren't perfect either. There are many errors in our genetic makeup that are explained by the blind and meaningless processes of evolution.

However, this is a bit of a digression.

 

[sojourner]

For free will to be real, the will would need to be free from its own nature, but that defines it out of existence. So not even the Abrahamic god could have free will, not to mention his creations.

There's a fallacy here. Free will is defined as free to exercise one's own will, as opposed to being coerced by the will of another.

 

[Storm]

The most common response I've seen by theists (Christians in particular, so this is directed at them primarily) to explain the suffering in this world is regarding free will.

Firstly, I fail to understand how an omnipotent creator couldn't have designed us perfectly, all whilst keeping free will in tact. He is omnipotent, after all... and he's atleast powerful enough to be able to create the universe.

Secondly, let's say he tossed his omnipotent card aside for a while. Could he still minimize suffering? I'd say yes. Easily. The most simple option would be to reduce our animalistic behaviours and instincts, ie, lust, aggression, anger etc., since all of these are chemically wired into our brain. God could simply alter our brain chemistry to mitigate the potential that these parts have for overwhelming emotions of fury, hate, lust etc. By doing so, we would be less inclined to lash out violently and commit other terrible things.
He could simply use those divine powers of his to sculpt us to be better people, while still keeping the potential to sin and thus, free will intact.

There are other options, I was just wondering what response a theist would give to this particular scenario.

Thoughts?

It's my opinion that it isn't free will if it doesn't include the capacity to defy God (sin).

 

[CarlinKnew]

There's a fallacy here. Free will is defined as free to exercise one's own will, as opposed to being coerced by the will of another.

Sure, that's one definition. That type of free will doesn't justify a god holding his creations accountable for their actions, because if a person's behavior follows from his will, and a deity designed the nature of this person's will, then the deity is responsible for it.

 

[Tarheeler]

That's a fairly wicked condemnation of the people that born into less fortunate areas or lifestyles, due to no fault of their own - only chance of birth. If God doesn't have the desire to help quench some peoples staggering pain and misery, I wouldn't be all that quick to consider him benevolent or offer him worship.
To your point about some peoples pain acting to "serve a purpose". That's lame. So Gods plan is to let some people get of scott free, whilst leaving others in constant torment in order for the humans to establish their own sense of morality? He's supposed to be omnipotent, so why create a plan that involves so much pain for others?

What condemnation have I made?
We are all born to the conditions that currently exist. If our parents are rich, we are born into that lifestyle. If our parents are poor, again that's the life we are born to.

Why would you assume God would have anything to do with that?
Why would you assume that God does nothing to ease anyone's pain?
Why do you assume that God allows the wicked to go unpunished?

As for pain and suffering serving a purpose, I 'm sure it does. The pain and suffering of the poor motivates charity. The pain and suffering of the sick motivates science and medicine. The pain and suffering of children motivates benevolence.

Perhaps his goal is not to give us paradise on earth; perhaps his goal is for us to make it for ourselves. In our suffering, we find motivation, and through that motivation we find ways to improve our lives and the lives of our fellow man.

In regards to your "perfection" point, because the reality of the horrific suffering here on Earth, caused by us (and natural disasters etc.), I wouldn't consider us perfect. Physiologically wise, we aren't perfect either. There are many errors in our genetic makeup that are explained by the blind and meaningless processes of evolution.

However, this is a bit of a digression.

You don't know God's plans for mankind. No one does.
Just because you do not see man as perfect does not mean that we are not exactly what God wanted us to be at this time.

Maybe he wanted to create a being that was able to think, rationalize, affect his surroundings, and had the ability to perform great acts (whether they be good or bad) using his conscience as a guide.

 

[PolyHedral]

Why would you assume that God does nothing to ease anyone's pain?

How about because more people than you've known your entire life die every single hour?

The pain and suffering of the poor motivates charity. The pain and suffering of the sick motivates science and medicine.

Neither of which are necessary if the suffering isn't there to begin with.

Just because you do not see man as perfect does not mean that we are not exactly what God wanted us to be at this time.

Is God all-loving?

 

[Thief]

Sure, that's one definition. That type of free will doesn't justify a god holding his creations accountable for their actions, because if a person's behavior follows from his will, and a deity designed the nature of this person's will, then the deity is responsible for it.

This would assume free will to be absolute...not having consequence.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you....because....
they probably WILL do unto you as you did unto them.

And God is not in a position to alter His creation? as in destroy it?

 

[Tarheeler]

How about because more people than you've known your entire life die every single hour?

What does that have to with God easing pain?

Neither of which are necessary if the suffering isn't there to begin with.

But the suffering is there, so the statement stands.

Is God all-loving?

I believe He is, but your question doesn't address whether or not we are what we are supposed to be.

 

[Raithie]

What condemnation have I made?
We are all born to the conditions that currently exist. If our parents are rich, we are born into that lifestyle. If our parents are poor, again that's the life we are born to.

