Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Having gone through the death of my beloved wife, I can say with certainly that the only salve for grief it time. But my certainty that God does not intervene saved me from the angst of the question of why He didn't. Every death or tribulation, no matter how apparently senseless, every good fortune no matter how wrongly it's obtained, is a monument to God's commitment to our free will. Against the backdrop of eternity it's but a blink.

Interesting. I felt something somewhat similar when my father died, but in my case, I was relieved to try and reconcile the idea of a loving God (even one that doesn't interfere) with my father's cancer.

The problem is so few people realize the vital importance of free will. It is THE one and only purpose for Creation. He could create us and everything else instantly if free will was not required. I put my faith in this because it makes reasoned sense as well.

I think the "free will" excuse just doesn't work as a response to the problem of evil. First off, it's obvious that our free will is limited anyhow: there are countless things that I can conceive of doing that I'm incapable of actually doing. Since your God has already seen fit to deny my free will by not letting me fly by flapping my arms or kill people with my thoughts, how can you argue that it would have violated some principle held by God to, say, make Adam Lanza physically incapable of killing those children? I mean, there are many people who are born without hands (and therefore would have major difficulty even pulling a trigger, let alone carrying out a shooting spree) because of various birth defects; if this doesn't violate *their* free will, why would it have violated his?

Also, I'm not sure of your personal beliefs, but since we've mainly been looking at this in a Christian context so far, I think it's worth pointing out that most Christians believe that they'll still have free will in Heaven, so for them, it's a tenet of faith that suffering CAN be avoided while still maintaining free will.

 

[watoca]

No, the True Pre-exsistant Father is not Evil. If you believe in his Son Jesus Nazerene Christ { whom God let be hung} then you must try to fathom the neccesity of children dieing. To me it is a many fold situation: Satan believed he killed Christ when he really set him free.

 

[Copernicus]

I know this probably isn't the thread for this, but that does not follow.

Good point. I've opened a new thread on the subject here: Humans are like Robots. Choice is determined.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I believe in both free will and determinism. Choice is not a random process, but the chaotic interaction of events in our environment makes our behavior essentially non-deterministic.

We do follow tendencies, aka our nature, but that doesn't mean that we must follow them. The best example I can think of is that our nature is to seek survival and reproduce. But there are those who have sacrificed their lives and future descendants to save others.

If choice were not determined, then we would never be able to predict anyone's behavior or explain our own motivations for our choices.

Take a look around. People don't always make decisions that follow their natures, or, especially, make rational sense. Far too many choices are made strictly on emotion.

Free will is not a gift from God. It is a necessary means to our survival.

Necessary how. People murder other people by the 10s of thousands every day.

I know this probably isn't the thread for this, but that does not follow.

Yes. And why wouldn't it be the thread?

I think the "free will" excuse just doesn't work as a response to the problem of evil. First off, it's obvious that our free will is limited anyhow: there are countless things that I can conceive of doing that I'm incapable of actually doing.

That's why I sometimes call it moral free will. But the fact that we don't have physical free will is obvious and it shouldn't need to be qualified that way all the time. It's understood.

Since your God has already seen fit to deny my free will by not letting me fly by flapping my arms or kill people with my thoughts, how can you argue that it would have violated some principle held by God to, say, make Adam Lanza physically incapable of killing those children?

Because knowing what someone with free will will actually do, can only be known by their doing it. Our free will is sustained by our natural, rational universe. If God were to interfere and interrupt that rationality by so much as saving an amoeba on the other side of the universe, it would impact all of reality.

I mean, there are many people who are born without hands (and therefore would have major difficulty even pulling a trigger, let alone carrying out a shooting spree) because of various birth defects; if this doesn't violate *their* free will, why would it have violated his?

Again, neither God nor we know what we will really do until we do it.

Also, I'm not sure of your personal beliefs, but since we've mainly been looking at this in a Christian context so far, I think it's worth pointing out that most Christians believe that they'll still have free will in Heaven,

Such faith is completely unfounded, even biblically, much less by reason.

so for them, it's a tenet of faith that suffering CAN be avoided while still maintaining free will.

Avoided through natural means, yes.

Good point. I've opened a new thread on the subject here: Humans are like Robots. Choice is determined.

If humans' choices are predetermined, then God could have just bypassed this natural process and created us directly into heaven or hell or whatever according to that predetermination. It would be like God creating a bunch of sock puppets all saying "I love you". Meaningless.

Moral free will and determinism are absolutely and completely contradictory.

 

[Copernicus]

If humans' choices are predetermined, then God could have just bypassed this natural process and created us directly into heaven or hell or whatever according to that predetermination. It would be like God creating a bunch of sock puppets all saying "I love you". Meaningless.

