Problem of suffering, free will, and Heaven

[Kilgore Trout]

The logical inconsistency of a loving, all-powerful god with the existence of suffering just goes to show that people do not require logical consistency or coherence when it comes to their concepts of deity. It is quite impossible to reason with someone who doesn't respect or require reason.

 

[JayJayDee]

The logical inconsistency of a loving, all-powerful god with the existence of suffering just goes to show that people do not require logical consistency or coherence when it comes to their concepts of deity. It is quite impossible to reason with someone who doesn't respect or require reason.

Or one whose reasoning is superficial or badly motivated. :sad:

It's all about our attitude actually.

If you wish to paint God as a monster because he is such in your own mind from a superficial reading of the Bible, then you are free to believe whatever you wish about him....it doesn't make it true and the reasons he gives for our present condition will probably never satisfy you...so be it. If you have the wrong attitude, there will be no convincing you anyway. :ignore:

If you wish to climb down from your elevated perch and humbly approach the Creator, he will give you the answers you seek.....but he owes us nothing, not even an explanation....yet he provides us all with a journal that explains everything. Our acceptance or rejection of him is entirely up to us....not him. That is why we all have the freedom to choose. He could snuff all opposers out in an instant, but he allows people time to educate themselves and ask for and receive understanding, which if correctly motivated, will be granted.

If there is a wall between us and God, it can be removed, brick by brick if we want it to be so. It's all about the "wanting" and accepting God's answers if they are different to what 'we' want them to be. It's our will verses God's will.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

If you wish to paint God as a monster because he is such in your own mind from a superficial reading of the Bible, then you are free to believe whatever you wish about him....it doesn't make it true and the reasons he gives for our present condition will probably never satisfy you...so be it. If you have the wrong attitude, there will be no convincing you anyway. :ignore:

If you wish to climb down from your elevated perch and humbly approach the Creator, he will give you the answers you seek.....but he owes us nothing, not even an explanation....yet he provides us all with a journal that explains everything. Our acceptance or rejection of him is entirely up to us....not him. That is why we all have the freedom to choose. He could snuff all opposers out in an instant, but he allows people time to educate themselves and ask for and receive understanding, which if correctly motivated, will be granted.

If there is a wall between us and God, it can be removed, brick by brick if we want it to be so. It's all about the "wanting" and accepting God's answers if they are different to what 'we' want them to be. It's our will verses God's will.

Indeed, like I said, trying to reason with someone who doesn't respect or require reason is a fruitless endeavor. Nothing in your response even vaguely approaches a reasoned or rational response to anything I said.

 

[Prophet]

Or one whose reasoning is superficial or badly motivated. :sad:

He's a bit abrasive, no doubt.

It's all about our attitude actually.

This doesn't mean anything.

If you wish to paint God as a monster because he is such in your own mind from a superficial reading of the Bible, then you are free to believe whatever you wish about him....it doesn't make it true and the reasons he gives for our present condition will probably never satisfy you...so be it. If you have the wrong attitude, there will be no convincing you anyway. :ignore:

He didn't say a word about the Bible. His argument was philosophical. This is clearly part of some prepackaged response you have for all non-believers.

If you wish to climb down from your elevated perch and humbly approach the Creator, he will give you the answers you seek.....but he owes us nothing, not even an explanation....yet he provides us all with a journal that explains everything. Our acceptance or rejection of him is entirely up to us....not him. That is why we all have the freedom to choose. He could snuff all opposers out in an instant, but he allows people time to educate themselves and ask for and receive understanding, which if correctly motivated, will be granted.

If there is a wall between us and God, it can be removed, brick by brick if we want it to be so. It's all about the "wanting" and accepting God's answers if they are different to what 'we' want them to be. It's our will verses God's will.

LOL

 

[JayJayDee]

Indeed, like I said, trying to reason with someone who doesn't respect or require reason is a fruitless endeavor. Nothing in your response even vaguely approaches a reasoned or rational response to anything I said.

It was actually, but fallen on deaf ears as I expected...Oh well....:sad:

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It was actually, but fallen on deaf ears as I expected...Oh well....:sad:

I'm sure that you believe that.

 

[JayJayDee]

He's a bit abrasive, no doubt.

I have never found the "trout" to be anything but. The surliness, no doubt comes from life experience. We are all fighting our own battles.

