Problem of suffering, free will, and Heaven

[Prophet]

In the case of life-threatening or crippling disease, horrible deformities, being killed or seriously hurt from life in a natural diaster? Should a perfectly loving parent prevent their child from being afflicted with plage or mauled by a bear?

Yes.

I certainly hope that a loving parent would intercede for his child's sake, but can you still say you would do ANYTHING to save your child from a bear? Perhaps throw someone else's child at the bear?! You may save your child, but you both would be psychologically scarred by such a selfish event. Imagine what the situation would be for God. All living beings are His children, including children, bears, Hitler, and the ebola virus and He doesn't play favorites.

I made a point, and I believe it is as yet, unaddressed: If reducing harm is the same as love, than reducing harm without bound should be the same as perfect love, and this is very easy to disprove as reducing harm without bound can be demonstrated to cause harm to everyone involved.

 

[Koldo]

I certainly hope that a loving parent would intercede for his child's sake, but can you still say you would do ANYTHING to save your child from a bear? Perhaps throw someone else's child at the bear?! You may save your child, but you both would be psychologically scarred by such a selfish event. Imagine what the situation would be for God. All living beings are His children, including children, bears, Hitler, and the ebola virus and He doesn't play favorites.

Why create things that would harm each other?

I made a point, and I believe it is as yet, unaddressed: If reducing harm is the same as love, than reducing harm without bound should be the same as perfect love, and this is very easy to disprove as reducing harm without bound can be demonstrated to cause harm to everyone involved.

Can you demonstrate that? I saw you referring to circumstances that need not to exist.

 

[Prophet]

Why create things that would harm each other?

You should pose that question to parents who decided a second child would be a good idea. My belief is that with the ability to help also comes the ability to harm, and only with both freedom to help and harm can one cultivate a freedom to love.

Can you demonstrate that? I saw you referring to circumstances that need not to exist.

The technique you derisively call "referring to circumstances that need not to exist" is actually a quite ancient and established one, so much so that its name is in Latin: Reductio ad absurdum.

I was getting pegged with ideas about God from atheist experts like "perfectly loving God would eradicate malaria" so I countered with "so it follows that perfectly loving rich parents who are facing a malaria crisis would seal their children in disease-proof hamster balls against their will", an absurd conclusion that can be derived from the atheist expert's concept of perfect love as one that protects its object without bound.

 

[Koldo]

You should pose that question to parents who decided a second child would be a good idea.

Are you really comparing an omnipotent being with parents?

My belief is that with the ability to help also comes the ability to harm, and only with both freedom to help and harm can one cultivate a freedom to love.

There are many degrees of harm. Some animals can do a lot more harm than others, so, how does the freedom to love works ? Is there a bare minimum ( of ability to harm ) required? On that case, how do you justify what goes beyond the minimum? Is the freedom to love proportional to the ability to harm? On that case, the freedom to love is not being maximized. How does that work when my ability to harm can restrict your ability to harm ? What if I could show to you an animal that has no ability to ( consciously ) harm ?

The technique you derisively call "referring to circumstances that need not to exist" is actually a quite ancient and established one, so much so that its name is in Latin: Reductio ad absurdum.

I was getting pegged with ideas about God from atheist experts like "perfectly loving God would eradicate malaria" so I countered with "so it follows that perfectly loving rich parents who are facing a malaria crisis would seal their children in disease-proof hamster balls against their will", an absurd conclusion that can be derived from the atheist expert's concept of perfect love as one that protects its object without bound.

This means you didn't comprehend what I have said.

The original idea you quote might be put as ''a perfectly loving God wouldn't create malaria nor the conditions through which it would appear''.

What I meant by 'circumstances that need not to exist' is that parents ( given we are comparing god with parents as equals ) could simply bless their children with a gift of health granting them complete immunity over illnesses. Parents being restricted to sealing their children in a disease-proof ball to fully protect their children from illnesses is a state of affairs which they have no control over since they are NOT omnipotent. If they were omnipotent, like god, then they wouldn't be restrcited to circumstances such as that.

