Free will

[sojourner]

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.

Overanalyzation, and an incorrect assumption based upon faulty theology. The nature of our will is to be free. The point is that we become slaves to ourselves, rather than being free in God.

 

[PolyHedral]

But your will follows from your own life experiences, and those follow from laws of nature that God designed. Doesn't that mean that God is responsible for your will?

 

[sojourner]

But your will follows from your own life experiences, and those follow from laws of nature that God designed. Doesn't that mean that God is responsible for your will?

No. it doesn't.

 

[Skwim]

We aren't caused to do anything. We might react to situations, but we choose how to react.

How? Exactly what is this process of choosing? Why did you choose A over B? Whatever that reason is exists as the cause. Then we take it a step back and ask why that reason rather than some other? Whatever that reason happens to be functions as the cause. And so the regression of cause/effect continues with no glimmer of any effect happening without a reason (cause) behind it. So there is no "choosing" that has not been caused. "Freely choosing" quickly becomes a term for the fictional impression of "I couldn't have done differently." You could not have. In order to have done differently the preceding circumstance would have to have been different. But they weren't. They were what they were.

Why would the rules of the universe include all of the happiness and suffering we achieve?

Wasn't it your god who created the universe and everything in it? If so, this would have to also include the rules by which it operates, and one of the rules is that suffering will take place. If god is truly omnipotent there is no reason he could not have have made the universe absolutely any way he wanted, including a lack of suffering. But he didn't.

We were given a blank canvas,

Hardly. We are all born into a world where our every thought and action is dependent on a myriad of cause/effects. There is no blank canvass to begin with. The moment we are conceived our existence is dictated by factors over which we have no control. Any canvass would be one filled with innumerable causes.

I never said suffering was good,

So, if it isn't good, I assume you don't think it's right and proper. Why would anyone think a bad thing is right and proper? And if it's not right and proper, yet permitted to exist by god, what does this say about your god. It says he isn't doing the right and proper thing.

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.

And why must they have to learn a painful lesson? Because your god saw fit that this lesson was not to be learned within a loving condition. Of course, we're not talking about learning lessons such as fire is hot and you'll harm yourself if you put your hand in it; suffering by an abuse of the physical laws of nature. We're talking about needless suffering. Suffering caused by sickening, and even deadly, microbes. Suffering caused by inadequate food supplies. Suffering caused by the violence and uncaring nature of man. These are things an omnipotent could have left out when he created the universe. But he didn't, and we can only assume it's because he wants it that way. He wants people to suffer. Some very little. Some a whole lot. Are you one of the sufferers starving in a disease ridden villege under military oppression? Too bad. That's the way god wants you to live.

 

[Tarheeler]

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.

All it suggests is that death is inevitable.

I'm sure that some of those who are dying would say that God isn't helping them; I'm also sure that some would say God is helping them.

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.

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.)

Again, that is your assumption. It requires an extremely narrow definition of God.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Overanalyzation, and an incorrect assumption based upon faulty theology.

My argument is valid, and you haven't provided one. I'm all ears.

 

[Tarheeler]

How? Exactly what is this process of choosing? Why did you choose A over B? Whatever that reason is exists as the cause. Then we take it a step back and ask why that reason rather than some other? Whatever that reason happens to be functions as the cause. And so the regression of cause/effect continues with no glimmer of any effect happening without a reason (cause) behind it. So there is no "choosing" that has not been caused. "Freely choosing" quickly becomes a term for the fictional impression of "I couldn't have done differently." You could not have. In order to have done differently the preceding circumstance would have to have been different. But they weren't. They were what they were.

Yes, you could have done differently. While many might evaluate the effects their decisions will have, they are still free to decide what they want.

Wasn't it your god who created the universe and everything in it? If so, this would have to also include the rules by which it operates, and one of the rules is that suffering will take place. If god is truly omnipotent there is no reason he could not have have made the universe absolutely any way he wanted, including a lack of suffering. But he didn't.

Allowing for suffering does not equal making one suffer.

