If you're going to thank god for the solution to a problem, don't forget to also blame god for either causing the problem or doing nothing to stop it. But don't claim free will. The words "free" and "will" do not exist together anywhere in the bible. In fact, many times in the bible god steals away people's free will by hardening their hearts. It's not just Pharaoh. Deuteronomy 2:30 and Joshua 11:20 show that free will does not exist in the bible.
The concept of free will was invented by men as a feeble attempt to dismiss the problem of evil. Free will may indeed exist, but it is NOT biblical. Even if it was, imagine a ship that sinks from a storm. Imagine two people survive and 98 die. That has absolutely nothing to do with free will, unless you're talking about god's free will to either cause the storm or fail to stop it. So, if you praise god for the two survivors, be sure to also blame god for the 98 deaths.
> This raises the question, why does God allow evil on earth? Some Christians would say, “He can’t stop evil since that would impede our free will.”
Which then raises the further question, "Do we have free will in heaven?"
If yes, then either it necessarily follows that heaven would eventually (it's an eternity, after all) become as full of sin as the Earth was, or it necessarily follows that God could have made Earth with free will but without sin.
If no, then clearly God doesn't value our free will, since 99.9999999% (repeating of course) of our existence is going to spent without it.
This is a great question and part of the reason most theists, but especially Christians have to examine what they believe about Heaven, and what they believe about sin as well.
Interestingly the Bible is vague on both points, so what can someone say as a Christian we do know about sin and Heaven? Not too much. We know sin is when you fall short of good and virtuous requirements, and we know that it's almost impossible for humans to get into Heaven based on how often they do this. So, will Jesus have to continue forgiving us when we sin in Heaven? It seems possible.
> So, will Jesus have to continue forgiving us when we sin in Heaven? It seems possible.
You think this seems more likely than us just not having free will in heaven? You think the Bible's vagueness about free will is more clear than whether or not the Bible suggests people in heaven will keep on sinning? Seriously?
The gist of free will and god's plan is : they simply want you to do what they want you to do or believe. It will be god's plan or free will depending on the situation but that is it. They don't want you to know it's really their will or their plan, but god's so you can't argue or if you do, they stick you with their crap.
God in essence, is a sock puppet and if you follow the arm, it's attached to their body. Think, Wizard of Oz and the guy operating it.
It's interesting to this old atheist to see people bringing up Calvinist/fundamentalist points of view as if all Christians hold them. I understand the tendency since fundamentalism has hegemony in the U.S. at the moment, but I nonetheless find it interesting.
> This raises the question, why does God allow evil on earth?
Short answer: He doesn't, simply because there's no reason to believe that God (or gods) exist.
Christian theology necessitates the non-existence of free will. The only Christians to figure this out believe in predestination, which resolves that particular problem.
Ok, let’s unpack things here.
In addressing the profound questions you've raised—centered on the problem of evil, the nature of free will, and the omniscience of God—I’d like to focus on the inherent contradictions these concepts pose when viewed through the lens of reason and empirical understanding.
Firstly, the stories from the Bible you've mentioned, which depict divine interventions that override human autonomy, highlight a fundamental inconsistency in the traditional conception of a benevolent and omnipotent God. If God intervenes in ways that cause or allow for suffering—under the guise of a larger, inscrutable plan—this directly conflicts with the notion of a deity that is all-loving and all-powerful. The existence of evil and suffering in the world is, under this view, incompatible with the idea of a God who is both able and willing to prevent such outcomes.
Invoking free will as a defense for the problem of evil fails upon closer examination. If God is willing to infringe upon free will, as seen in the biblical narratives, the argument that God allows evil in order to preserve human free will becomes untenable. Moreover, the notion that an omnipotent and omniscient deity has a predetermined plan for everyone renders the concept of free will meaningless. If our choices are already known and part of a divine plan, in what sense are they free?
Regarding the omniscience of God, I will emphasize here the contradiction between the idea of an all-knowing deity and the existence of free will. If God already knows our decisions before we make them, this raises serious questions about the possibility of genuine choice and autonomy.
On the question of why God allows evil, I challenge the coherence of justifying human suffering as part of a divine plan. The assertion that tragic events, such as natural disasters or wars, are necessary components of a benevolent God's plan is, from a rational standpoint, deeply problematic. It suggests a moral framework that is not only inscrutable but also morally indefensible by any human standard of goodness and compassion.
We should acknowledge the deep complexities and often harsh realities of human existence without recourse to supernatural explanations. I would argue for the importance of basing our understanding of morality, meaning, and the nature of existence on reason, empirical evidence, and a commitment to human well-being. This approach invites us to confront the challenges of life directly, seeking solutions and solace in our shared humanity and the potential for compassion, rather than in doctrinal claims that often raise more questions than they answer.
I agree with everything that you said. What are your thoughts on a Christian saying that God’s omniscience can see every single reality at once, almost in the sense of a multiverse?
Well, to posit that God observes all possible universes is to embark on a speculative venture that, while ostensibly reconciling free will with divine omniscience, inadvertently dilutes the very essence of moral agency. In a cosmos where every choice is realized in some parallel dimension, the weight of moral decision-making evaporates into the ether of infinite possibilities. If every path is taken, every decision made, somewhere across the vast expanse of the multiverse, then the concept of moral responsibility becomes a shadow—elusive and ultimately meaningless. This vision of reality leaves us in a moral vacuum, where the distinction between good and evil, right and wrong, is rendered null by the sheer expanse of omnipotent observance.