 

[ruffen]

Perhaps throw someone else's child at the bear?!

If I was omnipotent, that would not be an issue. I wouldn't have to make compromises or accept something that was imperfect.

 

[Prophet]

Are you really comparing an omnipotent being with parents?

You asked "why create things that would harm each other?" displaying your having no concept of why one would create beings to begin with. Since speaking to God about His reasons isn't an option, maybe you should inquire with a person who is desirous of children on their reasons for this rather than desiring to create some inanimate object than can only do as designed. In effect, you are asking "why doesn't God just create us as robots that have no choice but to be governed by laws, obey and benefit each other?" The simple answer I will posit is that your scenario makes a free choice to love impossible, thus making preventing harm without bound harmful if love is at all important to our existence.

There are many degrees of harm. Some animals can do a lot more harm than others, so, how does the freedom to love works ? Is there a bare minimum ( of ability to harm ) required? On that case, how do you justify what goes beyond the minimum? Is the freedom to love proportional to the ability to harm? On that case, the freedom to love is not being maximized. How does that work when my ability to harm can restrict your ability to harm ? What if I could show to you an animal that has no ability to ( consciously ) harm ?

I don't think it is difficult to understand that with increased strength, be it physical or mental, comes increased capacity to harm or help. The ability to love has nothing to do with having these capacities or their amounts, but rather the free will to employ them, and is proportionate only with this freedom.

This means you didn't comprehend what I have said.

The original idea you quote might be put as ''a perfectly loving God wouldn't create malaria nor the conditions through which it would appear''.

What I meant by 'circumstances that need not to exist' is that parents ( given we are comparing god with parents as equals ) could simply bless their children with a gift of health granting them complete immunity over illnesses. Parents being restricted to sealing their children in a disease-proof ball to fully protect their children from illnesses is a state of affairs which they have no control over since they are NOT omnipotent. If they were omnipotent, like god, then they wouldn't be restrcited to circumstances such as that.

If I didn't comprehend, it wasn't for lack of effort. You were vague.

I've already addressed this "point". No, perfectly loving God does not show preferential treatment good or bad to individual people, ebola viruses, malaria protozoa, little children, genocidal dictators, you, nor me, who are all His children, as this perfection is easy to demonstrate to be fatally flawed in actuality.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbori and hate your enemy.’ 44But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

 

[Koldo]

You asked "why create things that would harm each other?" displaying your having no concept of why one would create beings to begin with. Since speaking to God about His reasons isn't an option, maybe you should inquire with a person who is desirous of children on their reasons for this rather than desiring to create some inanimate object than can only do as designed.

As I have explained on my previous post, parents and god are on remarkably different situations. So, the answer that parents would give to the question ( "why create things that would harm each other?" ) don't apply to god.

In effect, you are asking "why doesn't God just create us as robots that have no choice but to be governed by laws, obey and benefit each other?" The simple answer I will posit is that your scenario makes a free choice to love impossible, thus making preventing harm without bound harmful if love is at all important to our existence.

Not really. For instance, an environment where suffering is impossible doesn't preclude choice.

I don't think it is difficult to understand that with increased strength, be it physical or mental, comes increased capacity to harm or help. The ability to love has nothing to do with having these capacities, but rather the free will to employ them.

On that case, being able to barely hurt someone is enough to grant the freedom to love. Then, why do we exist as we are?

If I didn't comprehend, it wasn't for lack of effort. You were vague.

I've already addressed this "point". No, perfectly loving God does not show preferential treatment good or bad to individual people, ebola viruses, malaria protozoa, little children, genocidal dictators, and you who are all His children because I've proven over and over again that that kind of love is FLAWED.

You still don't explain why those circumstances surrounding the inability of parents to fully protect their children without using certain methods need to exist when it comes down to god. Otherwise, your claim of 'Reductio ad absurdum' holds no water.