Hardly. We are all born into a world where our every thought and action is dependent on a myriad of cause/effects. There is no blank canvass to begin with. The moment we are conceived our existence is dictated by factors over which we have no control. Any canvass would be one filled with innumerable causes.

We are born into a world constantly changing in which our actions can dramatically effect our circumstances.

So, if it isn't good, I assume you don't think it's right and proper. Why would anyone think a bad thing is right and proper? And if it's not right and proper, yet permitted to exist by god, what does this say about your god. It says he isn't doing the right and proper thing.

You'd assume wrong. Bad things are sometimes needed, which would make them proper. I don't paint everything in black and white; just because something is painful or unwanted does not necessarily make it bad.

And why must they have to learn a painful lesson? Because your god saw fit that this lesson was not to be learned within a loving condition. Of course, we're not talking about learning lessons such as fire is hot and you'll harm yourself if you put your hand in it; suffering by an abuse of the physical laws of nature. We're talking about needless suffering. Suffering caused by sickening, and even deadly, microbes. Suffering caused by inadequate food supplies. Suffering caused by the violence and uncaring nature of man. These are things an omnipotent could have left out when he created the universe. But he didn't, and we can only assume it's because he wants it that way. He wants people to suffer. Some very little. Some a whole lot. Are you one of the sufferers starving in a disease ridden villege under military oppression? Too bad. That's the way god wants you to live.

Perhaps the lessons are being learned on a global scale rather than on the personal scale. Maybe humanity as whole is supposed to be learning the lesson.

 

[Skwim]

Yes, you could have done differently. While many might evaluate the effects their decisions will have, they are still free to decide what they want.

Sorry, but mere assertion is not an argument. To make any impression you'll have to address the points I made. So far it appears you can't.

Allowing for suffering does not equal making one suffer.

When one has no say in the matter it does.

We are born into a world constantly changing in which our actions can dramatically effect our circumstances.

So what?

Bad things are sometimes needed,

Why? Why does god need bad things to happen to people? What's wrong with creating a universe without unnecessary suffering? Why is it necessary that some people be born into a life filled with suffering?

Perhaps the lessons are being learned on a global scale rather than on the personal scale. Maybe humanity as whole is supposed to be learning the lesson.

Exactly which segment of humanity are you talking about? So far billions upon billions of people have lived and died under the thumb of suffering and nothing has changed. People still suffer. If you're talking about some segment of humanity in the distant future then I have to question god's wisdom and goodness in sacrificing all the past billions of lives for the benefit of our distant relatives. Seems to me a omnipotent, good and just god could have found a far less cruel way of achieving this dubious end. If anyone in industry suggested such a process to achieve a desired end, wasting huge resources for a small end when the same end could be attained far easier, they would get the boot yesterday. But maybe that's what the Christian god is: cruel and inept.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

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.

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.
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?

First of all Adam rejected having God as ruler. By Adam disobeying God then Adam was claiming independence from God. Thus Adam set up people rule over God rule as the best way of ruling. In listening to Satan then Adam and Eve set up Satan as the god of this world of badness. see-2 Cor. 4v4.

God did not interfere with the free-will choice of Adam and Eve, but because we were all born after their fall from human perfection of mind and body we are all born imperfect. As a parent knows at birth that the child's leanings will be toward imperfection.

God is also our Heavenly Father. Father means life giver Not life taker.
Sickness and death is the consequence of sin. If we could stop sinning we would not die. If one wants to say death is part of God plan then they need to specify which God/god. What does Hebrews [2v14 B] say? Who, not God our Heavenly Father, but the one who has the power of death? __________

Immediately after man sinned God as a loving Father made us a promise and Jesus proved to be the promised 'seed' of Genesis 3v15 that will deal Satan [serpent] a fatal death bruise to his head at the end of Jesus peaceful soon coming 1000-year reign over earth.

At that time according to Rev 21vs4,5 God will make all things new.
Our last enemy >death will be brought to nothing- 1st Cor 15v26.
Death will be swallowed up forever- Isaiah 25v8
No one will say, "I am sick"- Isaiah 33v24.

In the meantime God has allowed time for us to be born that otherwise we would not be here now or ever.

