Total Posts:190|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Gratuitous Suffering

Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 2:03:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The Problem of Evil is my primary contention against the existence of god, in fact, it's the main reason why I'm an atheist.

When ever I find myself reading debates about the PoE, it seems like the theist will never deny that suffering exists, however they will deny that "gratuitous suffering" exists. I believe this is on account of us not knowing the "infinitely complex" reasoning for gods supposed decisions.

I feel this is an incredibly weak argument though, which is also very reminiscent of an argument from incredulity.
They're essentially saying, "I can't imagine god being wrong, so he must be right" , even though all this suffering seems gratuitous prima facie.

Look at natural disasters, infant mortality, stubbing toes, needing to eat itself is an incredible burden and we suffer from this burden our entire lives, the same can be said for needing water or sleep.

How can theists reconcile this problem?
kasmic
Posts: 1,311
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 3:38:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 2:03:23 PM, Kozu wrote:
The Problem of Evil is my primary contention against the existence of god, in fact, it's the main reason why I'm an atheist.

When ever I find myself reading debates about the PoE, it seems like the theist will never deny that suffering exists,

Of course they don't... There are many different contention with the PoE. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

I am a theist though I confess I have doubts. Though of the arguments maid to counter the PoE I personally find the Free Will argument convincing.

If I believe in a God and I believe that he has created us with Free will than can I not conclude that evil is a result of choices made by people exercising their free will. If Free will is a moral good then could I not conclude that a God would not restricting free will be a moral negative. Thus if God created a world with no free will/ or a world with no evil that would inherently be evil.

From the link above

"the evil result created by such abuse of free will is easily outweighed by the great value of free will and the good that comes of it, and so God is justified in creating a world which offers the existence of free will, and with it the potential for evil."
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
kasmic
Posts: 1,311
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 3:40:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 3:38:47 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 5/12/2015 2:03:23 PM, Kozu wrote:
The Problem of Evil is my primary contention against the existence of god, in fact, it's the main reason why I'm an atheist.

When ever I find myself reading debates about the PoE, it seems like the theist will never deny that suffering exists,

Of course they don't... There are many different contention with the PoE. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

I am a theist though I confess I have doubts. Though of the arguments maid to counter the PoE I personally find the Free Will argument convincing.

If I believe in a God and I believe that he has created us with Free will than can I not conclude that evil is a result of choices made by people exercising their free will. If Free will is a moral good then could I not conclude that a God would not restricting free will be a moral negative. Thus if God created a world with no free will/ or a world with no evil that would inherently be evil.

From the link above

"the evil result created by such abuse of free will is easily outweighed by the great value of free will and the good that comes of it, and so God is justified in creating a world which offers the existence of free will, and with it the potential for evil."

*"That a God restricting free will would be a moral negative.." Sorry for all the spelling errors
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 4:04:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 3:38:47 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 5/12/2015 2:03:23 PM, Kozu wrote:
The Problem of Evil is my primary contention against the existence of god, in fact, it's the main reason why I'm an atheist.

When ever I find myself reading debates about the PoE, it seems like the theist will never deny that suffering exists,

Of course they don't... There are many different contention with the PoE. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

I am a theist though I confess I have doubts. Though of the arguments maid to counter the PoE I personally find the Free Will argument convincing.

If I believe in a God and I believe that he has created us with Free will than can I not conclude that evil is a result of choices made by people exercising their free will. If Free will is a moral good then could I not conclude that a God would not restricting free will be a moral negative. Thus if God created a world with no free will/ or a world with no evil that would inherently be evil.

From the link above

"the evil result created by such abuse of free will is easily outweighed by the great value of free will and the good that comes of it, and so God is justified in creating a world which offers the existence of free will, and with it the potential for evil."
The kind of free will this commits the theist to is libertarian free will, which is unlikely to exist.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
kasmic
Posts: 1,311
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 4:14:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 4:04:25 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/12/2015 3:38:47 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 5/12/2015 2:03:23 PM, Kozu wrote:
The Problem of Evil is my primary contention against the existence of god, in fact, it's the main reason why I'm an atheist.

When ever I find myself reading debates about the PoE, it seems like the theist will never deny that suffering exists,

Of course they don't... There are many different contention with the PoE. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

I am a theist though I confess I have doubts. Though of the arguments maid to counter the PoE I personally find the Free Will argument convincing.