This doesn't mean anything.

It does to those who are searching for God on his terms, not their own

He didn't say a word about the Bible. His argument was philosophical. This is clearly part of some prepackaged response you have for all non-believers.

"His philosophical argument" was based on the Bible's explanation of God as the monster he believes him to be.

My response is not pre packaged any more than yours or his. It is my truth. I share it as you both do, just not so cynically.

LOL

Be careful about what you find amusing.

 

[Koldo]

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?

Yes. But what does that have to do with choice?

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?

If god comprehends all ways on which things can interact on a closed system, then god can be aware of all states of affairs that may arise. If god doesn't want a system to develop on a particular way then he can just create something else entirely.

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.

Hold on. You consider that freedom of choice is important to god. If freedom of choice is important to god, why would he create an universe where it would takes ages and ages for the first lifeform to arise?

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.

I am not talking about killing people, at least not directly. I am talking about shaping the environment to take a hand at natural selection.

 

[Prophet]

Yes. But what does that have to do with choice?

The usual way in which you have options to choose one thing or another.

If god comprehends all ways on which things can interact on a closed system, then god can be aware of all states of affairs that may arise. If god doesn't want a system to develop on a particular way then he can just create something else entirely.

We've been over this. You've not demonstrated that God has more than two creation choices here: either to remain omnipotent and create a universe of robots that slavishly obey and do as told or to risk the unknown and create a universe of free willed beings and chance that one might hurt another.

Hold on. You consider that freedom of choice is important to god. If freedom of choice is important to god, why would he create an universe where it would takes ages and ages for the first lifeform to arise?

Maybe immortality bestows some measure of patience.

I am not talking about killing people, at least not directly. I am talking about shaping the environment to take a hand at natural selection.

Whether I hire a hit man or wield the knife myself, am I not a murderer all the same? It would be no different for God if He were to coopt a natural disaster.

 

[Prophet]

I have never found the "trout" to be anything but. The surliness, no doubt comes from life experience. We are all fighting our own battles.

Word.

It does to those who are searching for God on his terms, not their own

Debate regarding God requires that we search for God on rational terms which we all can share.

"His philosophical argument" was based on the Bible's explanation of God as the monster he believes him to be.

The Bible has quite many more than one interpretation of who God is. Some of them I find quite monstrous, and others I find correct.

My response is not pre packaged any more than yours or his. It is my truth. I share it as you both do, just not so cynically.

Than why bring up the Bible? He didn't.

Be careful about what you find amusing.

Why? Is God gonna "get" me?

 

[Koldo]

The usual way in which you have options to choose one thing or another.

What do you mean by this?
Do you mean species decide in what way they evolve?

We've been over this. You've not demonstrated that God has more than two creation choices here: either to remain omnipotent and create a universe of robots that slavishly obey and do as told or to risk the unknown and create a universe of free willed beings and chance that one might hurt another.

There are other choices. For instance, he can create an universe where the most that a being can do is to barely harm another one.

But, since you believe microorganisms have freedom of choice, it is actually far more simple than that. He could just create an universe where all organisms are microorganisms.

Maybe immortality bestows some measure of patience.

You mean inefficiency. Which is incompatible with omnipotence.

Whether I hire a hit man or wield the knife myself, am I not a murderer all the same? It would be no different for God if He were to coopt a natural disaster.

I am not talking about using natural disasters to kill people directly. I am talking about using natural disasters to shape the environment. God can, for example, change the disposition of a certain terrain that would cause evolution to go down a different route. That's just a very simple example using things that are already known to exist.

But I can go beyond that. God could possibly change the characteristics of a species before a certain trait could become nocive to another organism.

 

[Prophet]

What do you mean by this?
Do you mean species decide in what way they evolve?

The choices are not made by species but rather individuals within the species and the aggregation of these choices over many individuals gets its say in how the species evolves. This process is ongoing today.

There are other choices. For instance, he can create an universe where the most that a being can do is to barely harm another one.

Which would be at best a wash when all such scenarios also limit individuals ability to help another.... Yeah God could've made this universe a giant rubber room asylum where even throwing yourself at the wall won't harm you or anyone else. I'm sure glad He didn't.