Starting with the people separated to Jesus right hand of favor, so to speak, [Matthew 25vs31,32] who are alive on earth, at that time of divine intervention on earth, they can remain alive and keep on living right into the start of Jesus millennial reign over earth.

As for those of Romans [6v7] (except for those of Matt 12v32) the dead are freed or acquitted from sin. That does not mean innocent, but as a governor can pardon a person so the charges no longer stick. Since we can not resurrect oneself or another to either life in heaven or on earth we need someone who can do that for us. Jesus proves to be our resurrection hope.
-Acts 24v15.

So suffering will not be reduced but rather suffering will be eliminated.
All suffering soon to end.

 

[Thief]

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

Hell would be the absence of the one item you love most.
Would that one Item be....God?

When you share your presence with someone else...
that is a judgment call.
When you deny your presence and forbid they follow....
that is a judgment call.

God and His angels pick and chose.

Doesn't God have what it takes to go on without you?....forever?

 

[Wandered Off]

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

What if we could have been designed such that it was physically impossible? For example, you can't sprout wings and fly. Does that impair your free will?

 

[Storm]

What if we could have been designed such that it was physically impossible? For example, you can't sprout wings and fly. Does that impair your free will?

Of course not, because it has no bearing on my moral agency.

Would a world without evil be more pleasant? Certainly. I'm far from convinced "more pleasant" is equivalent to "better," though.

 

[Thief]

This much I posted in another thread.....


The causality concept doesn't cover your willfulness.

Should someone kick in your front door and point a gun in your face...
your free will has been stolen.

I suppose you won't miss it?
You don't know the difference?
Are you being honest with yourself?

Physical cause is one thing.
See a tornado...and then run.
Or be defiantly stupid and watch it kill you.

Spiritual, political,and economic causes are potent.
But history is thorough in it's display or defiant heroes...who died...
for the 'cause'.

I would prefer to think they were brave, and self sacrificing.
And not mindless in their 'choices' and their endeavors.

You have free will when you nod your head and follow suit.
You have free will when you stand your ground and become defiant.

If you say 'nay' then there is no humanity in you.

 

[Tarheeler]

Sorry, but mere assertion is not an argument. To make any impression you'll have to address the points I made. So far it appears you can't.

So what?

If you're no longer interested in discussing this, that's all you had to say.
You've stated that you believe all things are preordained in an endless causal chain.
I disagreed, and stated why.

When one has no say in the matter it does.

No, it doesn't. Just because a potential for a circumstance exists does not mean that the event will occur.

Why? Why does god need bad things to happen to people? What's wrong with creating a universe without unnecessary suffering? Why is it necessary that some people be born into a life filled with suffering?

I don't know. But that's the way the world is. I've given several possible reasons.

Exactly which segment of humanity are you talking about? So far billions upon billions of people have lived and died under the thumb of suffering and nothing has changed. People still suffer. If you're talking about some segment of humanity in the distant future then I have to question god's wisdom and goodness in sacrificing all the past billions of lives for the benefit of our distant relatives. Seems to me a omnipotent, good and just god could have found a far less cruel way of achieving this dubious end. If anyone in industry suggested such a process to achieve a desired end, wasting huge resources for a small end when the same end could be attained far easier, they would get the boot yesterday. But maybe that's what the Christian god is: cruel and inept.

You can question God's wisdom and goodness all you want (I mean it's not like your forced to do anything, right?). It's obvious we both have dramatically different ideas of what God is; and I'm sure we'll never agree on that point.

As for humanity, I think a lot has changed. While we are still a long way from perfecting our world, we've made great strides from where we started.

 

[logician]

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?

How do you know if your god is omnipoent, or benevolent?

 

[justbehappy]

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?

To me, logically, free will conflicts with the belief that God knows all. And if he doesn't know all, that then conflicts with the fact that he's all powerful. Then again, we arn't supposed to be able to understand such things. As they say...

 

[Skwim]

If you're no longer interested in discussing this, that's all you had to say.
You've stated that you believe all things are preordained in an endless causal chain.
I disagreed, and stated why.