Also worth of note is that it is not possible to show preferential treatment to things that have never existed. It was god's choice to bring into life beings that would harm themselves, rather than beings that wouldn't. Pay attention to the sentence that I have rectified: ''a perfectly loving God wouldn't create malaria nor the conditions through which it would appear''.

 

[Prophet]

As I have explained on my previous post, parents and god are on remarkably different situations. So, the answer that parents would give to the question ( "why create things that would harm each other?" ) don't apply to god.

You have stated the difference in the situation is remarkable, but the difference you can demonstrate is only a matter of scale. A potential parent could choose instead to put his time and energy into creating a miniature railroad world in his basement in which all objects work together by design, yet many sane people risk a potential for suffering beyond their control when they have and care for children.

Now, I don't really think of God as a personal being with goals and the like, but even if I did, I think a problem we are running into is manifest in our differing concepts of what an omnipotent, omniscient personal being would experience. If I am forced to speak of God in this anthropomorphized style, I would argue that when God creates truly free beings, He irrevocably surrenders a portion of His power to them, making Himself less than omnipotent (at least in the physical universe) by choice. Now we have authority to make some choices.

In the same way, God can be understood to make Himself less than omniscient by choice as when he creates free beings, as he cannot know or their future actions and free choices. God can also be understood to retain His omniscience if future events are understood to contain information that does not yet exist. Even an omniscient God does not necessarily know what Hitler will do.

So when you ask why God doesn’t create a universe where beings do not harm each other, I see God as having the same choice potential human creators have scaled up to godlike proportions: Shall He create a thing, a complex network of complex robots who work together and have no free will to do anything but (like a gigantic model railroad set) or shall He create beings who will do as they please, potentially hurting each other and risking all manner of suffering for a chance that they come to know love (like children)?

I half expect you to tell me in the next post that, "no, God's situation is completely different because he has the power to give his complex robots impenetrable super skin and mega laser beams" or some variation on that (HE'S GOD LOL), but still, I look forward to your response.

 

[Koldo]

You have stated the difference in the situation is remarkable, but the difference you can demonstrate is only a matter of scale. A potential parent could choose instead to put his time and energy into creating a miniature railroad world in his basement in which all objects work together by design, yet many sane people risk a potential for suffering beyond their control when they have and care for children.

Now, I don't really think of God as a personal being with goals and the like, but even if I did, I think a problem we are running into is manifest in our differing concepts of what an omnipotent, omniscient personal being would experience. If I am forced to speak of God in this anthropomorphized style, I would argue that when God creates truly free beings, He irrevocably surrenders a portion of His power to them, making Himself less than omnipotent (at least in the physical universe) by choice. Now we have authority to make some choices.

In the same way, God can be understood to make Himself less than omniscient by choice as when he creates free beings, he cannot know or their future actions and free choices. God can also be understood to retain His omniscience if future events are understood to contain information that does not yet exist. Even an omniscient God does not necessarily know what Hitler will do.

So when you ask why God doesn’t create a universe where beings do not harm each other, I see God as having the same choice potential human creators have scaled up to godlike proportions: Shall He create a thing, a complex network of complex robots who work together and have no free will to do anything but (like a gigantic model railroad set) or shall He create beings who will do as they please, potentially hurting each other and risking all manner of suffering for a chance that they come to know love (like children)?

I half expect you to tell me in the next post that God's situation is completely different because he has the power to give his complex robots super laser beams or some variation on that, but still, I look forward to your response.

First of all, for the freedom of choice argument to be reasonable it requires, at least, that all beings that suffer ( or could possibly suffer ) have this freedom. This can easily be shown to be false. We have even human beings that don't have that capability. Another example are the animals and how limited some of them are on their choices, and how they are still able to suffer nonetheless.

Also, why do things like the plasmodium ( what causes malaria ) exist if they don't have freedom of choice? That's not explained by freedom of choice. Why would god create it ( either directly or indirectly )?