If I believe in a God and I believe that he has created us with Free will than can I not conclude that evil is a result of choices made by people exercising their free will. If Free will is a moral good then could I not conclude that a God would not restricting free will be a moral negative. Thus if God created a world with no free will/ or a world with no evil that would inherently be evil.

From the link above

"the evil result created by such abuse of free will is easily outweighed by the great value of free will and the good that comes of it, and so God is justified in creating a world which offers the existence of free will, and with it the potential for evil."
The kind of free will this commits the theist to is libertarian free will, which is unlikely to exist.

In a society yes, that would be rare... but that does not change the moral argument that a perfect "God" would be acting immorally to interfere with free will.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 4:27:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 4:14:43 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 5/12/2015 4:04:25 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/12/2015 3:38:47 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 5/12/2015 2:03:23 PM, Kozu wrote:
The Problem of Evil is my primary contention against the existence of god, in fact, it's the main reason why I'm an atheist.

When ever I find myself reading debates about the PoE, it seems like the theist will never deny that suffering exists,

Of course they don't... There are many different contention with the PoE. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

I am a theist though I confess I have doubts. Though of the arguments maid to counter the PoE I personally find the Free Will argument convincing.

If I believe in a God and I believe that he has created us with Free will than can I not conclude that evil is a result of choices made by people exercising their free will. If Free will is a moral good then could I not conclude that a God would not restricting free will be a moral negative. Thus if God created a world with no free will/ or a world with no evil that would inherently be evil.

From the link above

"the evil result created by such abuse of free will is easily outweighed by the great value of free will and the good that comes of it, and so God is justified in creating a world which offers the existence of free will, and with it the potential for evil."
The kind of free will this commits the theist to is libertarian free will, which is unlikely to exist.

In a society yes, that would be rare...
I know you are well informed about politics, so correct me if I am wrong but is it possible that you confused "libertarian" in the political sense and "libertarian" in the free will sense?

but that does not change the moral argument that a perfect "God" would be acting immorally to interfere with free will.
The moral argument I know is about establishing the existence of God through the existence of objective morality. Moreover could you give a possible example for how such a interference might look like?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
kasmic
Posts: 1,311
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 4:47:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago

In a society yes, that would be rare...
I know you are well informed about politics, so correct me if I am wrong but is it possible that you confused "libertarian" in the political sense and "libertarian" in the free will sense?

Yes I suppose I am. I am referring to the concept that if I believed and acted in a fashion based on free will ethics I could not guarantee that others will do the same. Though if I believe God to be perfectly moral and that Free Will is a predominant principle then I could assume that God would not act immorally. My point was that believing that God acts morally is not the same as expecting people to act morally.

The moral argument I know is about establishing the existence of God through the existence of objective morality. Moreover could you give a possible example for how such a interference might look like?

When I said moral argument, I did not mean the general moral argument for the existence of God. Rather, the concept that if free will being respected is moral and God is moral than I could argue that God would not stop evil due to moral principles.

I am not sure what the kind of interference might look like. I would imagine a skeptic would say the flood would be an example of interference haha. or something like that.

My point is if God were to prevent evil acts of people that would be a violation of Free Will. Meaning that if I hold free will as a moral principle then the PoE is easily dismissed citing free will.

Sorry if this is jumbled I am at work....
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
kasmic
Posts: 1,311
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 4:49:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 4:47:06 PM, kasmic wrote:

In a society yes, that would be rare...
I know you are well informed about politics, so correct me if I am wrong but is it possible that you confused "libertarian" in the political sense and "libertarian" in the free will sense?

Yes I suppose I am. I am referring to the concept that if I believed and acted in a fashion based on free will ethics I could not guarantee that others will do the same. Though if I believe God to be perfectly moral and that Free Will is a predominant principle then I could assume that God would not act immorally. My point was that believing that God acts morally is not the same as expecting people to act morally.

The moral argument I know is about establishing the existence of God through the existence of objective morality. Moreover could you give a possible example for how such a interference might look like?

When I said moral argument, I did not mean the general moral argument for the existence of God. Rather, the concept that if free will being respected is moral and God is moral than I could argue that God would not stop evil due to moral principles.

I am not sure what the kind of interference might look like. I would imagine a skeptic would say the flood would be an example of interference haha. or something like that.