I know you disagree, that goes without saying. However, I assumed you were posting to make a case for your disagreement, not merely reiterating your position. And this is why I said what I did, to let you know you were not making a case. Not even close.

No, it doesn't. Just because a potential for a circumstance exists does not mean that the event will occur.

Excuse me, but you said "Allowing for suffering does not equal making one suffer". "Allowing" does not mean having potential, but permitting, as in, "permit to exist." "Potential" is not a synonym for "allow." Here are the various applicable senses of "allow" in its transitive form. The form you used.

1. To let do or happen
2. To permit the presence of
3. To permit to have
4. To make provision for
​

You can't change horses in mid-stream, substituting words when the originals don't work as you expected, Tarheeler.

I don't know. But that's the way the world is.

Of course it is, but that's not we're doing here; stating the obvious. The OP asked about suffering, "explain the suffering in this world," to which you jumped in with both feet in post #2. Now you want to beg off by throwing up your arms and saying "ce sara sara." Sorry that's what it's come to. Maybe next time.

As for humanity, I think a lot has changed. While we are still a long way from perfecting our world, we've made great strides from where we started.

I don't know. Seems to me any improvement in suffering has only been because of an improvement in our social and technical ability to make it so, not because we've become intrinsically better or nicer people, or that god has changed the rules a bit.

 

[Tarheeler]

I know you disagree, that goes without saying. However, I assumed you were posting to make a case for your disagreement, not merely reiterating your position. And this is why I said what I did, to let you know you were not making a case. Not even close.

Ok

Excuse me, but you said "Allowing for suffering does not equal making one suffer". "Allowing" does not mean having potential, but permitting, as in, "permit to exist." "Potential" is not a synonym for "allow." Here are the various applicable senses of "allow" in its transitive form. The form you used.

1. To let do or happen
2. To permit the presence of
3. To permit to have
4. To make provision for
​

You can't change horses in mid-stream, substituting words when the originals don't work as you expected, Tarheeler.

And how else do you suppose God is allowing suffering if not by creating the potential for it to exist? Without that potential, there would be no suffering.

Of course it is, but that's not we're doing here; stating the obvious. The OP asked about suffering, "explain the suffering in this world," to which you jumped in with both feet in post #2. Now you want to beg off by throwing up your arms and saying "ce sara sara." Sorry that's what it's come to. Maybe next time.

Of course we're stating the obvious. This entire thread is about the obvious and the possible reasons for it. And I've given you several possible reasons.

I don't know. Seems to me any improvement in suffering has only been because of an improvement in our social and technical ability to make it so, not because we've become intrinsically better or nicer people, or that god has changed the rules a bit.

I think the changes are do to both; without betterment, we would not have seen the social changes or the technical changes going in the direction they have taken.

 

[Skwim]

And how else do you suppose God is allowing suffering if not by creating the potential for it to exist? Without that potential, there would be no suffering.

"Potential" denotes an unrealized ability whereas "allowing" denotes an actualized ability. It takes suffering from a possibility to an actuality. Your "allowing" in "Allowing for suffering . . . " functions as a transitive verb, and action verb. "Potential," on the other hand, is a noun, and substituting a noun for a verb, no matter what the context, amounts to a egregious violation of editing. You do recognize this, don't you?

This entire thread is about the obvious and the possible reasons for it.

So to restate it as you have would be superfluous. Yet that's what you did for an answer.

And I've given you several possible reasons.

But failed to address the points of my responses to them.

As I said, maybe next time.

 

[Tarheeler]

"Potential" denotes an unrealized ability whereas "allowing" denotes an actualized ability. It takes suffering from a possibility to an actuality. Your "allowing" in "Allowing for suffering . . . " functions as a transitive verb, and action verb. "Potential," on the other hand, is a noun, and substituting a noun for a verb, no matter what the context, amounts to a egregious violation of editing. You do recognize this, don't you?

So to restate it as you have would be superfluous. Yet that's what you did for an answer.

But failed to address the points of my responses to them.

As I said, maybe next time.

As I said earlier, if you didn't want to continue, that's all you had to say.
Have a good one.