I was referring to the people that are forced to live in painful conditions etc. I would think that by allowing such a hurtful and grief stricken state of existence for certain individuals, it's the same as condemning them to that fate.

Why would you assume God would have anything to do with that?
Why would you assume that God does nothing to ease anyone's pain?
Why do you assume that God allows the wicked to go unpunished?

1. He's allowing for people to live in anguish and misery due to accident of location of birth.
2. Tell that to the people dying of starvation and other horrific diseases and inflictions.
3. This has nothing to do with the discussion. But, a lot of people who have done, do or will do wicked things will go unpunished on Earth. Hell is a different matter altogether.

As for pain and suffering serving a purpose, I 'm sure it does. The pain and suffering of the poor motivates charity. The pain and suffering of the sick motivates science and medicine. The pain and suffering of children motivates benevolence.

Oh, that's just cruel. God delegates certain individuals to live in misery, so that other people can feel good about themselves by establishing charities...
If there's no suffering in the first place, neither charity nor medicine is needed.

Perhaps his goal is not to give us paradise on earth; perhaps his goal is for us to make it for ourselves. In our suffering, we find motivation, and through that motivation we find ways to improve our lives and the lives of our fellow man.

If there was no suffering, there would be no need for humans to dedicate their lives to helping people that are so badly off. This time and energy could be used elsewhere.

You don't know God's plans for mankind. No one does.
Just because you do not see man as perfect does not mean that we are not exactly what God wanted us to be at this time. Maybe he wanted to create a being that was able to think, rationalize, affect his surroundings, and had the ability to perform great acts (whether they be good or bad) using his conscience as a guide.

I never claimed to know of his plan. I don't believe there is a plan, hence all the chaos and misery.
The problem here is with God "[wanting] us to be [as is] at this time". That's a horrible fate left for the people who suffer. I'd hate myself if I had to tell a dying child that "it's all part of Gods plan!".
Regarding your last point, regarding free will etc., that's true. However, the point of the OP was that wouldn't an omnipotent creator be able to (at the very least) reduce the suffering found here on Earth?

 

[PolyHedral]

What does that have to with God easing pain?

If 50 million people are dieing every year, then they're not having pain eased.

...suffering is there...

I believe He is [all-loving],

You're going to have to explain how that isn't a contradiction. If God loves everyone, and is all powerful, why is there suffering? (Unless we're operating on a very strange definition of "love" that permits standing aside while someone suffers needlessly.)

Just because you do not see man as perfect does not mean that we are not exactly what God wanted us to be at this time.

So God wants people to suffer? That's what you seem to be implying.

 

[sandandfoam]

The most common response I've seen by theists (Christians in particular, so this is directed at them primarily) to explain the suffering in this world is regarding free will.

Thoughts?

I don't understand why pain exists. I can't explain it nor do I believe it's possible to do so.
So?

 

[Tarheeler]

I was referring to the people that are forced to live in painful conditions etc. I would think that by allowing such a hurtful and grief stricken state of existence for certain individuals, it's the same as condemning them to that fate.

1. He's allowing for people to live in anguish and misery due to accident of location of birth.
2. Tell that to the people dying of starvation and other horrific diseases and inflictions.
3. This has nothing to do with the discussion. But, a lot of people who have done, do or will do wicked things will go unpunished on Earth. Hell is a different matter altogether.

And please explain why you believe that God has anything to do with where one is born. He's given us the ability to do as we please; we (and our offspring) are subject to the consequences of our decisions and the decisions of society as a whole.
You stated that God allowed some to go "scott free"; if you meant something other that what I posted, please feel free to explain further.

Oh, that's just cruel. God delegates certain individuals to live in misery, so that other people can feel good about themselves by establishing charities...
If there's no suffering in the first place, neither charity nor medicine is needed.

If there was no suffering, there would be no need for humans to dedicate their lives to helping people that are so badly off. This time and energy could be used elsewhere.

God doesn't delegate people to live in misery, people do.
You seem to be assuming God keeps a direct hand in the lives of men.
We suffer the consequences of our actions, both as individuals and as a whole. All God does is allow those consequences to happen.

I never claimed to know of his plan. I don't believe there is a plan, hence all the chaos and misery.
The problem here is with God "[wanting] us to be [as is] at this time". That's a horrible fate left for the people who suffer. I'd hate myself if I had to tell a dying child that "it's all part of Gods plan!".
Regarding your last point, regarding free will etc., that's true. However, the point of the OP was that wouldn't an omnipotent creator be able to (at the very least) reduce the suffering found here on Earth?

Of course you have. Your entire premise is about what you think God should be doing.
You assume that an all-powerful God would do what you think is right and proper.

Your idea of the "perfect" design might not be what God had in mind.

 

[Tarheeler]

If 50 million people are dieing every year, then they're not having pain eased.

So you believe God should eliminate death?

As for pain being eased, how do you know?

Are any of them finding solace and comfort in prayer? Are any of them ready to end a long and happy life, satisfied with all they have accomplished?