Second, regarding the difference between parents and god:

When you mention putting a human being a leash you are talking about putting a restriction on what human beings can experience. Good and bad things alike. But the same can't be said about being free from diseases for example. You are just preventing bad things from happening by preventing diseases. Otherwise, putting a leash on a human being would be comparable to vaccination. Which doesn't happen to be the case, right?

Parents don't have the power to prevent just the bad things from happening, while god does.

 

[Prophet]

First of all, for the freedom of choice argument to be reasonable it requires, at least, that all beings that suffer ( or could possibly suffer ) have this freedom. This can easily be shown to be false. We have even human beings that don't have that capability. Another example are the animals and how limited some of them are on their choices, and how they are still able to suffer nonetheless.

Also, why do things like the plasmodium ( what causes malaria ) exist if they don't have freedom of choice? That's not explained by freedom of choice. Why would god create it ( either directly or indirectly )?

Who, exactly, are you to speak of a life experience of plasmodium? How, exactly, do you know for sure they don't have choices? How do you know they don't have peers? How, exactly do you know for sure that they can't choose to work together with their peers or against them? You don't.

And who are you to regard an entire species of creature only for its potential effect on you? If we consider and compare humans vs. plasmodium and their general effect on the aggregate of lifeforms on earth and not just from our own myopic perspective, who are you to say it is malaria which is the disease when it can easily be argued that malaria is a potential cure for mankind's destruction upon the earth? Maybe your version of a "perfectly loving" God should actually eradicate humanity.

Second, regarding the difference between parents and god:

When you mention putting a human being a leash you are talking about putting a restriction on what human beings can experience. Good and bad things alike. But the same can't be said about being free from diseases for example. You are just preventing bad things from happening by preventing diseases. Otherwise, putting a leash on a human being would be comparable to vaccination. Which doesn't happen to be the case, right?

Parents don't have the power to prevent just the bad things from happening, while god does.

I've talked about this already in my last post about your primitive concepts of omniscience and omnipotence. God is father to both humans and protozoa. What you call his responsibility to "prevent bad things" is basically you saying that God's perfect love should afford you preferential treatment over His other children, but again, to expound on this, Jesus is here to tell us how perfect love behaves in actuality:

You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbori and hate your enemy.’ 44But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

It is a common philosophy to care for those who do you good and to disdain those who do you wrong, but there is a wiser way to live: Love even those who do you wrong so you learn to recognize that all are brothers and sisters with one Father who treats us all with impartiality. Even the worst amongst us cares for their own. If you are partial to your own, you are no better than the worst. Instead attain perfection through impartiality, following God's example.

 

[Koldo]

Who, exactly, are you to speak of a life experience of plasmodium? How, exactly, do you know for sure they don't have choices? How do you know they don't have peers? How, exactly do you know for sure that they can't choose to work together with their peers or against them? You don't.

Do you seriously believe they have choices?
How exactly does that work? Do you believe all microorganisms have choice?

And who are you to regard an entire species of creature only for its potential effect on you? If we consider and compare humans vs. plasmodium and their general effect on the aggregate of lifeforms on earth and not just from our own myopic perspective, who are you to say it is malaria which is the disease when it can easily be argued that malaria is a potential cure for mankind's destruction upon the earth? Maybe your version of a "perfectly loving" God should actually eradicate humanity.

That's a possible way to look at it.
A perfectly loving god also wouldn't erradicate humanity; it wouldn't create human beings as they are either.

I've talked about this already in my last post about your primitive concepts of omniscience and omnipotence. God is father to both humans and protozoa. What you call his responsibility to "prevent bad things" is basically you saying that God's perfect love should afford you preferential treatment over His other children, but again, to expound on this, Jesus is here to tell us how perfect love behaves in actuality:


It is a common philosophy to care for those who do you good and to disdain those who do you wrong, but there is a wiser way to live: Love even those who do you wrong so you learn to recognize that all are brothers and sisters with one Father who treats us all with impartiality. Even the worst amongst us cares for their own. If you are partial to your own, you are no better than the worst. Instead attain perfection through impartiality, following God's example.