My point is if God were to prevent evil acts of people that would be a violation of Free Will. Meaning that if I hold free will as a moral principle then the PoE is easily dismissed citing free will.

Sorry if this is jumbled I am at work....

When I said yes I am... I did not mean Yes I am well informed in politics haha... I meant yes I made the misconception you addressed.

It should be noted that I do not profess to be able to provide proof of the existence of God or even begin to fill that burden. I am just address the PoE contention specifically.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 5:04:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 4:14:43 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 5/12/2015 4:04:25 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/12/2015 3:38:47 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 5/12/2015 2:03:23 PM, Kozu wrote:
The Problem of Evil is my primary contention against the existence of god, in fact, it's the main reason why I'm an atheist.

When ever I find myself reading debates about the PoE, it seems like the theist will never deny that suffering exists,

Of course they don't... There are many different contention with the PoE. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

I am a theist though I confess I have doubts. Though of the arguments maid to counter the PoE I personally find the Free Will argument convincing.

If I believe in a God and I believe that he has created us with Free will than can I not conclude that evil is a result of choices made by people exercising their free will. If Free will is a moral good then could I not conclude that a God would not restricting free will be a moral negative. Thus if God created a world with no free will/ or a world with no evil that would inherently be evil.

From the link above

"the evil result created by such abuse of free will is easily outweighed by the great value of free will and the good that comes of it, and so God is justified in creating a world which offers the existence of free will, and with it the potential for evil."
The kind of free will this commits the theist to is libertarian free will, which is unlikely to exist.

In a society yes, that would be rare... but that does not change the moral argument that a perfect "God" would be acting immorally to interfere with free will.

Is it problems like these that make you doubt the free will explanation?

"Another point is that those actions of free beings which bring about evil very often diminish the freedom of those who suffer the evil; for example the murder of a young child may prevent the child from ever exercising their free will. In such a case the freedom of an innocent child is pitted against the freedom of the evil-doer, it is not clear why God would remain unresponsive and passive.[39]"

"A second criticism is that the potential for evil inherent in free will may be limited by means which do not impinge on that free will. God could accomplish this by making moral actions especially pleasurable, so that they would be irresistible to us; he could also punish immoral actions immediately, and make it obvious that moral rectitude is in our self-interest; or he could allow bad moral decisions to be made, but intervene to prevent the harmful consequences from actually happening."

I feel these problems are more than valid enough to dismiss the free-will argument.
Especially the second criticism, specifically the part that says "the potential for evil inherent in free will may be limited by means which do not impinge on that free will.".

Given that were talking about a tri-omni god, I see no reason why he couldn't just take away the option to make a"bad" choice.

Say I'm financially strapped for money, I have several options to obtain this.

1. Get a 2nd job.
2. Rob a bank.
3. Get a loan.
4. Sell assets.

I see no reason why god cant just magically make idea 2 never manifest in my brain. I still have the free will to choose the other options yet there are no "bad" choices remaining. I guess it might seem like it's limiting free will since god is preventing the bad choice, but considering we would have no idea if he was it would be *no different* than not thinking of a 5th option, like begging for money. But from that perspective, god would be limiting free will by not revealing all of the options a person *actually* has to obtaining money, be it good or bad methods.
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 5:13:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It's to bad the free-will argument doesn't explain the other problems I mentioned too like , natural disasters, infant mortality, stubbing toes, needing to eat/drink and sleep. Things that don't necessarily occur because of free will, so to speak...
kasmic
Posts: 1,311
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 5:27:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
First let me say that I am out of my depth engaging in philosophy but will attempt to continue in this conversation XD
Is it problems like these that make you doubt the free will explanation?

"Another point is that those actions of free beings which bring about evil very often diminish the freedom of those who suffer the evil; for example the murder of a young child may prevent the child from ever exercising their free will. In such a case the freedom of an innocent child is pitted against the freedom of the evil-doer, it is not clear why God would remain unresponsive and passive.[39]"

So the part here that I have issue with is the conclusion... "It is not clear why God would remain unresponsive and passive." Not being clear is not a great reason to discount an argument. Also most theists I would say believe in an afterlife so the damage done is less then we would understand.... (I'm not sure I buy that either... just saying)

"A second criticism is that the potential for evil inherent in free will may be limited by means which do not impinge on that free will. God could accomplish this by making moral actions especially pleasurable, so that they would be irresistible to us;"

This would seem to be manipulation to the degree of destroying free will.