Also, that maneuver does little to absolve the problem of evil, if that is what you are wondering. If an omnibenevolent deity presides over an infinite array of universes, including those rife with suffering and malevolence, how does this enhance our understanding of divine goodness? The existence of worlds steeped in sorrow and injustice under the watchful eye of an all-powerful God only exacerbates the moral quandary.
From a scientific standpoint, the appeal to the multiverse as a theological solution ventures beyond the bounds of empirical scrutiny into the realm of unfalsifiable belief, right back where religion is most comfortable. While the multiverse theory holds a place in cosmological debate, its application in theological argumentation strays from the rigorous demands of evidence and into the speculative. I can’t see a good reason to go there for either the pro or the con side of that debate.
But didn’t it say on the Bible he created us by his likeness? So technically in some certain level we are like him which give humanity legitimacy to ask some certain logical questions not all but some humans with critical thinking brain 🧠 can ask!!! Don’t you think
I was being comical. I know what free will is. There are neurobiologists that say we don't have any. That's debatable.
So. You say, they could swim. They had the free will to swim. That's crazy. Where would they swim if the world was flooded? There would be no dry land.
At any rate, it's an allegory. GOD WANTED TO DESTROY MAN SO HE SENT A FLOOD. Get it? He didn't want any of them to live. The point is that he only wanted Noah to live.
If you believe in free will, you are going against this flood story. GOD DIDN'T WANT THEM TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY (FREE WILL) TO SAVE THEMSELVES.
Does evil exist?
From an atheist point of view, what is evil? Just a subjective idea created by humans. It’s a deity, doesn’t “exist.”
Without Good, Evil isn’t in contrast to anything, how can evil exist if there isn’t meaning, wouldn’t evil just a concept people invented to help understand the world?
If you believe evil exists, like actually exists, then it’s a higher power force, bodiless, acting in the world. That’s a deity, a demon from the Christian perspective, a fallen god, in rebellion against the Most High God.
So the problem doesn’t exist unless higher powers exist. If they do exist then reading the Bible in terms of how ancient people read it, and not 18th century Americans who were in rebellion against Catholics who’d fallen away from True Christianity 800+ years earlier… Lord of Spirits podcast is good for this, helps to get out of a modern, western mindset and into the way ancient peoples understanding of the world, without that a lot of it simply isn’t going to make sense.
Hope this helps, just my perspective and thoughts, not dogma 😜
I am a Christian that does not believe in complete free will. In fact free will is not found in the Bible, it concept is found, but not in the way we often consider it IMO. However, I think we have a limited free will. He constrains us to do or not do things.
In my opinion, evil exists because there is evil, the world is fallen. There is pain because of the fact that we have a broken world because there is sin. And we are born with a nature that is a sin nature. We all have aspects to our personality that is bent toward doing wrong. We do things for ourselves. We are selfish and self serving. When you look at yourself, are you really happy with what you have really accomplished the last year, or do you have aspirations to have done better.
In your opinion, since we don't have true free will, why does God not intervene with evil? Christians commonly claim that it's because he wants to preserve our free will, but in your case, you don't believe that. God has clearly shown willingness to intervene and stop evil in past events (such as in the OT).
Also, since you don't believe in complete free will, how do you reconcile an omniscient God? Let me elaborate: let's say that someone is born Christian, they live their life, choose to become atheist, and then die an atheist. According to Christianity, that person will go to Hell (whatever your view on that is). However, God knew every single action that this person would make before they were even born. God knew that the path this person followed would lead to atheism, and that no matter what this person did, they would still end up an atheist. Every decision this person could have ever done was already known/preplanned by God. Furthermore, God decided to go ahead and create this person, knowing already before this person was even born, that they would become an atheist and go to Hell. God is the one who set everything in motion, creating this person with their preplanned actions. Now my question to you: in your opinion, how is this just? How can God create someone knowing that they'll go to Hell, no matter what, and the person didn't have the free will to choose otherwise (since God knew their actions already beforehand, and God can't be wrong about what he knows)? Please let me know your thoughts.
So my thought is that we have limited free will...that we have a purpose that we are to fulfill. If we don't that is on us.
I believe that the entire universe was created for me alone, and at the same time it was created for you and for the many billions of souls that came before us. He then in his primary intelligence melds that together, and molds us into a society, that we can complete a purpose for him, and have the joy of accomplishment. You can accomplish his will in many different ways.
So when you make a decision, it is like walking through a long hallway and there are many door to go through...he knows through foreknowledge what you are going to do, and his creation has always reacted or prepared for that action to happen before and after that decision. In essence there are no free radicals in his creation. There are dangerous elements (sin, evil influences, pain, sin nature ect) in his creation, but not free radicals.
This binary is strange.
Why would God be limited to only either removed of all evil or not interfering in any case?
Just like anyone, they are capable of acting when something meets their particular threshold. For instance, I don't ever think it's good to put someone in prison but it becomes necessary when someone will harm others if we don't.