But, since you believe microorganisms have freedom of choice, it is actually far more simple than that. He could just create an universe where all organisms are microorganisms.

There was a time when they probably all were, but freedom of choice allowed them a path towards humanity. I'm glad God didn't take your suggestion here either.

You mean inefficiency. Which is incompatible with omnipotence.

I do not mean inefficiency. I would just venture that existing in a realm outside of space-time might grant one a little more perspective than we have regarding the aeons and vast distances covered by the universe.

I am not talking about using natural disasters to kill people directly. I am talking about using natural disasters to shape the environment. God can, for example, change the disposition of a certain terrain that would cause evolution to go down a different route. That's just a very simple example using things that are already known to exist.

But I can go beyond that. God could possibly change the characteristics of a species before a certain trait could become nocive to another organism.

I want my children to love me, each other, and everyone else. However, that is not the same as me actually loving them. My desire that they become upstanding citizens may cause me to leash them with oppressive rules so that they appear to love the appropriate people, but my actually loving them causes me to hope for their freedom. With proper means, as they grow older, I could play grand manipulator and pull strings behind their situations to push them into situations I deem positive. However, people who behave in this way tend to be villains. God's example seems to pull for me allowing my children to be free.

 

[Koldo]

The choices are not made by species but rather individuals within the species and the aggregation of these choices over many individuals gets its say in how the species evolves. This process is ongoing today.

The fact that a species may develop in different ways is in no way whatsoever evidence that choice exists for microorganisms.

Which would be at best a wash when all such scenarios also limit individuals ability to help another.... Yeah God could've made this universe a giant rubber room asylum where even throwing yourself at the wall won't harm you or anyone else. I'm sure glad He didn't.

Do you mean limiting our ability to help is a problem? My question is: Why?
Also, what about... slugs, for example? How exactly do they help each other?

There was a time when they probably all were, but freedom of choice allowed them a path towards humanity. I'm glad God didn't take your suggestion here either.

Why were they allowed to go down that path? God could possibly make that path not viable at all. They would remain forever microorganisms. And this would in no way violate their choice ( if it even exists ).

I do not mean inefficiency. I would just venture that existing in a realm outside of space-time might grant one a little more perspective than we have regarding the aeons and vast distances covered by the universe.

When something could have been done in less time using the same ammount of resources that is inefficient.

I want my children to love me, each other, and everyone else. However, that is not the same as me actually loving them. My desire that they become upstanding citizens may cause me to leash them with oppressive rules so that they appear to love the appropriate people, but my actually loving them causes me to hope for their freedom. With proper means, as they grow older, I could play grand manipulator and pull strings behind their situations to push them into situations I deem positive. However, people who behave in this way tend to be villains. God's example seems to pull for me allowing my children to be free.

I am not sure what you mean this. It was god who created not just the children but the entire world around them. He is already forcing life into a certain road, even if this road has multiple splitting of paths, by mere design. One way or the other, the road we walk was the one he paved.

 

[Prophet]

The fact that a species may develop in different ways is in no way whatsoever evidence that choice exists for microorganisms.

How many cells do you think an organism needs to gain before it passes your threshold of choice? Many microorganisms seen through a microscope move, act, and react like most insects respond to food and danger.

Do you mean limiting our ability to help is a problem? My question is: Why?
Also, what about... slugs, for example? How exactly do they help each other?

No, I said using time or resources to reduce harm by reducing our abilities is a stupid waste of both. Regarding slugs, you are already spouting off enough ignorance about one non-human race being a disease. There is absolutely no reason to expand our scope to include all species you deem of little value until you get microorganisms mastered.

Why were they allowed to go down that path? God could possibly make that path not viable at all. They would remain forever microorganisms. And this would in no way violate their choice ( if it even exists ).

So God can take away a choice from them and that in no way takes away choices from them? This argument is a mess.

When something could have been done in less time using the same ammount of resources that is inefficient.

Your continued assertion that time must necessarily be relevant to a being who exists outside of time is myopic, like most of what you say.

I am not sure what you mean this. It was god who created not just the children but the entire world around them. He is already forcing life into a certain road, even if this road has multiple splitting of paths, by mere design. One way or the other, the road we walk was the one he paved.

Sorry, another failed attempt at getting you to consider a bigger picture than the one you see from your perspective.