"he could also punish immoral actions immediately, and make it obvious that moral rectitude is in our self-interest; or he could allow bad moral decisions to be made, but intervene to prevent the harmful consequences from actually happening."

Again... same issue. Also I think many who believe in a God would say that (He) does by promising blessing and that he does punish the wicked.

Given that were talking about a tri-omni god, I see no reason why he couldn't just take away the option to make a"bad" choice.

It seems to be that if there is not an opposition in all things than there is no choice. No choice no free will. With out good and evil I it is not a choice. To take away "bad" choices eliminates choice.

"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
kasmic
Posts: 1,311
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 5:28:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 5:27:07 PM, kasmic wrote:
First let me say that I am out of my depth engaging in philosophy but will attempt to continue in this conversation XD
Is it problems like these that make you doubt the free will explanation?

"Another point is that those actions of free beings which bring about evil very often diminish the freedom of those who suffer the evil; for example the murder of a young child may prevent the child from ever exercising their free will. In such a case the freedom of an innocent child is pitted against the freedom of the evil-doer, it is not clear why God would remain unresponsive and passive.[39]"

So the part here that I have issue with is the conclusion... "It is not clear why God would remain unresponsive and passive." Not being clear is not a great reason to discount an argument. Also most theists I would say believe in an afterlife so the damage done is less then we would understand.... (I'm not sure I buy that either... just saying)

"A second criticism is that the potential for evil inherent in free will may be limited by means which do not impinge on that free will. God could accomplish this by making moral actions especially pleasurable, so that they would be irresistible to us;"

This would seem to be manipulation to the degree of destroying free will.


"he could also punish immoral actions immediately, and make it obvious that moral rectitude is in our self-interest; or he could allow bad moral decisions to be made, but intervene to prevent the harmful consequences from actually happening."

Again... same issue. Also I think many who believe in a God would say that (He) does by promising blessing and that he does punish the wicked.

Given that were talking about a tri-omni god, I see no reason why he couldn't just take away the option to make a"bad" choice.

It seems to be that if there is not an opposition in all things than there is no choice. No choice no free will. With out good and evil I it is not a choice. To take away "bad" choices eliminates choice.

Which eliminates Free will
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
kasmic
Posts: 1,311
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 5:28:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 5:13:28 PM, Kozu wrote:
It's to bad the free-will argument doesn't explain the other problems I mentioned too like , natural disasters, infant mortality, stubbing toes, needing to eat/drink and sleep. Things that don't necessarily occur because of free will, so to speak...

Yeah... not sure what to say to that lol
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 6:02:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 5:27:07 PM, kasmic wrote:
First let me say that I am out of my depth engaging in philosophy but will attempt to continue in this conversation XD

No problem, I just wanted to bounce some ideas off of people.

So the part here that I have issue with is the conclusion... "It is not clear why God would remain unresponsive and passive." Not being clear is not a great reason to discount an argument. Also most theists I would say believe in an afterlife so the damage done is less then we would understand.... (I'm not sure I buy that either... just saying)

I agree it's not a great reason, but the suffering viewed prima facie and the fact that there *seems* to be no reason for it (no matter how hard we look for one) is sufficient enough to defeat the argument.

The afterlife idea sounds nice but how can there be free-will if nothing bad happens? More over, why not put us there in the first place?
I think your very reasonable for not buying into this idea lol.

It seems to be that if there is not an opposition in all things than there is no choice. No choice no free will. With out good and evil I it is not a choice. To take away "bad" choices eliminates choice.

It did seem that way to me initially, but after I considered taking away the bad options and looked at what remains, I struggle to view how picking from options 1,3, and 4 is not an act of natural free will. I don't think people can only have *some* "Natural freedom", as the wiki page calls it, they can only have it, or not have it.

Lets pretend a parent never taught their child what murder was, so the idea of ending another human life has never entered their mind, they're completely ignorant of this choice.
When they grow up and are financially strapped for money, there options would look like this.