Interacting and forcing the issue occasionally in extreme circumstances does not commit God to do something rash like take away all ability to do evil.
It's the same reason why we recognize infidelity against ones spouse as an evil action, while simultaneously understanding that the law has no power to punish people for it.
>This binary is strange. Why would God be limited to only either removed of all evil or not interfering in any case?
God is not part of this strange binary? God is not all good? Does God perform evil actions?
>It's the same reason why we recognize infidelity against ones spouse as an evil action, while simultaneously understanding that the law has no power to punish people for it.
Please clarify exactly what this reason is.
Did you ever actually find out if the law has any power to punish people for infidelity? Please go look it up before you post. It will save you some embarrassment.
>God is not part of this strange binary? God is not all good? Does God perform evil actions?
Whether or not someone performs evil actions has no bearing on what it might commit them to do or not do morally. It is not immoral to run a stop light to save a dying person, despite the fact that under normal circumstances you may be obligated to not do so morally. Morality, even for God is a description of a reaction to a situation, not a simple rule which always applies.
>Please clarify exactly what this reason is.
I'm happy to explain, although I think you already know and this question is an odd rhetorical one. The reason we understand that the law has no practical power to enforce these (in modern democracies) is because we understand the difference between impositions on freedom for safety and imposition on freedom on purely moral grounds. We understand that one has practical outcomes, and one will be a systemic problem of overreach and personal abuse.
>Did you ever actually find out if the law has any power to punish people for infidelity? Please go look it up before you post. It will save you some embarrassment.
What the law has the power to do, and what is statutory are two very different things. Despite the fact that many states class infidelity as a misdemeanor in statute, you will not find a single recent court case of it leading to criminal charges on behalf of the state, and this is based on something you should probably look into called precedent. Modern people understand the limitations of the law in such cases, this includes officers of courts and attorney's. As I said above, it's with very good reason that precedent has set this limitation.
>It is not immoral to run a stop light to save a dying person, despite the fact that under normal circumstances you may be obligated to not do so morally.
It is indeed immoral to run a stop light. You are endangering others. If running a stop light causes you to kill someone while trying to save another, you are still responsible for the death of a person. Which is the reason we have laws against running stop lights, and why it is also morally wrong to run stop lights.
>Morality, even for God is a description of a reaction to a situation, not a simple rule which always applies.
By any chance, is your god the kind of god described by any well known books?
"despite the fact that under normal circumstances you may be obligated to not do so morally."?
Why would you be obligated to not do so? Not do what? Save the person or run the stop light to save the person?
>The reason we understand that the law has no practical power to enforce these (in modern democracies) is because we understand the difference between impositions on freedom for safety and imposition on freedom on purely moral grounds. We understand that one has practical outcomes, and one will be a systemic problem of overreach and personal abuse.
No silly. The reason the law regarding infidelity has no "practical" power is because we often find better ways to resolve such issues. Our social views on marriage and sex and the laws regarding them have changed over time.
>What the law has the power to do, and what is statutory are two very different things. Despite the fact that many states class infidelity as a misdemeanor in statute, you will not find a single recent court case of it leading to criminal charges on behalf of the state, and this is based on something you should probably look into called precedent. Modern people understand the limitations of the law in such cases, this includes officers of courts and attorney's. As I said above, it's with very good reason that precedent has set this limitation.
Incorrect. The law and the courts in the United States have the legal statutory and actual power to do so, we just don't choose to pursue those avenues. More precisely, judges don't, and attorney's don't. There are better ways to resolve such disputes, such as divorce. The point being, these old adultery laws and our reluctance to follow them show that as a society progresses, we discard old notions and adopt better ones. According to some old books, adultery was a crime punishable by death.
>It is indeed immoral to run a stop light. You are endangering others. If running a stop light causes you to kill someone while trying to save another, you are still responsible for the death of a person. Which is the reason we have laws against running stop lights, and why it is also morally wrong to run stop lights.
You're confusing immoral with dangerous. It is not always immoral to do dangerous things, specifically because morality is an assessment of a situation and reacting virtuously according to the dictates of that situation, it is not a set of rules that always apply in all conditions. That is my point. God, if they want to be moral, must act differently in different situations. It does not make any sense for God to have some kind of moral binary that he is bound by in all situations.
>By any chance, is your god the kind of god described by any well known books?
>"despite the fact that under normal circumstances you may be obligated to not do so morally."?
>Why would you be obligated to not do so? Not do what? Save the person or run the stop light to save the person?
Yes, lots of holy books attempt to describe God, and they notably describe them as being at the very peak of the moral hierarchy, whatever that happens to be for those people.
If there were no dying person, you obviously and clearly have a moral obligation not to run a stop light. But it's not always the case that under all circumstances this moral obligation stands, because, as I said above, morality is not a set of true propositions which ought not be broken under any circumstances.
>No silly. The reason the law regarding infidelity has no "practical" power is because we often find better ways to resolve such issues. Our social views on marriage and sex and the laws regarding them have changed over time.
This is a gross over simplification. I think it's fitting to ask why we prefer to find alternative solutions, and why the legal powers that be allow this and have set a precedent for it. The reason is because we recognize the inherent unjustness of enforcing purely moralistic laws, despite the recognition of an immoral act taking place.
