The Problem of Evil, Messiah, and Wrath.

[muhammad_isa]

I am asking what you understand as qualifying as free will. Do you have to be able to kill people to have free will?

The principle of free-will does not depend on an individual's ability to kill somebody.
If it was not possible for anybody to kill another, even if they chose to, then it violates the concept of free-will.

 

[Koldo]

The distinction is, in a world governed by natural laws, each discovery informs the next discovery making each subsequent discovery quicker. Knowledge compounds over time making improvement easier. One has the advantage of deductive reasoning and intuition. Do we agree to this point?

In a hypothetical fantasy world, there are no natural laws, no underlying principles to discover, no axioms to go by. It's all limitless, unbounded possibility. One discovery does not inform future discoveries. Knowledge does not compound. There is no deduction and intuition. All of these tools are unavailable in a fantasy world for solving fantasy problems. Because of this, solving a fantasy problem **in a systemic process** becomes very difficult. The only option is to guess&try, random trial and error. This would hamper improvement. So it's invalid.

The example I gave about the phoenix tears is: one cannot deduce or intuit what could possibly cure sleep walking simly by knowing that phoenix tears cure blindness. In a fantasy world in order to discover a magical cure for sleep walking, the only available approach is trial and error.

A fantasy world would have different rules and different underlying mechanics. For instance, a certain hand gesture might never be involved in healing spells because there is a deeper meaning to it that is contrary to healing.

Not to mention that we still have to go over trial and error in our world... a lot. Theoretical knowledge never replaces actually trying something in practice.

They probably adjust a little. Have you ever heard of the 5 stages of grief? It's a process each person goes through with the loss of a loved one. I don't think this excludes parents who lose a child. The last stage is acceptance.

It is not like going through it multiple times necessarily makes the process go faster nor does it makes certain steps be skipped.

OK. But before I respond, is "hell-like" objective or subjective?

Is suffering objective or subjective? Depends on how you are using those terms. A hell-like experience is one optimized for suffering.

Can you easily think that something else might be a lot worse than what you are going/have gone through? Then you have never had a hell-like experience.

Try to imagine a general sacrificing 200 soldiers to rescue 1 soldier. Did the general make the right decision? If a general makes that decision repeatedly, the army is decimated. It makes no sense from the perspective of the creator to favor the individual in spite of the collective.

On this analogy, the point is that the lives of 200 soldiers are worth more than 1 soldier. But the value we are discussing is not life, it is improvement and diversity.

Imagine the same group of 200 people. The general decides to increase diversity and improvement. To do that, he decides to chop off one limb from half of the troop.

Some soldiers, afraid to be suffer punishment, obey the orders. When about 50 of the soldiers have lost a limb, a group of rebels decides that is enough... A lot of people die to stop that insanity, the general included.

That general inspired people to rise up against this sort of thing. Did the general do the proper thing?

Nope, can't be. Torture cannot be valued if the purpose is to reduce and eliminate it. The fact that it has a potential benefit is irrelevent.

What about the individual improvement? Do you mean there is no potential for individual improvement on going through torture?

You have said and I quote: "My family may not be able to rise above it. But that doesn't mean that no one, no family could improve as a result of it. When confronted with extreme hardship, it's natural ( at the very least ) to reassess priorities. That is ( at least ) a small improvement."

You have therefore said that there is potential for individual improvement in torture, which would mean it is alright to torture if the values are improvement and diversity. Are you reconsidering your position?

So what?

I said:"They still feel good from over-eating though, but not for as long since they need less food to feel stuffed"

You said in reply: "Until the guilt settles in. And the guilt lasts longer than the good feeling from over-eating."

But not everyone feels guilty. I was merely stating your rationale is not always applicable.

Sure it does, you can't enjoy being sneaky if you're worried about getting caught. The pleasure from being sneaky is from being far from being caught. Maybe the pleasure for a risk taker increases with the likelyhood of getting caught. Like an exhibitionist? But that's simply another case. Each situation is different, you can't claim there is no possible way to mitigate this pleasure without some evidence.

Here's some advice I found online regading how to quit stealing. Notice the intellectual and emotional approach.

Thinking about the consequences of your behaviors can help to reduce impulsivity. If you have been nearly caught, or have been caught (or caught several times), write all of this down. Also write down your own subsequent feelings, such as shame and guilt, and the actions you use to try to cope with these feelings or remorse or disgust.