Hold on. I have already stated this:

The original idea you quote might be put as ''a perfectly loving God wouldn't create malaria nor the conditions through which it would appear''.

Also worth of note is that it is not possible to show preferential treatment to things that have never existed. It was god's choice to bring into life beings that would harm themselves, rather than beings that wouldn't. Pay attention to the sentence that I have rectified: ''a perfectly loving God wouldn't create malaria nor the conditions through which it would appear''.

The problem in question is not simply: "Why doesn't god solve our problems now?". It is more akin to: "Why did god let our problems appear on the first place?".

 

[Prophet]

Do you seriously believe they have choices?
How exactly does that work? Do you believe all microorganisms have choice?

I seriously believe that if you possess a consciousness (meaning you are aware of your own existence), you can make free choices, even if they are so simplistic as one to go left or right.

That's a possible way to look at it.
A perfectly loving god also wouldn't erradicate humanity; it wouldn't create human beings as they are either.

I could use most of the arguments you've used to support that the only moral thing for God to do is wipe humanity off the face of the earth.

I'm not saying He would create human beings (or protozoa) as they are either. These species were created and shaped by an aggregate of a very large number of free will choices made by their ancient genetic ancestors, a process we call evolution.

I believe that if the universe was created in the Big Bang, that is the moment God took His hands off His creation and left it in our hands to find our way back to Him and figure out the purpose behind all the suffering we've all experienced in our many stumbles in the evolution of our race.

Hold on. I have already stated this:

The original idea you quote might be put as ''a perfectly loving God wouldn't create malaria nor the conditions through which it would appear''.

Also worth of note is that it is not possible to show preferential treatment to things that have never existed. It was god's choice to bring into life beings that would harm themselves, rather than beings that wouldn't. Pay attention to the sentence that I have rectified: ''a perfectly loving God wouldn't create malaria nor the conditions through which it would appear''.

The problem in question is not simply: "Why doesn't god solve our problems now?". It is more akin to: "Why did god let our problems appear on the first place?".

Why did God allow our respective species to evolve without his permission and come to this tragic intersection which is disease from our perspective, rather than pre-programming us to be able to coexist peaceably (like a nice model train set)? If the ideal of love is valuable, and I believe it is central to existence, God has a bigger responsibility than relieving the temporal suffering of any one species. That is, upholding a standard of impartiality and freedom which connects all life and makes love possible. All respect, I've already been over this, too.

 

[Koldo]

I seriously believe that if you possess a consciousness, you can make free choices.

Do you believe plasmodium has consciousness?

I'm not saying He would create human beings (or protozoa) as they are either. These species were created and shaped by an aggregate of a very large number of free will choices made by their ancient genetic ancestors, a process we call evolution.

I believe that if the universe was created in the Big Bang, that is the moment God took His hands off His creation and left it in our hands to find our way back to Him and figure out the purpose behind all the suffering we've all experienced in our many stumbles in the evolution of our race.

Even if you believe in free will, you still have to take it for granted he could predict what would result in the first lifeform to ever exist. And by knowing what this first lifeform is like, he could know what may happen from there on. And since a lot of suffering is within the realm of possibilities, then why would he create an universe like this?

Why did God allow our respective species to evolve without his permission and come to this tragic intersection which is disease from our perspective? All respect, I've been over this.

No no. Not intersection. An intersection implies that both sections exist. The question has to be made before that moment where one of those sections come into existence: Why did god create the section called 'plasmodium' ?

 

[Koldo]

I could use most of the arguments you've used to support that the only moral thing for God to do is wipe humanity off the face of the earth.

Not really. You could make the argument that he shouldn't have let human beings come into existence though.

If the ideal of love is valuable, and I believe it is central to existence, God has a bigger responsibility than relieving your temporal suffering. That is upholding a standard of impartiality which connects all life and makes love possible.