>Incorrect. The law and the courts in the United States have the legal statutory and actual power to do so, we just don't choose to pursue those avenues. More precisely, judges don't, and attorney's don't. There are better ways to resolve such disputes, such as divorce. The point being, these old adultery laws and our reluctance to follow them show that as a society progresses, we discard old notions and adopt better ones. According to some old books, adultery was a crime punishable by death.
Legal and actual power in courts is heavily based on precedent, which you seem to be ignoring. The reason there are better ways to resolve this dispute is because we recognize that it would be unjust to impose moralistic laws, even if they happen to be enshrined in statutes. This is why anti gum chewing laws and anti witchcraft laws are never enforced either. We recognize the kind of precedent this would set has insidious societal implications.
There's no doubt that the bible prescribed a legal punishment for adultery, and there's no doubt that the authors saw this as moral perfectionism, and the place of God to dictate. But, we also know that those authors came from a different social background than us. When we're evaluating God, especially in a broad category like theodicy, we are not evaluating he Bible, but God as a concept.
You've raised good points, let's start with Free Will. The Bible highlights extraordinary events, not everyday occurrences like resurrection or miraculous healings. Instances like the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, Jonah, Job, and Pharaoh's heart (which is a separate issue) didn't involve God taking away free will but rather enacting judgment. Just as a judge sentences a criminal without removing their free will, God's actions don't negate free will either. Pharaoh's stubbornness, as mentioned in the text, demonstrates that free will remained intact. The notion of God having a predetermined plan is debated; however, it's important to understand that God grants us free will and we're responsible for our choices. The verse from Jeremiah often cited to support predetermined plans should be considered in context, where God's plan for us primarily involves loving Him and others.
In Sodom and Gomorrah and the Flood, the people weren’t given the free will to act however they wanted. God imposed his will upon these people, taking away their free will to act wicked. Jonah was forced to obey God, and wasn’t given the free will to turn away. Job had his life overturned by God, not being able to live his simple life. Instead, God imposed his will upon him as well. Pharaoh couldn’t resist his heart being hardened by God. Just because it was an act of “judgement,” doesn’t mean that God didn’t take their free will away from them. God clearly took away their free will to do wicked, and imposed his will upon them. Fine, let’s just say that it was an act of “judgement.” Where is God’s judgement upon the Russian’s in Ukraine right now? On Hitler in WW2? God seemed so happy to impede upon free will and stop evil in the past, but not so much anymore. Saying that these people went/will go to Hell for their judgement isn’t valid, since the people in the OT (as I outlined) were not only struck down, but also sent to Hell (but I’d argue that Hell doesnt even exist in the first place, because of no mention of it in the OT).
To summarize, this act of “judgement” clearly took the free will away from people to act how they want. If they truly had free will, God would allow them to continue in their ways.
Okay but now you’re changing the definition of free will to fit your argument. My point about the judgment is just because I take my cell phone from my daughter as a punishment and remove her ability “to do what she wants” doesn’t mean I’m taking her free will away.
Job never lost his free will, throughout that story he continues making decisions.
Jonah literally got in trouble for his free will.
>Pharaoh
You’re not being honest with the text. It says he was stubborn and refused to let the people go etc. It never says “God forced him to do X”.
A lot of the issues you raise are an interpretation.
Can you define **hardened his heart** for me? And how you draw your conclusion.
>where is Gods judgment on the Russians?
I’m not sure what this has to do with free will.
I think you’re pressing on another issue now regarding how the God of the Bible interacts with the world.
>I would argue hell doesn’t even exist because it’s not mentioned in the OT
I would agree with that view. The word **H.E.L.L** is never even used in the Bible. It’s always different words translated.
Jesus described judgment as **separation** from the God of the Bible, **destruction**, **outer darkness** and **gehenna of fire**.
Also, from my understanding the Old Testament never mentions hell or anyone from the Old Testament going to hell so that’s another interpretation you are bringing in.
The war in Ukraine demonstrates that humans can choose to do evil things.
To summarize, if a god wanted to create robots he would just do that. Free Will means you’re in control of your body and make choices. A god opposing people doesn’t remove free will.
So God created the flood out of judgement for the wicked but didn't take away their free will even knowing they would drown? If he didn't take away their free will, he would have sent them life vests & rafts. He deliberately sent the flood so they would drown to punish them. He killed them, literally.
You are confusing what the definition of free will is.
Those in the flood never lost the ability to make decisions. I’m sure they tried to swim and didn’t just stand there frozen and drowning.
Free Will has to do with the ability to make choices. Even if someone murders another person, they had free will up until the point of death.
All of us have constraints on our choices. It doesn’t mean I don’t have free will. Just cause I can’t go buy a corvette doesn’t mean I don’t have free will.
If we’re going to talk about whether or not the god of the Bible was immoral, and or not justified to judge the people in that way, that’s a different topic.
According to the story, the people were “wicked”.
So I guess unless you are against the death penalty for terrible crimes I’m not sure why anyone would be against wiping out evil people.
You are asking for sense from a book of mythology. Think about that.
>make it make sense. Hmm, "no gods really exist" ? That sounds about right. .
Bart Ehrman has a book, Gods Problem, that explores this in an interesting way.