 

[Koldo]

How many cells do you think an organism needs to gain before it passes your threshold of choice?

I would say it needs to have a brain at very least.

Many microorganisms seen through a microscope move, act, and react like most insects respond to food and danger.

Which is evidence for free will not existing at all.

No, I said using time or resources to reduce harm by reducing our abilities is a stupid waste of both.

We are not talking about harm on this point. We are talking about our ability to help. What is wrong with limiting our ability to help?

Regarding slugs, you are already spouting off enough ignorance about one non-human race being a disease. There is absolutely no reason to expand our scope to include all species you deem of little value until you get microorganisms mastered.

When did I say one non-human race is a disease? Plasmodium is not a disease. It is a microorganism that causes a disease.

It has nothing to do with the value of a species. You said the ability to help is important. In what ways do slugs help each other?

So God can take away a choice from them and that in no way takes away choices from them? This argument is a mess.

What does that have to do with choice?
Since I am unable to fly, does that mean god took away my choice to fly as well? Clearly, we can only about choices when the alternatives actually exist.

Your continued assertion that time must necessarily be relevant to a being who exists outside of time is myopic, like most of what you say.

Whatever an omnipotent being wishes to maximizes, he will maximize. If he doesn't maximize it, it means he didn't want to maximize it. If something was not existent at a certain time period then it was not maximized.

Sorry, another failed attempt at getting you to consider a bigger picture than the one you see from your perspective.

It seems like you don't have much to say now other than accusing my arguments to be flawed and my reasoning to be lacking. Considering the absurdities you believe in, I might take that as a compliment when it comes from you.

 

[Prophet]

I would say it needs to have a brain at very least.

I would say you base this off of nothing but your preconceptions about what it is to be self-aware.

Which is evidence for free will not existing at all.

That's an extremely interesting way to see it that I would love an opportunity to see more fleshed out. I don't see it that way. I see microorganisms basically acting like tiny animals.

We are not talking about harm on this point. We are talking about our ability to help. What is wrong with limiting our ability to help?

Perhaps you have a horrible short term memory. We actually are talking about harm at your own behest. You, yourself, brought up harm on this point here:

There are other choices. For instance, he can create an universe where the most that a being can do is to barely harm another one.

I countered with:

Which would be at best a wash when all such scenarios also limit individuals ability to help another.... Yeah God could've made this universe a giant rubber room asylum where even throwing yourself at the wall won't harm you or anyone else. I'm sure glad He didn't.

Your reply:

Do you mean limiting our ability to help is a problem? My question is: Why?
Also, what about... slugs, for example? How exactly do they help each other?

My reply:

No, I said using time or resources to reduce harm by reducing our abilities is a stupid waste of both. Regarding slugs, you are already spouting off enough ignorance about one non-human race being a disease. There is absolutely no reason to expand our scope to include all species you deem of little value until you get microorganisms mastered.

And now you're saying that we're not talking about harm on this point to skirt responding to my point, when you clearly brought it up.

When did I say one non-human race is a disease? Plasmodium is not a disease. It is a microorganism that causes a disease.

It has nothing to do with the value of a species. You said the ability to help is important. In what ways do slugs help each other?

The truth: You say it with your entire attitude. You didn't even call it plasmodium at first. Before I started debating you off of your general disregard for lifeforms you aren't peers with, it was just malaria. I guess I should be pleased that you are calling slugs by name instead of some disorder they dare inflict upon your vegetable garden in their striving to survive.

What does that have to do with choice?
Since I am unable to fly, does that mean god took away my choice to fly as well? Clearly, we can only about choices when the alternatives actually exist.

Yet, a path is there eons down the line that we could evolve the ability to fly were it to become necessary to the survival of our race. Microorganisms cannot choose reason like us, but still a path is there for them evolve into higher lifeforms like us should they decide to work together.

Whatever an omnipotent being wishes to maximizes, he will maximize. If he doesn't maximize it, it means he didn't want to maximize it. If something was not existent at a certain time period then it was not maximized.

This is meaningless drivel.

It seems like you don't have much to say now other than accusing my arguments to be flawed and my reasoning to be lacking. Considering the absurdities you believe in, I might take that as a compliment when it comes from you.