You seem to be ignoring his omnibenevolence. Which is his infinite will to do good. My or anyone's temporal suffering is extremely relevant to god. Making love possible is not the only thing that god "worries" about. Preventing the most suffering possible is essential to him.

 

[Prophet]

Do you believe plasmodium has consciousness?

Is it alive? Yes? Is it a plant? No? Then its conscious.

Even if you believe in free will, you still have to take it for granted he could predict what would result in the first lifeform to ever exist. And by knowing what this first lifeform is like, he could know what may happen from there on. And since a lot of suffering is within the realm of possibilities, then why would he create an universe like this?

A study of cosmology reveals that the universe existed a long time before lifeforms arrived in it. Even if God directly took part in the creation of the first conscious lifeforms, there is no way to know what path life would take from there.

Remember what I said about omniscience not necessarily including knowledge of the future where other free wills have a say?

No no. Not intersection. An intersection implies that both sections exist. The question has to be made before that moment where one of those sections come into existence: Why did god create the section called 'plasmodium' ?

Now you're splitting hairs to no effect, but please accept my sincerest apologies for the metaphor. However, in the EXTREMELY likely scenario that humans and protozoa have a common ancient ancestor, whatever "point" you are trying to make here is moot.

 

[Prophet]

Not really. You could make the argument that he shouldn't have let human beings come into existence though.

And you do make that argument over and over again blindly when you say a perfectly loving God must do all in His power to prevent harm, and I make the counter-argument over and over again that preventing harm without bound removes our potential to love, causing harm in the process.

You seem to be ignoring his omnibenevolence. Which is his infinite will to do good. My or anyone's temporal suffering is extremely relevant to god. Making love possible is not the only thing that god "worries" about. Preventing the most suffering possible is essential to him.

My counter: I believe it is YOU who has been ignoring His omnibenevolence. I think it is clear that we have very different definitions of goodness. You've continuously suggested that humans are deserving of preferential treatment, whilst species that present a problem to humans such as the plasmodium should be eradicated... or magically removed from existence... or even erased from history. (Watching you equivocate is fun.) Simply said, your version of goodness applies only to beings you can relate to. This is a common philosophy of goodness amongst bigots, leading me to believe you have a tenuous hold at best at what goodness really is.

Your version of omnibenevolence only goes in directions you wish it to, when the word clearly means "love in ALL directions".

 

[Koldo]

Is it alive? Yes? Is it a plant? No? Then its conscious.

What...?
Why would you believe microorganisms have consciousness but not plants? I really don't comprehend your reasoning.

From where did you get all of this? Did you just make this up on this topic?

A study of cosmology reveals that the universe existed a long time before lifeforms arrived in it. Even if God directly took part in the creation of the first conscious lifeforms, there is no way to know what path life would take from there.

Remember what I said about omniscience not necessarily including knowledge of the future where other free wills have a say?

That's incorrect. It is entirely possible to know what would happen from there. For instance, he could know in what ways the first lifeforms could evolve. He could know that there was a very real possibility of things ending up as they are.

Also, you brought up a relevant point. There is aparently a considerable time between the creation of the universe and the creation of the first lifeforms. If god wanted to maximize freedom of choice, this wouldn't make sense.

Now you're splitting hairs to no effect, but please accept my sincerest apologies for the metaphor. However, in the EXTREMELY likely scenario that humans and protozoa have a common ancient ancestor, whatever "point" you are trying to make here is moot.

It is far from moot. Evolution happens due to mutation and natural selection. If you have omnipotence you can easily have a hand on natural selection without even precluding freedom of choice.

 

[Prophet]

What...?
Why would you believe microorganisms have consciousness but not plants? I really don't comprehend your reasoning.

From where did you get all of this? Did you just make this up on this topic?