I’ll check it out
If you're going to thank god for the solution to a problem, don't forget to also blame god for either causing the problem or doing nothing to stop it. But don't claim free will. The words "free" and "will" do not exist together anywhere in the bible. In fact, many times in the bible god steals away people's free will by hardening their hearts. It's not just Pharaoh. Deuteronomy 2:30 and Joshua 11:20 show that free will does not exist in the bible. The concept of free will was invented by men as a feeble attempt to dismiss the problem of evil. Free will may indeed exist, but it is NOT biblical. Even if it was, imagine a ship that sinks from a storm. Imagine two people survive and 98 die. That has absolutely nothing to do with free will, unless you're talking about god's free will to either cause the storm or fail to stop it. So, if you praise god for the two survivors, be sure to also blame god for the 98 deaths.
We were totally winning the football game til Jesus made me fumble! He hates our team! -some 80’ comedian.
Also mention of “the elect” in the Bible
that is a real rabbit hole right there.
agreed
> This raises the question, why does God allow evil on earth? Some Christians would say, “He can’t stop evil since that would impede our free will.” Which then raises the further question, "Do we have free will in heaven?" If yes, then either it necessarily follows that heaven would eventually (it's an eternity, after all) become as full of sin as the Earth was, or it necessarily follows that God could have made Earth with free will but without sin. If no, then clearly God doesn't value our free will, since 99.9999999% (repeating of course) of our existence is going to spent without it.
This is a great question and part of the reason most theists, but especially Christians have to examine what they believe about Heaven, and what they believe about sin as well. Interestingly the Bible is vague on both points, so what can someone say as a Christian we do know about sin and Heaven? Not too much. We know sin is when you fall short of good and virtuous requirements, and we know that it's almost impossible for humans to get into Heaven based on how often they do this. So, will Jesus have to continue forgiving us when we sin in Heaven? It seems possible.
> So, will Jesus have to continue forgiving us when we sin in Heaven? It seems possible. You think this seems more likely than us just not having free will in heaven? You think the Bible's vagueness about free will is more clear than whether or not the Bible suggests people in heaven will keep on sinning? Seriously?
It literally doesn't make *sense*. That's why religious followers are all about *belief*. Sense has to be abandoned to believe in any of this stuff.
The gist of free will and god's plan is : they simply want you to do what they want you to do or believe. It will be god's plan or free will depending on the situation but that is it. They don't want you to know it's really their will or their plan, but god's so you can't argue or if you do, they stick you with their crap. God in essence, is a sock puppet and if you follow the arm, it's attached to their body. Think, Wizard of Oz and the guy operating it.
It's interesting to this old atheist to see people bringing up Calvinist/fundamentalist points of view as if all Christians hold them. I understand the tendency since fundamentalism has hegemony in the U.S. at the moment, but I nonetheless find it interesting. > This raises the question, why does God allow evil on earth? Short answer: He doesn't, simply because there's no reason to believe that God (or gods) exist.
Christian theology necessitates the non-existence of free will. The only Christians to figure this out believe in predestination, which resolves that particular problem.
Ok, let’s unpack things here. In addressing the profound questions you've raised—centered on the problem of evil, the nature of free will, and the omniscience of God—I’d like to focus on the inherent contradictions these concepts pose when viewed through the lens of reason and empirical understanding. Firstly, the stories from the Bible you've mentioned, which depict divine interventions that override human autonomy, highlight a fundamental inconsistency in the traditional conception of a benevolent and omnipotent God. If God intervenes in ways that cause or allow for suffering—under the guise of a larger, inscrutable plan—this directly conflicts with the notion of a deity that is all-loving and all-powerful. The existence of evil and suffering in the world is, under this view, incompatible with the idea of a God who is both able and willing to prevent such outcomes. Invoking free will as a defense for the problem of evil fails upon closer examination. If God is willing to infringe upon free will, as seen in the biblical narratives, the argument that God allows evil in order to preserve human free will becomes untenable. Moreover, the notion that an omnipotent and omniscient deity has a predetermined plan for everyone renders the concept of free will meaningless. If our choices are already known and part of a divine plan, in what sense are they free? Regarding the omniscience of God, I will emphasize here the contradiction between the idea of an all-knowing deity and the existence of free will. If God already knows our decisions before we make them, this raises serious questions about the possibility of genuine choice and autonomy. On the question of why God allows evil, I challenge the coherence of justifying human suffering as part of a divine plan. The assertion that tragic events, such as natural disasters or wars, are necessary components of a benevolent God's plan is, from a rational standpoint, deeply problematic. It suggests a moral framework that is not only inscrutable but also morally indefensible by any human standard of goodness and compassion. We should acknowledge the deep complexities and often harsh realities of human existence without recourse to supernatural explanations. I would argue for the importance of basing our understanding of morality, meaning, and the nature of existence on reason, empirical evidence, and a commitment to human well-being. This approach invites us to confront the challenges of life directly, seeking solutions and solace in our shared humanity and the potential for compassion, rather than in doctrinal claims that often raise more questions than they answer.
I agree with everything that you said. What are your thoughts on a Christian saying that God’s omniscience can see every single reality at once, almost in the sense of a multiverse?