1. Get a 2nd job.
3. Get a loan.
4. Sell assets.

Whether or not we agree on if the parent was restricting their child's free will, would you argue that choosing from these is no longer an act of free will, and even if that is the case, is it still necessarily "bad"?
kasmic
Posts: 1,311
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 6:14:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It did seem that way to me initially, but after I considered taking away the bad options and looked at what remains, I struggle to view how picking from options 1,3, and 4 is not an act of natural free will. I don't think people can only have *some* "Natural freedom", as the wiki page calls it, they can only have it, or not have it.

This is an interesting point... Good vs. evil is a false dilemma. Though if the primary purpose of life is to choose between good and evil (Which many theist would say is the case.) Then that option would need to be available.

Lets pretend a parent never taught their child what murder was, so the idea of ending another human life has never entered their mind, they're completely ignorant of this choice.

Well, a Christian might say... Cain was not taught murder by a parent... but by "Satan."

When they grow up and are financially strapped for money, there options would look like this.

1. Get a 2nd job.
3. Get a loan.
4. Sell assets.

Whether or not we agree on if the parent was restricting their child's free will, would you argue that choosing from these is no longer an act of free will, and even if that is the case, is it still necessarily "bad"?

Great point again, good vs evil seems to me to be a false dichotomy.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 6:35:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 3:38:47 PM, kasmic wrote:
If I believe in a God and I believe that he has created us with Free will than can I not conclude that evil is a result of choices made by people exercising their free will. If Free will is a moral good then could I not conclude that a God would not restricting free will be a moral negative. Thus if God created a world with no free will/ or a world with no evil that would inherently be evil.

From the link above

"the evil result created by such abuse of free will is easily outweighed by the great value of free will and the good that comes of it, and so God is justified in creating a world which offers the existence of free will, and with it the potential for evil."

So following this logic you can conclude that there is no free-will in heaven. In Christian culture heaven is a place of infinite good, a place with no evils. According to your logic, evil is a byproduct of free-will. Therefore there can be no free-will in heaven. Just thought I would point that out :D
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 6:49:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 6:14:00 PM, kasmic wrote:
It did seem that way to me initially, but after I considered taking away the bad options and looked at what remains, I struggle to view how picking from options 1,3, and 4 is not an act of natural free will. I don't think people can only have *some* "Natural freedom", as the wiki page calls it, they can only have it, or not have it.

This is an interesting point... Good vs. evil is a false dilemma. Though if the primary purpose of life is to choose between good and evil (Which many theist would say is the case.) Then that option would need to be available.

Lets pretend a parent never taught their child what murder was, so the idea of ending another human life has never entered their mind, they're completely ignorant of this choice.

Well, a Christian might say... Cain was not taught murder by a parent... but by "Satan."

When they grow up and are financially strapped for money, there options would look like this.

1. Get a 2nd job.
3. Get a loan.
4. Sell assets.

Whether or not we agree on if the parent was restricting their child's free will, would you argue that choosing from these is no longer an act of free will, and even if that is the case, is it still necessarily "bad"?

Great point again, good vs evil seems to me to be a false dichotomy.

I'll speak as if good and evil are one in the same then, a choice.

If that's the case then is god not already limiting free-will by not making us aware of all our *available* choices? If having choices is the pinnacle of "good", then god should maximize our available choices, as choices are only available to us until we're aware of them. To not do this seems "bad".
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 6:59:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 6:35:29 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/12/2015 3:38:47 PM, kasmic wrote:
If I believe in a God and I believe that he has created us with Free will than can I not conclude that evil is a result of choices made by people exercising their free will. If Free will is a moral good then could I not conclude that a God would not restricting free will be a moral negative. Thus if God created a world with no free will/ or a world with no evil that would inherently be evil.

From the link above

"the evil result created by such abuse of free will is easily outweighed by the great value of free will and the good that comes of it, and so God is justified in creating a world which offers the existence of free will, and with it the potential for evil."

So following this logic you can conclude that there is no free-will in heaven. In Christian culture heaven is a place of infinite good, a place with no evils. According to your logic, evil is a byproduct of free-will. Therefore there can be no free-will in heaven. Just thought I would point that out :D

Yes, that would seem like the natural conclusion. Although I wanted to leave out specific afterlife's for the sake of a more objective discussion, since not every one believes heaven/hell is their afterlife. Additionally because discussing what free-will would be like in the afterlife is another whole argument to be had.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 7:08:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 2:03:23 PM, Kozu wrote:
The Problem of Evil is my primary contention against the existence of god, in fact, it's the main reason why I'm an atheist.