My opinion on this particular bit could change, but evidence to this point suggests to me that plant lifeforms do not make choices and thus give us no evidence that they are self-aware. On the other hand, microorganisms give us much in the way of evidence that they make choices, even if the only obvious ones they make to us tend to be to go left or right. In the evolutionary tree, we can see that while many went it alone, some microorganisms decided that cooperation was the way to go, teaming together with others of their kind to make their survival more likely. Because of this choice, these individuals evolved traits that would benefit the group rather than just them, eventually developing a hive mind that could think and be aware for the entire group, making complex beings like us possible.

That's incorrect. It is entirely possible to know what would happen from there. For instance, he could know in what ways the first lifeforms could evolve. He could know that there was a very real possibility of things ending up as they are.

He could not know the future of the universe beyond the instant consciousness took root. As soon as another free will is created, the future becomes a mystery, arguably even if you are omniscient.

Also, you brought up a relevant point. There is aparently a considerable time between the creation of the universe and the creation of the first lifeforms. If god wanted to maximize freedom of choice, this wouldn't make sense.

I'm honestly not following your rationale here.

It is far from moot. Evolution happens due to mutation and natural selection. If you have omnipotence you can easily have a hand on natural selection without even precluding freedom of choice.

I don't know if I can agree, but help me here. How, exactly, would one force his will and allow freedom concurrently?

 

[Koldo]

My opinion on this particular bit could change, but evidence to this point suggests to me that plant lifeforms do not make choices and thus give us no evidence that they are self-aware. On the other hand, microorganisms give us much in the way of evidence that they make choices, even if the only obvious ones they make to us tend to be to go left or right. In the evolutionary tree, we can see that while many went it alone, some microorganisms decided that cooperation was the way to go, teaming together with others of their kind to make their survival more likely. Because of this choice, these individuals evolved traits that would benefit the group rather than just them, eventually developing a hive mind that could think and be aware for the entire group, making complex beings like us possible.

From where do you gather they have decided anything at all?

He could not know the future of the universe beyond the instant consciousness took root. As soon as another free will is created, the future becomes a mystery, arguably even if you are omniscient.

That's not correct. I can, at this moment, predict two possibilities. You will either reply to this post, or you won't. I can predict that much, and my knowledge about you and the world is minimal.

I'm honestly not following your rationale here.

You are justifying suffering by saying that freedom of choice can't exist if suffering doesn't. But if there is a huge gap between the creation of the universe and the first lifeforms, it doesn't make sense to say this is a god who cares about maximizing freedom of choice. Since there can't be freedom of choice without living beings.

I don't know if I can agree, but help me here. How, exactly, would one force his will and allow freedom concurrently?

Consider, for example, natural disasters. These influence natural selection.

 

[Prophet]

From where do you gather they have decided anything at all?

When one species becomes two, one of which is on its way to evolving into humanity and the other on its way on its way to becoming a lone wolf hunter-killer type, is it not obvious that the original could've gone either way?

That's not correct. I can, at this moment, predict two possibilities. You will either reply to this post, or you won't. I can predict that much, and my knowledge about you and the world is minimal.

Yet, I have many, many more choices than you acknowledge here that will no doubt shape the evolution of our debate. You really have gone out on a limb in predicting that this debate will either continue or end. Perhaps this is a masterful divination by your own standards... Congratulations?

You are justifying suffering by saying that freedom of choice can't exist if suffering doesn't. But if there is a huge gap between the creation of the universe and the first lifeforms, it doesn't make sense to say this is a god who cares about maximizing freedom of choice. Since there can't be freedom of choice without living beings.

I never said anything like that. If you want to correctly understand me, I'm saying the freedom of choice is the same as the freedom to harm others and yourself and cause suffering. Take away from us this freedom and we become like a giant super-complex model train set with zero potential for evil or good. It is my greatest hope that someday all of humanity takes this freedom of choice they have to end all suffering.

Consider, for example, natural disasters. These influence natural selection.

I've already been over why God would not spontaneously murder Hitler, an obvious person to get rid of if suffering is the chief evil God is concerned with. Method of murder doesn't really change anything. Every argument applies.