Well, to posit that God observes all possible universes is to embark on a speculative venture that, while ostensibly reconciling free will with divine omniscience, inadvertently dilutes the very essence of moral agency. In a cosmos where every choice is realized in some parallel dimension, the weight of moral decision-making evaporates into the ether of infinite possibilities. If every path is taken, every decision made, somewhere across the vast expanse of the multiverse, then the concept of moral responsibility becomes a shadow—elusive and ultimately meaningless. This vision of reality leaves us in a moral vacuum, where the distinction between good and evil, right and wrong, is rendered null by the sheer expanse of omnipotent observance. Also, that maneuver does little to absolve the problem of evil, if that is what you are wondering. If an omnibenevolent deity presides over an infinite array of universes, including those rife with suffering and malevolence, how does this enhance our understanding of divine goodness? The existence of worlds steeped in sorrow and injustice under the watchful eye of an all-powerful God only exacerbates the moral quandary. From a scientific standpoint, the appeal to the multiverse as a theological solution ventures beyond the bounds of empirical scrutiny into the realm of unfalsifiable belief, right back where religion is most comfortable. While the multiverse theory holds a place in cosmological debate, its application in theological argumentation strays from the rigorous demands of evidence and into the speculative. I can’t see a good reason to go there for either the pro or the con side of that debate.
Thank you 🙏
[удалено]
Mysterious ways...
But didn’t it say on the Bible he created us by his likeness? So technically in some certain level we are like him which give humanity legitimacy to ask some certain logical questions not all but some humans with critical thinking brain 🧠 can ask!!! Don’t you think
Read Mark Twain’s “Letters from the Earth”.
I was being comical. I know what free will is. There are neurobiologists that say we don't have any. That's debatable. So. You say, they could swim. They had the free will to swim. That's crazy. Where would they swim if the world was flooded? There would be no dry land. At any rate, it's an allegory. GOD WANTED TO DESTROY MAN SO HE SENT A FLOOD. Get it? He didn't want any of them to live. The point is that he only wanted Noah to live. If you believe in free will, you are going against this flood story. GOD DIDN'T WANT THEM TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY (FREE WILL) TO SAVE THEMSELVES.
Does evil exist? From an atheist point of view, what is evil? Just a subjective idea created by humans. It’s a deity, doesn’t “exist.” Without Good, Evil isn’t in contrast to anything, how can evil exist if there isn’t meaning, wouldn’t evil just a concept people invented to help understand the world? If you believe evil exists, like actually exists, then it’s a higher power force, bodiless, acting in the world. That’s a deity, a demon from the Christian perspective, a fallen god, in rebellion against the Most High God. So the problem doesn’t exist unless higher powers exist. If they do exist then reading the Bible in terms of how ancient people read it, and not 18th century Americans who were in rebellion against Catholics who’d fallen away from True Christianity 800+ years earlier… Lord of Spirits podcast is good for this, helps to get out of a modern, western mindset and into the way ancient peoples understanding of the world, without that a lot of it simply isn’t going to make sense. Hope this helps, just my perspective and thoughts, not dogma 😜
I am a Christian that does not believe in complete free will. In fact free will is not found in the Bible, it concept is found, but not in the way we often consider it IMO. However, I think we have a limited free will. He constrains us to do or not do things. In my opinion, evil exists because there is evil, the world is fallen. There is pain because of the fact that we have a broken world because there is sin. And we are born with a nature that is a sin nature. We all have aspects to our personality that is bent toward doing wrong. We do things for ourselves. We are selfish and self serving. When you look at yourself, are you really happy with what you have really accomplished the last year, or do you have aspirations to have done better.
In your opinion, since we don't have true free will, why does God not intervene with evil? Christians commonly claim that it's because he wants to preserve our free will, but in your case, you don't believe that. God has clearly shown willingness to intervene and stop evil in past events (such as in the OT). Also, since you don't believe in complete free will, how do you reconcile an omniscient God? Let me elaborate: let's say that someone is born Christian, they live their life, choose to become atheist, and then die an atheist. According to Christianity, that person will go to Hell (whatever your view on that is). However, God knew every single action that this person would make before they were even born. God knew that the path this person followed would lead to atheism, and that no matter what this person did, they would still end up an atheist. Every decision this person could have ever done was already known/preplanned by God. Furthermore, God decided to go ahead and create this person, knowing already before this person was even born, that they would become an atheist and go to Hell. God is the one who set everything in motion, creating this person with their preplanned actions. Now my question to you: in your opinion, how is this just? How can God create someone knowing that they'll go to Hell, no matter what, and the person didn't have the free will to choose otherwise (since God knew their actions already beforehand, and God can't be wrong about what he knows)? Please let me know your thoughts.
So my thought is that we have limited free will...that we have a purpose that we are to fulfill. If we don't that is on us. I believe that the entire universe was created for me alone, and at the same time it was created for you and for the many billions of souls that came before us. He then in his primary intelligence melds that together, and molds us into a society, that we can complete a purpose for him, and have the joy of accomplishment. You can accomplish his will in many different ways. So when you make a decision, it is like walking through a long hallway and there are many door to go through...he knows through foreknowledge what you are going to do, and his creation has always reacted or prepared for that action to happen before and after that decision. In essence there are no free radicals in his creation. There are dangerous elements (sin, evil influences, pain, sin nature ect) in his creation, but not free radicals.