I do considerably more than accuse your arguments to be flawed. I debate against them and demonstrate that your arguments are flawed and fail to consider many perspectives other than your own in your blanket statements of how you think God should act. Over and over I demonstrate that no, perfectly loving God does not necessarily act in the fashions that you prescribe best, and actually were he to act in the ways you deem wise, he'd destroy the best things about His creation.

That's what I do. You? You just play word games where you deny what you said not even a page earlier. Take that as a compliment as you wish, but were that charge levied against me, I'd take it as a serious charge of intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Koldo]

I would say you base this off of nothing but your preconceptions about what it is to be self-aware.

For certain you can do a much better job than me to substantiate your view, correct? I would be interested on what research you can refer to.

That's an extremely interesting way to see it that I would love an opportunity to see more fleshed out. I don't see it that way. I see microorganisms basically acting like tiny animals.

Which is evidence that free will doesn't exist at all.

Perhaps you have a horrible short term memory. We actually are talking about harm at your own behest. You, yourself, brought up harm on this point here:

I countered with:

Your reply:

My reply:

And now you're saying that we're not talking about harm on this point to skirt responding to my point, when you clearly brought it up.

You said this:
"Which would be at best a wash when all such scenarios also limit individuals ability to help another.... Yeah God could've made this universe a giant rubber room asylum where even throwing yourself at the wall won't harm you or anyone else. I'm sure glad He didn't."

You said that limiting our ability to help is a reason ( and the only reason you mentioned on this part ) for god not creating an universe where people ( or microorganisms ) can, at most, barely hurt others.

So, I asked to you what is wrong with reducing our ability to help. But you didn't reply to that question; rather you talked about the ability to harm.

The truth: You say it with your entire attitude. You didn't even call it plasmodium at first. Before I started debating you off of your general disregard for lifeforms you aren't peers with, it was just malaria. I guess I should be pleased that you are calling slugs by name instead of some disorder they dare inflict upon your vegetable garden in their striving to survive.

As far as I remember I was referring to malaria as the disease. Perhaps you can refresh my memory on where I said otherwise?

While at that, also tell me: How do slugs help each other?
Are you going to continue avoiding the question?

Yet, a path is there eons down the line that we could evolve the ability to fly were it to become necessary to the survival of our race. Microorganisms cannot choose reason like us, but still a path is there for them evolve into higher lifeforms like us should they decide to work together.

And my argument is that the absence of this path would in no way preclude freedom of choice, even if it exists. Right now, it is impossible at short-term for microorganisms ( that is, in the lifetime of a microorganism ) to become a completely different being such as a bunny. Even in the absence of this possibility, you consider that a long-term choice ( which is not in itself made by the microorganism, but rather the result of multiple choices made by a multitude of descendants ) is somehow necessary for freedom of choice.

But what is the justification for this? That is like someone saying that the existence of planet Earth is required for freedom of choice to exist. There is no justification for that statement.

This is meaningless drivel.

Were you unable to comprehend what I was stating?
Would you want me to rephrase it?

I do considerably more than accuse your arguments to be flawed. I debate against them and demonstrate that your arguments are flawed and fail to consider many perspectives other than your own in your blanket statements of how you think God should act. Over and over I demonstrate that no, perfectly loving God does not necessarily act in the fashions that you prescribe best, and actually were he to act in the ways you deem wise, he'd destroy the best things about His creation.

You have never demonstrated my arguments to be invalid. Even though I am fairly certain you have deluded yourself into thinking otherwise by now.

That's what I do. You? You just play word games where you deny what you said not even a page earlier. Take that as a compliment as you wish, but were that charge levied against me, I'd take it as a serious charge of intellectual dishonesty.

I don't think you want me to take your charge seriously.

 

[Prophet]

For certain you can do a much better job than me to substantiate your view, correct? I would be interested on what research you can refer to.

I've been attempting to reason with you but your inability to remember the thread of each argument allows you continually rely upon axioms that I've either proven wrong or tenuous at best not three posts before. I would also be interested in what what research you can refer to, as reasoning with you seems to be a dead end.

As it stands, I don't need to go get my big brother to beat you up as I've bloodied you up pretty well on my own. If your big brother is cut from the same cloth as you, I don't think I have too much to fear from your research either.

Which is evidence that free will doesn't exist at all.