You're going to have to explain how that isn't a contradiction. If God loves everyone, and is all powerful, why is there suffering? (Unless we're operating on a very strange definition of "love" that permits standing aside while someone suffers needlessly.)

It's only a contradiction to your assumption that God must take a direct hand in everyone's lives.

So God wants people to suffer? That's what you seem to be implying.

Possibly. I don't think it's an actual desire for us to suffer, but I do think that in giving us free will, He knew that we would have to eventually.

 

[Skwim]

And please explain why you believe that God has anything to do with where one is born. He's given us the ability to do as we please; we (and our offspring) are subject to the consequences of our decisions and the decisions of society as a whole.

But that's the whole argument against free will. We can't do as we please. We can only do as we are caused to to do. If not, then what we do is a completely random event, which doesn't help the problem of accountability. Either way, and there are only the two (determinism or utter randomness), we can't help what we do, which includes what we think. So whatever suffering befalls us is not our fault, but part of the whole setup of the universe in which we find ourselves. A setup that Christians say god created. Therefore, the buck goes back and stops at god. He created the situation and all its attendant suffering. So, in a very real sense god has delegated some people to live in misery. He made the rules by which the universe operates, which includes all the happiness we may achieve as well as all the suffering we may undergo. Could he have done differently? According to the well advertised power of omnipotence he is said to possess, absolutely. So why didn't he? The only plausible answer I see is that he enjoys the suffering his creation undergoes.

You assume that an all-powerful God would do what you think is right and proper.

And you evidently assume he should do what we think is improper. Interesting that because god allows suffering to exist that its therefore proper. Suffering is good. We simply got it all wrong in thinking it's undesirable. Suffering is just another form of goodness, mislabeled as it is. We should relish and delight in our sufferings. But we don't, so how do suppose we characterize this tremendous good that no one wants and goes out of the way to avoid? "Bad-goodness"? Unpleasant-goodness"? "Rotten-goodness"? How about, "God awful-goodness"?

 

[PolyHedral]

So you believe God should eliminate death?
As for pain being eased, how do you know?
Are any of them finding solace and comfort in prayer? Are any of them ready to end a long and happy life, satisfied with all they have accomplished?

Maybe a small fraction. But the vast majority would prefer not to be in the pain that led to their death. The fact that they have endured that pain suggests God isn't helping them.

It's only a contradiction to your assumption that God must take a direct hand in everyone's lives.

God automatically takes a hand in everyone's lives, since he built the universe, and peoples' lives are a consequence of what happens in the universe.

Possibly. I don't think it's an actual desire for us to suffer, but I do think that in giving us free will, He knew that we would have to eventually.

Not everything that causes suffering is caused, directly or indirectly, by free will. Example 1 If God doesn't want people to suffer, then why do they? If God does not care, how can he be all-loving? If God does want people to suffer, then how can he be all-loving? (A consistent God must be one of the three.)

 

[Tarheeler]

But that's the whole argument against free will. We can't do as we please. We can only do as we are caused to to do. If not, then what we do is a completely random event, which doesn't help the problem of accountability. Either way, and there are only the two (determinism or utter randomness), we can't help what we do, which includes what we think. So whatever suffering befalls us is not our fault, but part of the whole setup of the universe in which we find ourselves. A setup that Christians say god created. Therefore, the buck goes back and stops at god. He created the situation and all its attendant suffering. So, in a very real sense god has delegated some people to live in misery. He made the rules by which the universe operates, which includes all the happiness we may achieve as well as all the suffering we may undergo. Could he have done differently? According to the well advertised power of omnipotence he is said to possess, absolutely. So why didn't he? The only plausible answer I see is that he enjoys the suffering his creation undergoes.

We aren't caused to do anything. We might react to situations, but we choose how to react. We choose to abide the rules put into place and we choose to accept accountability or we choose to buck the system.
Why would the rules of the universe include all of the happiness and suffering we achieve? We were given a blank canvas, the tools needed to make decisions and interact with the world and other people, and set to live with each other.
We reap what we sow, whether it's good or bad.

And you evidently assume he should do what we think is improper. Interesting that because god allows suffering to exist that its therefore proper. Suffering is good. We simply got it all wrong in thinking it's undesirable. Suffering is just another form of goodness, mislabeled as it is. We should relish and delight in our sufferings. But we don't, so how do suppose we characterize this tremendous good that no one wants and goes out of the way to avoid? "Bad-goodness"? Unpleasant-goodness"? "Rotten-goodness"? How about, "God awful-goodness"?

I assume that God will do as He pleases. No more, no less.
But I don't automatically assume I've been forsaken when bad things happen; I don't think that God has laid out every minute of my life and just because something bad happens I've been wronged. Honestly, I don't know a single religious person who does.
I never said suffering was good, I said it was a result of free will.
I don't think it's much different than our lives; I don't like it when my children learn a painful lessons, but they must learn it. I'd give anything to prevent them the pain, but they make the decisions and must bear the burdens.