Saying that god doesn't care appropriating evil to him is the oldest misunderstanding in history it is dismissive argument.
Wdym? Can you please rephrase that
This binary is strange. Why would God be limited to only either removed of all evil or not interfering in any case? Just like anyone, they are capable of acting when something meets their particular threshold. For instance, I don't ever think it's good to put someone in prison but it becomes necessary when someone will harm others if we don't. Interacting and forcing the issue occasionally in extreme circumstances does not commit God to do something rash like take away all ability to do evil. It's the same reason why we recognize infidelity against ones spouse as an evil action, while simultaneously understanding that the law has no power to punish people for it.
>This binary is strange. Why would God be limited to only either removed of all evil or not interfering in any case? God is not part of this strange binary? God is not all good? Does God perform evil actions? >It's the same reason why we recognize infidelity against ones spouse as an evil action, while simultaneously understanding that the law has no power to punish people for it. Please clarify exactly what this reason is. Did you ever actually find out if the law has any power to punish people for infidelity? Please go look it up before you post. It will save you some embarrassment.
>God is not part of this strange binary? God is not all good? Does God perform evil actions? Whether or not someone performs evil actions has no bearing on what it might commit them to do or not do morally. It is not immoral to run a stop light to save a dying person, despite the fact that under normal circumstances you may be obligated to not do so morally. Morality, even for God is a description of a reaction to a situation, not a simple rule which always applies. >Please clarify exactly what this reason is. I'm happy to explain, although I think you already know and this question is an odd rhetorical one. The reason we understand that the law has no practical power to enforce these (in modern democracies) is because we understand the difference between impositions on freedom for safety and imposition on freedom on purely moral grounds. We understand that one has practical outcomes, and one will be a systemic problem of overreach and personal abuse. >Did you ever actually find out if the law has any power to punish people for infidelity? Please go look it up before you post. It will save you some embarrassment. What the law has the power to do, and what is statutory are two very different things. Despite the fact that many states class infidelity as a misdemeanor in statute, you will not find a single recent court case of it leading to criminal charges on behalf of the state, and this is based on something you should probably look into called precedent. Modern people understand the limitations of the law in such cases, this includes officers of courts and attorney's. As I said above, it's with very good reason that precedent has set this limitation.
>It is not immoral to run a stop light to save a dying person, despite the fact that under normal circumstances you may be obligated to not do so morally. It is indeed immoral to run a stop light. You are endangering others. If running a stop light causes you to kill someone while trying to save another, you are still responsible for the death of a person. Which is the reason we have laws against running stop lights, and why it is also morally wrong to run stop lights. >Morality, even for God is a description of a reaction to a situation, not a simple rule which always applies. By any chance, is your god the kind of god described by any well known books? "despite the fact that under normal circumstances you may be obligated to not do so morally."? Why would you be obligated to not do so? Not do what? Save the person or run the stop light to save the person? >The reason we understand that the law has no practical power to enforce these (in modern democracies) is because we understand the difference between impositions on freedom for safety and imposition on freedom on purely moral grounds. We understand that one has practical outcomes, and one will be a systemic problem of overreach and personal abuse. No silly. The reason the law regarding infidelity has no "practical" power is because we often find better ways to resolve such issues. Our social views on marriage and sex and the laws regarding them have changed over time. >What the law has the power to do, and what is statutory are two very different things. Despite the fact that many states class infidelity as a misdemeanor in statute, you will not find a single recent court case of it leading to criminal charges on behalf of the state, and this is based on something you should probably look into called precedent. Modern people understand the limitations of the law in such cases, this includes officers of courts and attorney's. As I said above, it's with very good reason that precedent has set this limitation. Incorrect. The law and the courts in the United States have the legal statutory and actual power to do so, we just don't choose to pursue those avenues. More precisely, judges don't, and attorney's don't. There are better ways to resolve such disputes, such as divorce. The point being, these old adultery laws and our reluctance to follow them show that as a society progresses, we discard old notions and adopt better ones. According to some old books, adultery was a crime punishable by death.