You seem to have a unique way of looking at evidence and drawing conclusions by methods I venture none can easily infer. For sake of my edification, please do flesh out why watching microorganisms act like little animals leads you to conclude that free will is an illusion, or whatever you mean by this conclusion above.

As for me, all of the animals I am peers with have given me sufficient evidence that they are creatures that possess free wills, and thus, watching microorganisms from afar acting like animals, beings I know to be of a free will, causes me to infer that they also possess free wills.

You said this:
"Which would be at best a wash when all such scenarios also limit individuals ability to help another.... Yeah God could've made this universe a giant rubber room asylum where even throwing yourself at the wall won't harm you or anyone else. I'm sure glad He didn't."

You said that limiting our ability to help is a reason ( and the only reason you mentioned on this part ) for god not creating an universe where people ( or microorganisms ) can, at most, barely hurt others.

So, I asked to you what is wrong with reducing our ability to help. But you didn't reply to that question; rather you talked about the ability to harm.

I answered that. I said the thing was wrong with limiting our abilities to do either help or harm each other would be that the whole undertaking would be stupid and accomplish nothing. Here:

Which would be at best a wash when all such scenarios also limit individuals ability to help another....

And here:

No, I said using time or resources to reduce harm by reducing our abilities is a stupid waste of both.

As far as I remember I was referring to malaria as the disease. Perhaps you can refresh my memory on where I said otherwise?

You've said "Why doesn't an all-loving God wipe out malaria?" didn't you? You said that God should eradicate plasmodium, without referring to them directly. To which I replied that your version of an all-loving God arguably should be using malaria as a cure to wipe out humanity, the chief perpetrator of suffering on the planet.

My point stands that plasmodium is not even plasmodium to you until I started bloodying up your bigoted philosophies.

While at that, also tell me: How do slugs help each other?
Are you going to continue avoiding the question?

It is very funny to me that you think you have me cornered here so, yes, I'll continue to avoid this question until I'm convinced that you have the ability to respect anything you don't understand. Knowing me though, I don't think I'll exhibit that kind of restraint. Likely after you've made enough of a fool of yourself on this point by providing testimony against yourself (as you have in the case of plasmodium/malaria), I will see some opportunity to take some egoic satisfaction out of a laugh at your expense again.

And my argument is that the absence of this path would in no way preclude freedom of choice, even if it exists. Right now, it is impossible at short-term for microorganisms ( that is, in the lifetime of a microorganism ) to become a completely different being such as a bunny. Even in the absence of this possibility, you consider that a long-term choice ( which is not in itself made by the microorganism, but rather the result of multiple choices made by a multitude of descendants ) is somehow necessary for freedom of choice.

Even if you can say that God leaves all choices available at the same time as closing off a distant one generations down the road we might not know about (which is a mess in itself), now you must explain why God would do something stupid.

But what is the justification for this? That is like someone saying that the existence of planet Earth is required for freedom of choice to exist. There is no justification for that statement.

How can I be free if God plans to put my descendants in chains?

Were you unable to comprehend what I was stating?
Would you want me to rephrase it?

Whatever God wants to maximize He'll maximize because that's what God would do blah, blah, blah. Maybe I didn't fully understand it but I did understand that I am dealing with another atheist who demands control over the God concept he's arguing against and doesn't believe in.

Fact is you demonstrably have NO idea what omniscience is. You have demonstrably NO idea what omnibenevolence is. And you accordingly have NO idea what those traits look like together. Your demanding that you do in your disproof of an all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful God, despite all arguments that your ideas are flawed makes your worldview a giant strawman fallacy.

You have never demonstrated my arguments to be invalid. Even though I am fairly certain you have deluded yourself into thinking otherwise by now.

I know you are but what am I?

I don't think you want me to take your charge seriously.

You may be right. I am having quite a bit of fun with you.

 

[Glaurung]

Part One

Is God aware of evil and suffering, and at the same time able to stop it?

God does not exist
Okay, glad we cleared that up
No
Why call him God or pray or worship if he cannot interfere with our well-being?
Yes
Monster God wants there to be evil and suffering

God, for his purposes, permits (but does not cause) evil and suffering to exist.

Suffering is caused by Satan messing with the world. Can God destroy Satan?