6 Ways to Stop Your Addiction to Stealing - wikiHow​

Your example doesn't mitigate the pleasure. What it does is make one think of the feelings they might experience after they feel the initial pleasure of stealing to better inform how they should behave.

 

[Koldo]

The principle of free-will does not depend on an individual's ability to kill somebody.
If it was not possible for anybody to kill another, even if they chose to, then it violates the concept of free-will.

Why? Elaborate.
Do you mean that if I, and only I, and no one else, was able to kill other people it would be fine?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Do you mean that if I, and only I, and no one else, was able to kill other people it would be fine?

No, I don't mean that.
What I mean, is that mankind has been given the free-will to choose how to behave.
It is a given that we are mortal creatures. We will all die eventually, whether it is from an accident, murder, or disease etc.

 

[Koldo]

No, I don't mean that.
What I mean, is that mankind has been given the free-will to choose how to behave.
It is a given that we are mortal creatures. We will all die eventually, whether it is from an accident, murder, or disease etc.

Ok. There are other things I would like to comment but let's stick to murder. Why must we be capable of killing one another, yet not all of us are calable of doing it?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Why must we be capable of killing one another, yet not all of us are calable of doing it?

Why aren't we all capable of doing it?

 

[Koldo]

Why aren't we all capable of doing it?

Indeed. Why not?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Indeed. Why not?

That is no answer.
Most people are capable of murder, but you suggest that some are not..
Who are these people, and why aren't they?

 

[Koldo]

That is no answer.
Most people are capable of murder, but you suggest that some are not..
Who are these people, and why aren't they?

Quadraplegics can't pretty much kill anyone directly. And newborns. And people in comatose.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Quadraplegics can't pretty much kill anyone directly. And newborns. And people in comatose.

Where is this leading?
What has this got to do with the human race having been given free-will to choose, as a whole?

 

[Koldo]

Where is this leading?
What has this got to do with the human race having been given free-will to choose, as a whole?

If free will justifies the existence of evil, like murder, why doesn't everyone have the free will to murder?
Either free will is valuable to God or it is not.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Either free will is valuable to God or it is not.

Almighty God is not in need of His creation.
We are the ones in need.

Our intentions are the most important thing of all.
If we intend to do something, then that is our decision,
Our righteous intentions and deeds are what is "valuable to God"..
He is aware of who can do what and who can't.

This life is as a blink of an eye compared to eternity.

 

[Koldo]

Almighty God is not in need of His creation.
We are the ones in need.

Our intentions are the most important thing of all.
If we intend to do something, then that is our decision,
Our righteous intentions and deeds are what is "valuable to God"..
He is aware of who can do what and who can't.

This life is as a blink of an eye compared to eternity.

None of this addresses the problem of evil... so your answer is a non-answer.

Hmm... I am going to elaborate.

The problem of evil works like this: God is fully good, all powerful and all knowing. What is the world he created expected to look like? A world without any evil since he is good and that's what any good individual would do: prevent evil from happening if it is within their power.

Yet evil exists! How come?
The free will answer works like this: There is some greater good to be had if people abstain from evil and do good out of their volition, rather than being prevented by God.

So I ask: If free will allows for some greater good, why do people who lack it (such as quadraplegic) exist? God would intend for the greater good to be maximized, right? If he didn't, he would have just created a world with no evil, since good would already be present on it.

So when you say stuff like:

"This life is as a blink of an eye compared to eternity."

And

"Almighty God is not in need of His creation.
We are the ones in need."

None of that matters on this subject. It is inconsequential.

 

[dybmh]

A fantasy world would have different rules and different underlying mechanics. For instance, a certain hand gesture might never be involved in healing spells because there is a deeper meaning to it that is contrary to healing.

Speculation. You don't know if a fantasy world would have any rules or underlying mechanics. No one would be able to know. That's the definition of fantasy.

fan·ta·sy

the faculty or activity of imagining things, especially things that are impossible or improbable.
​

Making improvements on a problem/flaw which is impossible or improbable requires end-less trial and error. Even if by chance a solution is found, this solution cannot contribute to solving other problems.

Ignoring the definition of fantasy for a moment. At the very least, do you agree that a world where problems can be solved using deduction and intuition is capable of much much more improvement than a world that is reliant exclusively on random trial and error? If so, then fantasy problems would be excluded as an obstacle towards collective improvement.