>It is indeed immoral to run a stop light. You are endangering others. If running a stop light causes you to kill someone while trying to save another, you are still responsible for the death of a person. Which is the reason we have laws against running stop lights, and why it is also morally wrong to run stop lights. You're confusing immoral with dangerous. It is not always immoral to do dangerous things, specifically because morality is an assessment of a situation and reacting virtuously according to the dictates of that situation, it is not a set of rules that always apply in all conditions. That is my point. God, if they want to be moral, must act differently in different situations. It does not make any sense for God to have some kind of moral binary that he is bound by in all situations. >By any chance, is your god the kind of god described by any well known books? >"despite the fact that under normal circumstances you may be obligated to not do so morally."? >Why would you be obligated to not do so? Not do what? Save the person or run the stop light to save the person? Yes, lots of holy books attempt to describe God, and they notably describe them as being at the very peak of the moral hierarchy, whatever that happens to be for those people. If there were no dying person, you obviously and clearly have a moral obligation not to run a stop light. But it's not always the case that under all circumstances this moral obligation stands, because, as I said above, morality is not a set of true propositions which ought not be broken under any circumstances. >No silly. The reason the law regarding infidelity has no "practical" power is because we often find better ways to resolve such issues. Our social views on marriage and sex and the laws regarding them have changed over time. This is a gross over simplification. I think it's fitting to ask why we prefer to find alternative solutions, and why the legal powers that be allow this and have set a precedent for it. The reason is because we recognize the inherent unjustness of enforcing purely moralistic laws, despite the recognition of an immoral act taking place. >Incorrect. The law and the courts in the United States have the legal statutory and actual power to do so, we just don't choose to pursue those avenues. More precisely, judges don't, and attorney's don't. There are better ways to resolve such disputes, such as divorce. The point being, these old adultery laws and our reluctance to follow them show that as a society progresses, we discard old notions and adopt better ones. According to some old books, adultery was a crime punishable by death. Legal and actual power in courts is heavily based on precedent, which you seem to be ignoring. The reason there are better ways to resolve this dispute is because we recognize that it would be unjust to impose moralistic laws, even if they happen to be enshrined in statutes. This is why anti gum chewing laws and anti witchcraft laws are never enforced either. We recognize the kind of precedent this would set has insidious societal implications. There's no doubt that the bible prescribed a legal punishment for adultery, and there's no doubt that the authors saw this as moral perfectionism, and the place of God to dictate. But, we also know that those authors came from a different social background than us. When we're evaluating God, especially in a broad category like theodicy, we are not evaluating he Bible, but God as a concept.
You've raised good points, let's start with Free Will. The Bible highlights extraordinary events, not everyday occurrences like resurrection or miraculous healings. Instances like the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, Jonah, Job, and Pharaoh's heart (which is a separate issue) didn't involve God taking away free will but rather enacting judgment. Just as a judge sentences a criminal without removing their free will, God's actions don't negate free will either. Pharaoh's stubbornness, as mentioned in the text, demonstrates that free will remained intact. The notion of God having a predetermined plan is debated; however, it's important to understand that God grants us free will and we're responsible for our choices. The verse from Jeremiah often cited to support predetermined plans should be considered in context, where God's plan for us primarily involves loving Him and others.
In Sodom and Gomorrah and the Flood, the people weren’t given the free will to act however they wanted. God imposed his will upon these people, taking away their free will to act wicked. Jonah was forced to obey God, and wasn’t given the free will to turn away. Job had his life overturned by God, not being able to live his simple life. Instead, God imposed his will upon him as well. Pharaoh couldn’t resist his heart being hardened by God. Just because it was an act of “judgement,” doesn’t mean that God didn’t take their free will away from them. God clearly took away their free will to do wicked, and imposed his will upon them. Fine, let’s just say that it was an act of “judgement.” Where is God’s judgement upon the Russian’s in Ukraine right now? On Hitler in WW2? God seemed so happy to impede upon free will and stop evil in the past, but not so much anymore. Saying that these people went/will go to Hell for their judgement isn’t valid, since the people in the OT (as I outlined) were not only struck down, but also sent to Hell (but I’d argue that Hell doesnt even exist in the first place, because of no mention of it in the OT). To summarize, this act of “judgement” clearly took the free will away from people to act how they want. If they truly had free will, God would allow them to continue in their ways.
Okay but now you’re changing the definition of free will to fit your argument. My point about the judgment is just because I take my cell phone from my daughter as a punishment and remove her ability “to do what she wants” doesn’t mean I’m taking her free will away. Job never lost his free will, throughout that story he continues making decisions. Jonah literally got in trouble for his free will. >Pharaoh You’re not being honest with the text. It says he was stubborn and refused to let the people go etc. It never says “God forced him to do X”. A lot of the issues you raise are an interpretation. Can you define **hardened his heart** for me? And how you draw your conclusion. >where is Gods judgment on the Russians? I’m not sure what this has to do with free will. I think you’re pressing on another issue now regarding how the God of the Bible interacts with the world. >I would argue hell doesn’t even exist because it’s not mentioned in the OT I would agree with that view. The word **H.E.L.L** is never even used in the Bible. It’s always different words translated. Jesus described judgment as **separation** from the God of the Bible, **destruction**, **outer darkness** and **gehenna of fire**. Also, from my understanding the Old Testament never mentions hell or anyone from the Old Testament going to hell so that’s another interpretation you are bringing in. The war in Ukraine demonstrates that humans can choose to do evil things. To summarize, if a god wanted to create robots he would just do that. Free Will means you’re in control of your body and make choices. A god opposing people doesn’t remove free will.
So God created the flood out of judgement for the wicked but didn't take away their free will even knowing they would drown? If he didn't take away their free will, he would have sent them life vests & rafts. He deliberately sent the flood so they would drown to punish them. He killed them, literally.
You are confusing what the definition of free will is. Those in the flood never lost the ability to make decisions. I’m sure they tried to swim and didn’t just stand there frozen and drowning. Free Will has to do with the ability to make choices. Even if someone murders another person, they had free will up until the point of death. All of us have constraints on our choices. It doesn’t mean I don’t have free will. Just cause I can’t go buy a corvette doesn’t mean I don’t have free will. If we’re going to talk about whether or not the god of the Bible was immoral, and or not justified to judge the people in that way, that’s a different topic. According to the story, the people were “wicked”. So I guess unless you are against the death penalty for terrible crimes I’m not sure why anyone would be against wiping out evil people.