When ever I find myself reading debates about the PoE, it seems like the theist will never deny that suffering exists, however they will deny that "gratuitous suffering" exists. I believe this is on account of us not knowing the "infinitely complex" reasoning for gods supposed decisions.

I feel this is an incredibly weak argument though, which is also very reminiscent of an argument from incredulity.
They're essentially saying, "I can't imagine god being wrong, so he must be right" , even though all this suffering seems gratuitous prima facie.

Look at natural disasters, infant mortality, stubbing toes, needing to eat itself is an incredible burden and we suffer from this burden our entire lives, the same can be said for needing water or sleep.

How can theists reconcile this problem?

Proponents of the gratuitous suffering argument can only claim that it "seems like it exists," but can never offer any proof that it exists. That alone should call into doubt how good the argument actually is.
Nolite Timere
kasmic
Posts: 1,311
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 7:23:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 6:35:29 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/12/2015 3:38:47 PM, kasmic wrote:
If I believe in a God and I believe that he has created us with Free will than can I not conclude that evil is a result of choices made by people exercising their free will. If Free will is a moral good then could I not conclude that a God would not restricting free will be a moral negative. Thus if God created a world with no free will/ or a world with no evil that would inherently be evil.

From the link above

"the evil result created by such abuse of free will is easily outweighed by the great value of free will and the good that comes of it, and so God is justified in creating a world which offers the existence of free will, and with it the potential for evil."

So following this logic you can conclude that there is no free-will in heaven. In Christian culture heaven is a place of infinite good, a place with no evils. According to your logic, evil is a byproduct of free-will. Therefore there can be no free-will in heaven. Just thought I would point that out :D

That is a fascinating point. Perhaps the concept of the typical Christian Heaven is not compatible with free will.

Or perhaps those there like God could do evil but are actively choosing not too... Idk. Like I said philosophy is out of my depth haha.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
kasmic
Posts: 1,311
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 7:26:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 6:49:52 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 5/12/2015 6:14:00 PM, kasmic wrote:
It did seem that way to me initially, but after I considered taking away the bad options and looked at what remains, I struggle to view how picking from options 1,3, and 4 is not an act of natural free will. I don't think people can only have *some* "Natural freedom", as the wiki page calls it, they can only have it, or not have it.

This is an interesting point... Good vs. evil is a false dilemma. Though if the primary purpose of life is to choose between good and evil (Which many theist would say is the case.) Then that option would need to be available.

Lets pretend a parent never taught their child what murder was, so the idea of ending another human life has never entered their mind, they're completely ignorant of this choice.

Well, a Christian might say... Cain was not taught murder by a parent... but by "Satan."

When they grow up and are financially strapped for money, there options would look like this.

1. Get a 2nd job.
3. Get a loan.
4. Sell assets.

Whether or not we agree on if the parent was restricting their child's free will, would you argue that choosing from these is no longer an act of free will, and even if that is the case, is it still necessarily "bad"?

Great point again, good vs evil seems to me to be a false dichotomy.

I'll speak as if good and evil are one in the same then, a choice.

If that's the case then is god not already limiting free-will by not making us aware of all our *available* choices? If having choices is the pinnacle of "good", then god should maximize our available choices, as choices are only available to us until we're aware of them. To not do this seems "bad".

Perhaps theists believe that God would give such knowledge to those who ask.

Again, I'm not saying I could prove God exists, such is a fools errand, but if we accept that a God does exists, I am still unconvinced that the PoE would be a problem.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 7:30:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 7:26:16 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 5/12/2015 6:49:52 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 5/12/2015 6:14:00 PM, kasmic wrote:
It did seem that way to me initially, but after I considered taking away the bad options and looked at what remains, I struggle to view how picking from options 1,3, and 4 is not an act of natural free will. I don't think people can only have *some* "Natural freedom", as the wiki page calls it, they can only have it, or not have it.

This is an interesting point... Good vs. evil is a false dilemma. Though if the primary purpose of life is to choose between good and evil (Which many theist would say is the case.) Then that option would need to be available.

Lets pretend a parent never taught their child what murder was, so the idea of ending another human life has never entered their mind, they're completely ignorant of this choice.

Well, a Christian might say... Cain was not taught murder by a parent... but by "Satan."

When they grow up and are financially strapped for money, there options would look like this.