Yes
Monster God wants Satan to exist and mess with the world
No
God is not the only God, Satan is his equal, God is not omnipotent

By virtue of being a created being of God, Satan at this fundamental level is good for God does not create evil. Therefore, no matter how corrupt any of his creations become, he will not destroy that which is good despite his perfect capability to do so.

Humans are weak, and we have free will which inevitably leads to evil and suffering. Is there evil and suffering in Heaven?

Yes
Heaven is not different from Earth life
No
It is possible to combine a world of free will with no suffering or evil, Monster God could have done that on Earth but didn't.
No
Monster God has created Heaven as a zombie prison without granting its inhabitants free will, in order to create a "perfect" world without evil or suffering, at least visible suffering

Lucifer and his angles were in heaven, yet they nonetheless at one specific time had the ability to reject God. This suggests that free will certainly exists in heaven. However, evil simply can not exist where God's presence is most fully realised. All beings in heaven have totally surrendered to God's will but nonetheless retain their full personal individuality. We cannot possibly begin to comprehend this state of existence.

If Jesus existed, did he have free will, yet committed no evil actions?

Yes
Omnipotent Monster God could have created us all that way, with free will and no desire to do evil
No
Zombie Jesus was remote controlled!
Jesus didn't exist
Okay, glad we cleared that up

Jesus is God born human, free from original sin. His will is God's will and God's will is of course free. Although we ourselves are not free from the tendency towards sin, Jesus by his crucifixion has provided the means in which we can obtain sufficient grace to be saved. The advent of our sinful nature was not the doing of God, but he permits it for his purposes and overriding it would be a violation of our free will as this tendency is a consequence of humanity's original and freely chosen disobedience.

Why is there so much suffering from causes other than free will, such as microorganisms, natural disasters etc?

Punishment for original sin
Monster God still angry for what he should have foreseen when he put weak humans close to forbidden fruit tree and talking snake. For believers who don't literally believe this, the literal story of the fall of Adam and Eve is required for original sin. If original sin is a metaphor for our inherent weaknesses, evil Monster God is angry at us for the way he created us

Satan is messing with the world. Can God destroy Satan?
Yes
Monster God can destroy Satan but doesn't, he wants Satan to exist and mess with the world
No
Did God create Satan?
No
Satan is another God, God not omnipotent
Yes
Stupid evil Monster God created another evil Monster God which he cannot defeat!

We live in a fallen state as a result of original sin. Original sin does not require a literal interpretation of the creation story, it is a narrative describing spiritual truths concerning the word's dependence on God and our relationship with the creator. Satan does seek to do evil, and for his own purposes God allows him to do so within heavy limits. Satan is a creation of God and is dependant on God for his existence. God has already defeated Satan in that Satan is no more capable of disturbing God's providence than an ant is able to move the moon.

Part Two

Do your choices and actions in life decide whether you go to Heaven or not?

It is by accepting Christ that one goes to heaven. However, that acceptance implies and necessitates a life in which you seek to do good and avoid sin.

Do people (eg. tribes in remote locations) who don't know about God and God's morality and rules, go to Heaven?

Acceptance of Christ is not the same as being an explicit Christian, thus those outside of the church can be saved. God will judge each individual by their circumstances. Being ignorant of Christ in of itself will not condemn a person (but neither is said person guaranteed salvation) however, wilful and total rejection of Christ's mercy will ultimately result in hell.

Anyone should feel God's presence inside them and know that he exists and know his moral values

For whatever reason God does not grant us certainty of his existence. This could perhaps be due to original sin or perhaps certainty of his existence would infringe on free will. In whatever case he does as he does for his purposes.

Do newborn babies go to Heaven even though they never got a chance to decide their fate?

This is something for which there is no clear answer. It would be misplaced to kill infants as to free them from personal responsibility as their salvation would be total presumption.

So, how does one get out of this mess? How do believers solve these questions and still believe?

If you think this is the overlooked brilliance that's going to overturn Christianity, then you may want to rethink that proposition.

 

[Koldo]

I've been attempting to reason with you but your inability to remember the thread of each argument allows you continually rely upon axioms that I've either proven wrong or tenuous at best not three posts before. I would also be interested in what what research you can refer to, as reasoning with you seems to be a dead end.

What? What axioms have you proven wrong?
State them right here.