First of all, I'll discuss my views on free will and determinism in the new thread I started. This thread is focused on Lady B's issues as expressed in the OP. So we can debate a hypothetical God as it relates to Calvinism.

I agree that one option for God would just have been to create us directly in heaven or hell without going through all of this rigamarole. Being omniscient, he already knew how we would turn out without actually testing us. In principle, we are looking at a being that was essentially creating sock puppets from his perspective. If that is the case, then it is hard to understand why we are here at all, yet here we are.

Moral free will and determinism are absolutely and completely contradictory.

I disagree, and I can elaborate on why in my other thread. In any case, Calvinists are determinists, so they take the position that moral free will and determinism are fully compatible. We've seen Lady B's claims in that respect. I find them contradictory, but she asserts that they are not.

 

[Twig pentagram]

I don't know.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

First of all, I'll discuss my views on free will and determinism in the new thread I started. This thread is focused on Lady B's issues as expressed in the OP. So we can debate a hypothetical God as it relates to Calvinism.

But free will is the answer to her question.

I agree that one option for God would just have been to create us directly in heaven or hell without going through all of this rigamarole.

That would be the deterministic (empty) option.

Being omniscient, he already knew how we would turn out without actually testing us. In principle, we are looking at a being that was essentially creating sock puppets from his perspective. If that is the case, then it is hard to understand why we are here at all, yet here we are.

Yes, impossible to understand. Yet here we are indeed, for the only logical purpose of exercising our free will.

I disagree

And I disagree, it's irratinal to say they can both be in operation, meaning Calvinists are irrational. We don't have free will if our choices are predetermined.

 

[Falvlun]

But free will is the answer to her question.

I personally find freewill to be very inadequate for explaining evil and suffering in this world. For one, human freewill isn't responsible for natural disasters or diseases.

And for two, as others have pointed out, our freewill is constrained all the time due to natural laws in place (I cannot shoot lasers out of my eyes).

For three, I suspect that an omnibenevolent omnipotent omniscient God could have come up with some method that would at least have produced less suffering while still maintaining free will (like, make human nature less violent to begin with, or making our environment more hospitable, etc)

 

[Copernicus]

But free will is the answer to her question.

Free will from whose perspective? From her God's perspective, we cannot have free will, because he has predetermined all of our choices. From our perspective, we have free will, because we do not know all the causes of our choices or what those choices will necessarily be in advance. The way Calvinists get around it is that they simply declare that we have free will because God says so. And, frankly, their religion would not seem to make any sense at all if we didn't have free will. So they deny a contradiction that seems obvious to everyone else.

That would be the deterministic (empty) option.

What makes you call the option "empty"?

Yes, impossible to understand. Yet here we are indeed, for the only logical purpose of exercising our free will.

Except, of course, that it violates logic to declare that we have free will from the perspective of a being that knows exactly what choices we will make in advance of our making those choices. Such a being has no power to grant us free will, because it cannot logically violate the rules of logic. There are limits to omnipotence and omniscience.

And I disagree, it's irratinal to say they can both be in operation, meaning Calvinists are irrational. We don't have free will if our choices are predetermined.

Not from God's perspective, but we can from our own limited perspective. Again, I go into my reasoning on this in the other thread, because that is about the compatibility of free will and determinism in a godless reality. This thread asks questions in the context of an existing Calvinist "God", which adds a lot of extraneous cognitive dissonance to the discussion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's why I sometimes call it moral free will. But the fact that we don't have physical free will is obvious and it shouldn't need to be qualified that way all the time. It's understood.

I'm not sure what this distinction is between "moral free will" and "physical free will", and more to the point, I'm not sure it matters. I'm not picky about how God would prevent a massacre, whether it's arranging things so the potential killer wouldn't develop the will to kill or whether he'd still want to kill but be physically incapable of it for some reason.

Because knowing what someone with free will will actually do, can only be known by their doing it.

If you're saying that God is not omniscient, then while that addresses the problem of evil, it contradicts the beliefs of many religious people, including Lady B, I suspect.

If you're saying that God chooses to make himself willfully blind to the consequences of his actions, then I don't think this works as an excuse.

Our free will is sustained by our natural, rational universe. If God were to interfere and interrupt that rationality by so much as saving an amoeba on the other side of the universe, it would impact all of reality.

Does God need to interfere? Presumably, God was the one who set up the rules of our "natural, rational universe"; are you suggesting that he wouldn't have been capable of creating a system with as much free will but less suffering? If so, then I'd say your God isn't omnipotent either. Again, this addresses the problem of evil but contradicts the beliefs of many.

Again, neither God nor we know what we will really do until we do it.

So you reject the nature of God assumed in the problem of evil. This is fine for you, but does nothing to resolve the problem for those believers whose God-concept matches the one assumed.