1. Get a 2nd job.
3. Get a loan.
4. Sell assets.

Whether or not we agree on if the parent was restricting their child's free will, would you argue that choosing from these is no longer an act of free will, and even if that is the case, is it still necessarily "bad"?

Great point again, good vs evil seems to me to be a false dichotomy.

I'll speak as if good and evil are one in the same then, a choice.

If that's the case then is god not already limiting free-will by not making us aware of all our *available* choices? If having choices is the pinnacle of "good", then god should maximize our available choices, as choices are only available to us until we're aware of them. To not do this seems "bad".

Perhaps theists believe that God would give such knowledge to those who ask.

Again, I'm not saying I could prove God exists, such is a fools errand, but if we accept that a God does exists, I am still unconvinced that the PoE would be a problem.

I think it is a major problem. If God does exist, that would be a humongous problem. If I were in the position of God (was omnipotent) I would do away with needless pain, world hungar, etc. If God does exist, he is already in that position, yet has done nothing. I am more moral than this God and I don't consider myself the kindest person I know. I would have to disagree with you there Kasmic, this is a really big problem because we might have an evil God on our hands.
kasmic
Posts: 1,311
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 7:32:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 7:30:39 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/12/2015 7:26:16 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 5/12/2015 6:49:52 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 5/12/2015 6:14:00 PM, kasmic wrote:
It did seem that way to me initially, but after I considered taking away the bad options and looked at what remains, I struggle to view how picking from options 1,3, and 4 is not an act of natural free will. I don't think people can only have *some* "Natural freedom", as the wiki page calls it, they can only have it, or not have it.

This is an interesting point... Good vs. evil is a false dilemma. Though if the primary purpose of life is to choose between good and evil (Which many theist would say is the case.) Then that option would need to be available.

Lets pretend a parent never taught their child what murder was, so the idea of ending another human life has never entered their mind, they're completely ignorant of this choice.

Well, a Christian might say... Cain was not taught murder by a parent... but by "Satan."

When they grow up and are financially strapped for money, there options would look like this.

1. Get a 2nd job.
3. Get a loan.
4. Sell assets.

Whether or not we agree on if the parent was restricting their child's free will, would you argue that choosing from these is no longer an act of free will, and even if that is the case, is it still necessarily "bad"?

Great point again, good vs evil seems to me to be a false dichotomy.

I'll speak as if good and evil are one in the same then, a choice.

If that's the case then is god not already limiting free-will by not making us aware of all our *available* choices? If having choices is the pinnacle of "good", then god should maximize our available choices, as choices are only available to us until we're aware of them. To not do this seems "bad".

Perhaps theists believe that God would give such knowledge to those who ask.

Again, I'm not saying I could prove God exists, such is a fools errand, but if we accept that a God does exists, I am still unconvinced that the PoE would be a problem.

I think it is a major problem. If God does exist, that would be a humongous problem. If I were in the position of God (was omnipotent) I would do away with needless pain, world hungar, etc. If God does exist, he is already in that position, yet has done nothing. I am more moral than this God and I don't consider myself the kindest person I know. I would have to disagree with you there Kasmic, this is a really big problem because we might have an evil God on our hands.

So we might have an "evil" God.... But it does not disprove the existence of a God.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 7:54:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 7:08:18 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 5/12/2015 2:03:23 PM, Kozu wrote:
The Problem of Evil is my primary contention against the existence of god, in fact, it's the main reason why I'm an atheist.

When ever I find myself reading debates about the PoE, it seems like the theist will never deny that suffering exists, however they will deny that "gratuitous suffering" exists. I believe this is on account of us not knowing the "infinitely complex" reasoning for gods supposed decisions.

I feel this is an incredibly weak argument though, which is also very reminiscent of an argument from incredulity.
They're essentially saying, "I can't imagine god being wrong, so he must be right" , even though all this suffering seems gratuitous prima facie.

Look at natural disasters, infant mortality, stubbing toes, needing to eat itself is an incredible burden and we suffer from this burden our entire lives, the same can be said for needing water or sleep.

How can theists reconcile this problem?

Proponents of the gratuitous suffering argument can only claim that it "seems like it exists," but can never offer any proof that it exists. That alone should call into doubt how good the argument actually is.