Not to mention that we still have to go over trial and error in our world... a lot. Theoretical knowledge never replaces actually trying something in practice.

Note: the topic is random trial and error. In a world governed by natural laws, discoveries of the properties of these underlying mechanisms inform the problem solving process. The trials are chosen as a result of previous successes. I havent said anything about replacing the need to try something in practice. The distinction between fantasy world problem solving and real world problem solving is in how the trials are chosen. I hope that's clearer now.

It is not like going through it multiple times necessarily makes the process go faster nor does it makes certain steps be skipped.

each time a person goes through grief, they have an opportunity to go through these steps of grief and reach acceptance. The more often they go through it, the more chances they get, the more likely they will reach acceptance. It's simple.

Let's not forget, the example given was primtive people who are much more likely to encounter life threatening circumstances. Again, more opportunity to adjust.

Is suffering objective or subjective? Depends on how you are using those terms. A hell-like experience is one optimized for suffering.

Yes, suffering is 100% subjective. One person's suffering is another person's inconvenience.

Can you easily think that something else might be a lot worse than what you are going/have gone through? Then you have never had a hell-like experience.

Me? Personally? Just kidding.

I have no problem conceptualizing a primitive person, who lives a fortunate life, after surviving an extended famine, thinking to themself, "That's the worst thing I'll ever have to go through." To add another possible detail, this individual may be a soldier and expects to die on the battlefield a glorious death. Dying slowly of starvation, could be, for that individual, a version of hell.

On this analogy, the point is that the lives of 200 soldiers are worth more than 1 soldier. But the value we are discussing is not life, it is improvement and diversity.

Imagine the same group of 200 people. The general decides to increase diversity and improvement. To do that, he decides to chop off one limb from half of the troop.

Some soldiers, afraid to be suffer punishment, obey the orders. When about 50 of the soldiers have lost a limb, a group of rebels decides that is enough... A lot of people die to stop that insanity, the general included.

That general inspired people to rise up against this sort of thing. Did the general do the proper thing?

Well, no. the general didn't do properly because it's obvious that chopping off a limb doesn't improve the collective. That's why the soldiers rebel.

It would be the same if a general sent their soldiers repeatedly into a mine field or a sniper's kill zone. If the collective is repeatedly harmed, the soldiers will rebel. But if the general sends in one soldier though a mine field and that soldier gets killed. The collective benefits from avoiding the minefield. The soldiers in this case do not rebel.

A similar example would be allowing an alcoholic to reach "rock-bottom" before offering assistance because offering assistance before then is ineffective. It's not that the alcoholism is valued. But it is allowed to exist for as long as it takes because a person is more likely to rehabilitate if they fully degrade.

What about the individual improvement? Do you mean there is no potential for individual improvement on going through torture?

You have said and I quote: "My family may not be able to rise above it. But that doesn't mean that no one, no family could improve as a result of it. When confronted with extreme hardship, it's natural ( at the very least ) to reassess priorities. That is ( at least ) a small improvement."

You have therefore said that there is potential for individual improvement in torture, which would mean it is alright to torture if the values are improvement and diversity. Are you reconsidering your position?

Ummm, no. No. and NO. What I said was, there is potential for improvement but the ends don't justify the means. It is not alright to torture. That's not what I said. It's alright for the creator to allow the existence of torture if it is being reduced and eventually eliminated. This means, by defintion it is not alright for one human to torture others. It is intended to be eliminated.

Allowing torture without reducing or eliminating it would not be an improvement. Even if there is minimal opportunity for individual improvement, it doesn't compensate for the harm to the collective.

We've had a long conversation, and so it's expected that details will be accidentally overlooked while trying to understand the over arching implications. But please, try to be careful not to misrepresent what I've said. Thank you,

I said:"They still feel good from over-eating though, but not for as long since they need less food to feel stuffed"

You said in reply: "Until the guilt settles in. And the guilt lasts longer than the good feeling from over-eating."

But not everyone feels guilty. I was merely stating your rationale is not always applicable.

Oh, well, it doesn't need to be always applicable.

Your original objection, if I understood, was that a perfect creation would not include these erroneous positive reinforcements for acting improperly. My position is that these positive reinforcements are a challenge to be overcome and most people have the means for overcoming them. Thus the perfect creation would include them. And even if some individuals are incapable of mitigating their impulses, this can still lead to collective improvement where the person inspires others ( either positively or negatively ) to abstain from the improper behavior.