Such faith is completely unfounded, even biblically, much less by reason.

I'm not really concerned with the theological support for the belief, just with the fact that it's common.

Avoided through natural means, yes.

What does this even mean?

In this context, what does "natural" mean but "in accordance with the physical laws God put in place?" With that in mind, it seems to me that all you're really saying is "God will only do what he wants to do." This strikes me as question-begging and less than useful.

 

[Copernicus]

If you're saying that God chooses to make himself willfully blind to the consequences of his actions, then I don't think this works as an excuse.

Just a technical point here: an omnipotent being cannot logically be less powerful than omnipotent. An omniscient being cannot logically be less knowledgeable than omniscient. So God cannot choose to blind himself to anything.

 

[Falvlun]

Just a technical point here: an omnipotent being cannot logically be less powerful than omnipotent. An omniscient being cannot logically be less knowledgeable than omniscient. So God cannot choose to blind himself to anything.

Why not? I mean, I have the power to do my 7 year old's homework, but I can choose not to (since that would defeat the purpose of homework).

 

[idav]

Why not? I mean, I have the power to do my 7 year old's homework, but I can choose not to (since that would defeat the purpose of homework).

Like for example letting a 7 year old beat you up. If an adult lets a kid over power them, did the kid really technically over power the adult?

 

[Copernicus]

Why not? I mean, I have the power to do my 7 year old's homework, but I can choose not to (since that would defeat the purpose of homework).

No offense, but you aren't God, except maybe to that kid.

If an omnipotent being were to cancel any of its power, it would cease to be omnipotent. That is different from voluntarily not exercising power but retaining the ability to do so. People are considered responsible for actions they don't take as well as those that they do. God has a heavier responsibility, if he knowingly caused everything to happen.

Omniscience is even trickier. If God were to try to willingly not know something, he would not only cease to be omniscient, but he would not be able to know what he didn't know, since he could have ordered himself to forget anything and not know that he had done so. If he just remembered that he had canceled some knowledge, he would not know what or how much knowledge he had canceled.

 

[idav]

No offense, but you aren't God, except maybe to that kid.

If an omnipotent being were to cancel any of its power, it would cease to be omnipotent. That is different from voluntarily not exercising power but retaining the ability to do so. People are considered responsible for actions they don't take as well as those that they do. God has a heavier responsibility, if he knowingly caused everything to happen.

Omniscience is even trickier. If God were to try to willingly not know something, he would not only cease to be omniscient, but he would not be able to know what he didn't know, since he could have ordered himself to forget anything and not know that he had done so. If he just remembered that he had canceled some knowledge, he would not know what or how much knowledge he had canceled.

Here is a way about it. Omniscient would mean knowing every potential with no possibility of knowing the outcome without purposeful intervention.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I personally find freewill to be very inadequate for explaining evil and suffering in this world. For one, human freewill isn't responsible for natural disasters or diseases.

Free will, in this context, is only about moral free will. I though it was pretty obvious we can't defy gravity--which, btw, like animals, is innocent and incapable of moral free will.

And for two, as others have pointed out, our freewill is constrained all the time due to natural laws in place (I cannot shoot lasers out of my eyes).

Isn't that just an extension of your first point?

For three, I suspect that an omnibenevolent omnipotent omniscient God could have come up with some method that would at least have produced less suffering while still maintaining free will (like, make human nature less violent to begin with, or making our environment more hospitable, etc)

I know this is hard to understand, but that's my whole point, He can't because He mustn't.

Free will from whose perspective?

God's and ours.

What makes you call the option "empty"?

If someone, or God, or luck, gives you everything, do you feel fulfilled?

[quote} Except, of course, that it violates logic to declare that we have free will from the perspective of a being that knows exactly what choices we will make in advance of our making those choices.[/quote]

It violates the logic of those who violate logic. "If you love something set it free. If it comes back to you, it's yours. If not, it never was." You 're saying the God doesn't have the power to set us free.

Such a being has no power to grant us free will

Ergo......God......has no such power.

I'm not sure what this distinction is between "moral free will" and "physical free will", and more to the point, I'm not sure it matters.

We don't have the physical free will to jump off of a cliff and float. We do have the moral free will to choose to kill our neighbor and take his wife and stuff, or not.

I'm not picky about how God would prevent a massacre, whether it's arranging things so the potential killer wouldn't develop the will to kill or whether he'd still want to kill but be physically incapable of it for some reason.

Then you aren't picky about appreciating free will.

If you're saying that God is not omniscient, then while that addresses the problem of evil, it contradicts the beliefs of many religious people, including Lady B, I suspect.

All religious people who believe in the supernatural in this universe and divine revelation, absolutely.

If you're saying that God chooses to make himself willfully blind to the consequences of his actions, then I don't think this works as an excuse.