When you get down to it, yes, that is all they can claim, since it's impossible to know with 100% certainty, much like history itself. So I find it perfectly reasonable people call the argument into question.

The simple fact though that *no one* can answer why natural disasters, infant mortality, stubbing toes, needing to eat, all occur despite the incredible prima facie evidence that this is indeed gratuitous suffering, solidifies by belief in the PoE. I almost want to call it an argument from incredulity to say "nope, we can't know gods reasons", and then go on to reaffirm that it isn't gratuitous suffering without even having an idea as to why it's not gratuitous.

Lets say your family were killed by a hurricane. I believe there would be unanimous consensus that this is a form of suffering.
Now, is it gratuitous or not?
Well it can only be gratuitous *if god didn't* have a reason for allowing it to happen.
I would wager it is *logically impossible* for a good to be derived from this event, or at the very minimum, there is a better way of achieving this good without suffering. I feel
when the theist says "we can't know", they are simply hoping that there is a logically possible reason for this suffering to occur.

Considering no one is ever able to explain what logically possible good could come from this, and at the same time, have no better route to achieve this good, I see the PoE as perfectly sound.

Basically, things should be taken prima facie until rebutted. To take from prima facie's wiki page

" In common law jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence that, unless rebutted, would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact. "
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 8:07:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 7:26:16 PM, kasmic wrote:
Perhaps theists believe that God would give such knowledge to those who ask.

I think a benevolent god would give that knowledge to even those who don't ask. Choosing not to ask for it is like limiting our free will which is bad, god should fix that for us.

Again, I'm not saying I could prove God exists, such is a fools errand, but if we accept that a God does exists, I am still unconvinced that the PoE would be a problem.

Well, I think it would be for a "benevolent" god at-least.

At 5/12/2015 7:32:39 PM, kasmic wrote:
So we might have an "evil" God.... But it does not disprove the existence of a God.

Well, my goal is to prove there is no "good" god, as the PoE only addresses god's with tri-omni traits, benevolence being the main target.

If god is evil, I think that seriously complicates things for most religions lol.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 8:08:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 7:32:39 PM, kasmic wrote:
So we might have an "evil" God.... But it does not disprove the existence of a God.

I never said it did. I only said that if God were to exist, it would be an evil God. Which is a problem.
kasmic
Posts: 1,311
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 8:15:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 8:08:58 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/12/2015 7:32:39 PM, kasmic wrote:
So we might have an "evil" God.... But it does not disprove the existence of a God.

I never said it did. I only said that if God were to exist, it would be an evil God. Which is a problem.

Sorry I'm not implying you did. I am referring to the OP which indicates that the PoE is the primary reason they don't believe in God.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
kasmic
Posts: 1,311
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 8:16:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 8:07:05 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 5/12/2015 7:26:16 PM, kasmic wrote:
Perhaps theists believe that God would give such knowledge to those who ask.

I think a benevolent god would give that knowledge to even those who don't ask. Choosing not to ask for it is like limiting our free will which is bad, god should fix that for us.

Again, I'm not saying I could prove God exists, such is a fools errand, but if we accept that a God does exists, I am still unconvinced that the PoE would be a problem.

Well, I think it would be for a "benevolent" god at-least.

At 5/12/2015 7:32:39 PM, kasmic wrote:
So we might have an "evil" God.... But it does not disprove the existence of a God.

Well, my goal is to prove there is no "good" god, as the PoE only addresses god's with tri-omni traits, benevolence being the main target.

If god is evil, I think that seriously complicates things for most religions lol.
I see... I thought you were saying that the PoE is why you are an atheist haha... My mistake.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
kasmic
Posts: 1,311
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 8:21:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 2:03:23 PM, Kozu wrote:
The Problem of Evil is my primary contention against the existence of god, in fact, it's the main reason why I'm an atheist
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 8:26:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 8:21:06 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 5/12/2015 2:03:23 PM, Kozu wrote:
The Problem of Evil is my primary contention against the existence of god, in fact, it's the main reason why I'm an atheist

I probably should have specified I would technically be agnostic in regards to non-tri omni gods, my bad.

If there is no tri-omni god though, I really have no reason to be interested in god, other then for just food for thought. Over 50% of the world's population accepts god as tri-omni, and I tend to lean my definition of god with the majority (considering they're the religious experts and all) . So sometimes I feel justified in calling me an atheist.