Your example doesn't mitigate the pleasure. What it does is make one think of the feelings they might experience after they feel the initial pleasure of stealing to better inform how they should behave.

I don't think it's possible to retain the same identical feeling of excitement relating to an activity while at the same time contemplating the negative repercussions that may result. You disagree? Why should I believe you? Do you have some qualification other than being an "incredible member" that would elevate your observations above mine?

 

[muhammad_isa]

The problem of evil works like this: God is fully good, all powerful and all knowing. What is the world he created expected to look like? A world without any evil since he is good and that's what any good individual would do: prevent evil from happening if it is within their power.

No. You are looking at it as if the Creator is one of His creatures.
You keep ignoring the fact that God has given the responsibility to govern ourselves .. police ourselves.
Evil is defined as the opposite to righteousness.
God has provided us with guidance on how to take care of our affairs, but many of us turn away.
That is evil, and God knew that many of us would not listen .. but He also knew that many would be righteous too.

The day when righteousness ceases, is the day when "the trumpet will be blown".
You say that the finite nature of this world is "inconsequential", but it isn't.

Yet evil exists! How come?
The free will answer works like this: There is some greater good to be had if people abstain from evil and do good out of their volition, rather than being prevented by God.

So I ask: If free will allows for some greater good, why do people who lack it (such as quadraplegic) exist?

Why do thalidomide birth defects occur?
Why? Why? Why?

Why are people more interested in wealth than righteousness?
Why are people so selfish?
Why do people do anything?
Why? Why? Why?

It's good to ask questions .. but if you deny the possibility of life after death, you will not get any decent answers.
Evil and suffering in this life is not a permanent condition.
..at least, it is not for the righteous.
What is the reward of goodness, except goodness?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Why? Why? Why?
It's good to ask questions .. but if you deny the possibility of life after death, you will not get any decent answers.
Evil and suffering in this life is not a permanent condition.
..at least, it is not for the righteous.
What is the reward of goodness, except goodness?

IMHO, there is no answer after death. Questions and answers last till we are alive.
Sure, all things in life are impermanent. Good should be rewarded and the evil should be punished is a nice scheme, but that does not always happen in life. The fate of good or evil is the same. After death, a person's body goes to dust, and one's individuality and consciousness comes to an end.

 

[Brian2]

IMHO, there is no answer after death. Questions and answers last till we are alive.
Sure, all things in life are impermanent. Good should be rewarded and the evil should be punished is a nice scheme, but that does not always happen in life. The fate of good or evil is the same. After death, a person's body goes to dust, and one's individuality and consciousness comes to an end.

Solomon arrived as similar answers (in Ecclesiastes) when he was looking only with his physical eyes and not with his eyes of faith. His final conclusions were through eyes of faith.

 

[Koldo]

Speculation. You don't know if a fantasy world would have any rules or underlying mechanics. No one would be able to know. That's the definition of fantasy.

fan·ta·sy

the faculty or activity of imagining things, especially things that are impossible or improbable.
​

Making improvements on a problem/flaw which is impossible or improbable requires end-less trial and error. Even if by chance a solution is found, this solution cannot contribute to solving other problems.

Note: the topic is random trial and error. In a world governed by natural laws, discoveries of the properties of these underlying mechanisms inform the problem solving process. The trials are chosen as a result of previous successes. I havent said anything about replacing the need to try something in practice. The distinction between fantasy world problem solving and real world problem solving is in how the trials are chosen. I hope that's clearer now.

I am grouping up those quotes to provide a single reply to them:

There only needs to be one possible fantasy world with underlying mechanics for us to say it is a better world than ours given the values we are working with. And since we can imagine a fantasy world like that it would be sufficient. If it is imaginable it is a possible world.

Ignoring the definition of fantasy for a moment. At the very least, do you agree that a world where problems can be solved using deduction and intuition is capable of much much more improvement than a world that is reliant exclusively on random trial and error? If so, then fantasy problems would be excluded as an obstacle towards collective improvement.

What are fantasy problems?
Is a vampire a fantasy problem?

each time a person goes through grief, they have an opportunity to go through these steps of grief and reach acceptance. The more often they go through it, the more chances they get, the more likely they will reach acceptance. It's simple.

Let's not forget, the example given was primtive people who are much more likely to encounter life threatening circumstances. Again, more opportunity to adjust.