His only action, if He exists, has been to create the natural universe. All choices and actions since have been ours.

Does God need to interfere? Presumably, God was the one who set up the rules of our "natural, rational universe"; are you suggesting that he wouldn't have been capable of creating a system with as much free will but less suffering?

Apparently, and it appears, logically so.

If so, then I'd say your God isn't omnipotent either. Again, this addresses the problem of evil but contradicts the beliefs of many.

The only evil that exists is when one human or group chooses to demean the EQUAL rights of others.

So you reject the nature of God assumed in the problem of evil. This is fine for you, but does nothing to resolve the problem for those believers whose God-concept matches the one assumed.

The advantage of evil is its ability to lie--which God must not interfere with. The problem is those who assume that God intervenes. The author of Job tried to address this problem, but all he could come up with is, it's none of your business. Every revealed religion has the same problem, trying to explain why God doesn't answer prayers, and evil ones don't even ask Him t o.

I'm not really concerned with the theological support for the belief, just with the fact that it's common.

???

What does this even mean?

In this context, what does "natural" mean but "in accordance with the physical laws God put in place?" With that in mind, it seems to me that all you're really saying is "God will only do what he wants to do." This strikes me as question-begging and less than useful.

God does what He must to maintain free will--and that means non-interference. We are so indoctrinated (atheist and theist) into the idea that God interacts (or would if He exists), we're unable to comprehend why He wouldn't, and especially if the reason is only our free will.

Just a technical point here: an omnipotent being cannot logically be less powerful than omnipotent. An omniscient being cannot logically be less knowledgeable than omniscient. So God cannot choose to blind himself to anything.

I've certainly never said God blinds Himself to anything. If He exists, I'm sure He watches omnipresently and is both excited and disappointed by what He sees--as He knew He would be.

 

[Copernicus]

I don't think that "omniscience" makes a lot of sense when you try to think of what it could possibly mean. Is knowledge even inherently quantifiable? Can one person be said to "know" more than another, or is it just that different people categorize experiences differently? If experience is a necessary component of knowledge--because we come to understand new experiences and concepts by analogy with older ones--then how could a being come to have the experience to become omniscient if it has to have all that experience in the first place? In principle, God would have to start out essentially "finished" in the learning process. He wouldn't be able to acquire any new knowledge, because it would all be there by default.

We acquire knowledge initially through bodily sensations and relating new experiences to that ground level experience. What possible ground level experience could the being called "God" come equipped with? But these questions are part of the general problem of trying to explain complexity in terms of greater complexity. It is the opposite of the view that complexity derives from simpler processes.

I understand why believers like to describe God as ineffable--an "infinite being," whatever that could mean. It gives them an excuse not to worry about all of the cognitive dissonance that properties like omniscience and omnipotence entail. Ineffability is a get-out-of-logic-free card.

 

[Copernicus]

Free will from whose perspective?

God's and ours.

They are not the same.

If someone, or God, or luck, gives you everything, do you feel fulfilled?

Fulfillment or satisfaction is possible for a fully-determined being such as a robot. All you need to do is program it with needs that require fulfillment. Then contrive to fulfill those needs.

Except, of course, that it violates logic to declare that we have free will from the perspective of a being that knows exactly what choices we will make in advance of our making those choices.

It violates the logic of those who violate logic. "If you love something set it free. If it comes back to you, it's yours. If not, it never was." You 're saying the God doesn't have the power to set us free.

First of all, it violates the logic of those who don't violate logic. Secondly, yes. That is what I am saying. An omnipotent, omniscient being has no power to create beings that can do other than what it knows they will do or perform actions other than those that it can control. That would be logically impossible.

Such a being has no power to grant us free will

Ergo......God......has no such power.

Well, that is rather the point. It contradicts a power that most believers seem to think God has. Omnipotent beings, in some ways, are less powerful than those that are not omnipotent. After all, we can create machines that go out of control.

Try this experiment. Drive your car down any road, and take your hands off the steering wheel. Floor the gas pedal. If the car damages property and/or injures or kills people, try telling the judge that you were not responsible for what the car did. God, always being fully in control of all circumstances, would likely not end up in jail only because the authorities would have trouble making him go there.

 

[McBell]

Here is a way about it. Omniscient would mean knowing every potential with no possibility of knowing the outcome without purposeful intervention.

the second he does not know something, in your example the outcome, he ceases to be be all knowing.

 

[Koldo]

Free will, in this context, is only about moral free will. I though it was pretty obvious we can't defy gravity--which, btw, like animals, is innocent and incapable of moral free will.

Isn't that just an extension of your first point?

You explained your argument on free will, but you didn't provide an answer to that point.
What about all evil and suffering that is not caused by free will? How do you justify its existence?