As it stands, I don't need to go get my big brother to beat you up as I've bloodied you up pretty well on my own. If your big brother is cut from the same cloth as you, I don't think I have too much to fear from your research either.

Are you going to substantiate your stance to show that it is more than a preconception ?

You seem to have a unique way of looking at evidence and drawing conclusions by methods I venture none can easily infer. For sake of my edification, please do flesh out why watching microorganisms act like little animals leads you to conclude that free will is an illusion, or whatever you mean by this conclusion above.

As for me, all of the animals I am peers with have given me sufficient evidence that they are creatures that possess free wills, and thus, watching microorganisms from afar acting like animals, beings I know to be of a free will, causes me to infer that they also possess free wills.

If things unable to reason appear to simulate a decision-making process that means that what we call free will may be nothing more than an agglomerate of chemical reactions.

I answered that. I said the thing was wrong with limiting our abilities to do either help or harm each other would be that the whole undertaking would be stupid and accomplish nothing. Here:

And here:

What is wrong with limiting our ability to help?
Saying that it is stupid requires a justification.
I don't know want to know about the ability to harm at this moment. I am talking strictly about the ability to help right now.

You've said "Why doesn't an all-loving God wipe out malaria?" didn't you?

I don't remember saying that sentence. Can you refer to the post I said that?

You said that God should eradicate plasmodium, without referring to them directly.

Eradicate, like now? That doesn't sound like me. The existence of a mere moment where evil ( or suffering ) exists is sufficient to establish god is not omnimax. God would either preemptively not allow plasmodium to come into existence, or simply timely intervene so as malaria never happens.

To which I replied that your version of an all-loving God arguably should be using malaria as a cure to wipe out humanity, the chief perpetrator of suffering on the planet.

My point stands that plasmodium is not even plasmodium to you until I started bloodying up your bigoted philosophies.

I think misquoting people to make your point is not exactly a good practice. Wouldn't you agree?

It is very funny to me that you think you have me cornered here so, yes, I'll continue to avoid this question until I'm convinced that you have the ability to respect anything you don't understand. Knowing me though, I don't think I'll exhibit that kind of restraint. Likely after you've made enough of a fool of yourself on this point by providing testimony against yourself (as you have in the case of plasmodium/malaria), I will see some opportunity to take some egoic satisfaction out of a laugh at your expense again.

How do slugs help each other?
You are unable to answer this question. That's why you don't answer it. Such a shame that you would rather prefer to waste your time and mine writting statements irrelevant to our debate.

Even if you can say that God leaves all choices available at the same time as closing off a distant one generations down the road we might not know about (which is a mess in itself), now you must explain why God would do something stupid.

I am not sure I comprehend what you have said here. Can you rephrase it?

How can I be free if God plans to put my descendants in chains?

How are they being put in chains?

Whatever God wants to maximize He'll maximize because that's what God would do blah, blah, blah. Maybe I didn't fully understand it but I did understand that I am dealing with another atheist who demands control over the God concept he's arguing against and doesn't believe in.

By what means am I reaching the conclusion of what god would do?
I want to be certain you comprehend where I am coming from.

Fact is you demonstrably have NO idea what omniscience is. You have demonstrably NO idea what omnibenevolence is. And you accordingly have NO idea what those traits look like together. Your demanding that you do in your disproof of an all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful God, despite all arguments that your ideas are flawed makes your worldview a giant strawman fallacy.

I think you are completely clueless about the problem of evil.
Have you ever read about it? These statements make me think you don't know much about it.

I will explain to you something which is quite important to comprehend and address this problem: When we create logical arguments using words, these words mean what the one who proposes the argument means to say by them. It is usually easier to convey this meaning when there is a common usage of a word.

In the problem of evil, the word 'omnibenevolence' means the infinite will to do good. 'Good' here is understood as it would be in many daily uses of this word, that means: to increase the well-being of individuals.

When you say that I have no comprehension of what omnibenevolence and omniscience are ( even though my statements so far are compatible with how those words are used in the problem of evil ), that means you are getting lost on the word being used, and ending up with merely a semantic disagreement on my usage which is completely irrelevant for this debate.

I know you are but what am I?

You may be right. I am having quite a bit of fun with you.

I am not having quite as much fun as you. Perhaps making empty claims and accusations might indeed make this a much more enjoyable experience.