Sure, but it doesn't mean that after each death (or after a given number of deaths) their suffering decreases.

Yes, suffering is 100% subjective. One person's suffering is another person's inconvenience.

That's not quite true.
I mean, you are not completely wrong, but not completely correct too. You would be hard-pressed to find someone that would treat undergoing extreme pain as a mere inconvience, for example.

Me? Personally? Just kidding.

I have no problem conceptualizing a primitive person, who lives a fortunate life, after surviving an extended famine, thinking to themself, "That's the worst thing I'll ever have to go through." To add another possible detail, this individual may be a soldier and expects to die on the battlefield a glorious death. Dying slowly of starvation, could be, for that individual, a version of hell.

Ah, sure. But the individual can be mistaken. I didn't mean that not being able to imagine anything worse entails that nothing worse could be experienced. Just that if you can imagine something worse, then you certainly haven't experienced the worst.

Well, no. the general didn't do properly because it's obvious that chopping off a limb doesn't improve the collective. That's why the soldiers rebel.

It would be the same if a general sent their soldiers repeatedly into a mine field or a sniper's kill zone. If the collective is repeatedly harmed, the soldiers will rebel. But if the general sends in one soldier though a mine field and that soldier gets killed. The collective benefits from avoiding the minefield. The soldiers in this case do not rebel.

A similar example would be allowing an alcoholic to reach "rock-bottom" before offering assistance because offering assistance before then is ineffective. It's not that the alcoholism is valued. But it is allowed to exist for as long as it takes because a person is more likely to rehabilitate if they fully degrade.

You are not addressing the collective benefit though: His action inspired other people to rise up against this sort of thing. How does this improvement doesn't justify his action?

Ummm, no. No. and NO. What I said was, there is potential for improvement but the ends don't justify the means. It is not alright to torture. That's not what I said. It's alright for the creator to allow the existence of torture if it is being reduced and eventually eliminated. This means, by defintion it is not alright for one human to torture others. It is intended to be eliminated.

Allowing torture without reducing or eliminating it would not be an improvement. Even if there is minimal opportunity for individual improvement, it doesn't compensate for the harm to the collective.

We've had a long conversation, and so it's expected that details will be accidentally overlooked while trying to understand the over arching implications. But please, try to be careful not to misrepresent what I've said. Thank you,

How exactly are you measuring what is the collective harm caused by torture, and how exactly did you reach the conclusion that the chance for individual improvement doesn't justify this harm?

Oh, well, it doesn't need to be always applicable.

Your original objection, if I understood, was that a perfect creation would not include these erroneous positive reinforcements for acting improperly. My position is that these positive reinforcements are a challenge to be overcome and most people have the means for overcoming them. Thus the perfect creation would include them. And even if some individuals are incapable of mitigating their impulses, this can still lead to collective improvement where the person inspires others ( either positively or negatively ) to abstain from the improper behavior.

I don't think it's possible to retain the same identical feeling of excitement relating to an activity while at the same time contemplating the negative repercussions that may result. You disagree? Why should I believe you? Do you have some qualification other than being an "incredible member" that would elevate your observations above mine?

I feel like this part of the conversation, the one quoted above, is actually redundant. Whether individuals are able to mitigate the pleasure they feel when doing something improper doesn't really matter if there is improvement from merely acting despite their pleasure.

 

[Koldo]

No. You are looking at it as if the Creator is one of His creatures.

How did you reach this conclusion?

You keep ignoring the fact that God has given the responsibility to govern ourselves .. police ourselves.

If your children, as in kids, decided to kill one another, would you call yourself a good parent by letting them police themselves and not interferring?

Evil is defined as the opposite to righteousness.
God has provided us with guidance on how to take care of our affairs, but many of us turn away.
That is evil, and God knew that many of us would not listen .. but He also knew that many would be righteous too.

The day when righteousness ceases, is the day when "the trumpet will be blown".
You say that the finite nature of this world is "inconsequential", but it isn't.

What's not inconsequential about claiming that this world is finite? Elaborate. Is it alright to make you suffer a lot if you are granted an infinite reward? Oh wait, you don't get to have a choice.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Solomon arrived as similar answers (in Ecclesiastes) when he was looking only with his physical eyes and not with his eyes of faith. His final conclusions were through eyes of faith.

I do not know about Solomon, nor I need to know, a mythologized Israelite king.