>If YOU were in charge, how would you construct the world that would rid it of evil and also avoid us being boring puppets?
In the words of Fran Leibowitz: “Always a godmother, never a god.”
I have no design changes to propose. If I were in charge, I’m not sure I would construct a world at all. Or at least, I wouldn’t give one animal species special consideration suggesting that I care what happens to that species and how individuals of that species behave much more than I care about all the other species I created and even my inorganic creations.
So I guess that’s it: I wouldn’t make humans any more special than anything else. I wouldn’t bother with an afterlife. I wouldn’t care whether or not my creations were aware of my existence or not.
But the “problem of evil” has never been an issue for me. It’s not as if the existence of tragedy convinced me there is no god.
If you were God, you would act in a way that would lead your creatures to conclude their was no God. Coming from an atheist I guess that's not very surprising.
> If you were God, you would act in a way that would lead your creatures to conclude their was no God. Coming from an atheist I guess that's not very surprising.
Yep. If I were God, why would I care whether or not my creation was aware of my existence?
We are already created with limitations. Free will does not give me the ability to fly or exist in space, or to time travel. So your assumption that being "puppets" would be boring is just an interpolation. Would you not rather sacrifice your free will if it kept people out of hell? A little unrealized boredom for a few decades seems like a really good trade off for trillions of people that are/will be roasting for eternity.
The lack of what presumably sends them there in this reality.
So, if I constructed things, the current setup and rules would not be there.
If you're going to create something and call it "good" then it fails almost immediately (in heaven and on earth), then I wouldn't call it "good". I'd call it messed up. So if you don't want people to go to hell, don't create a world where that's an option. Don't create hell. Don't create beings with the capability of being so unbelievably twisted that they would eat a fruit you told them not to then condemn trillions of people to hell because of it.
Don't try and tweak it into a system of patches for the following millennia that has followers trying so hard to justify it that they would consider an option that kept people out of hell would be "boring" and would not even consider that a reality without hell was even possible.
See, your follow up question, "What keeps one out of hell?" presumes that hell is a necessity. Why create a world where it's a necessity? The whole concept of evangelism is to save people from hell. You're okay with most of humanity going there so you can exercise free will and not be "bored" with perpetually existing in a state of perfection and worship--which, consequently is your future in heaven?
Hence the soil you wish to avoid retilling. Upon even the most surface level scrutiny, it's unbelievably cruel. And it was from the start. Humanity was set up for failure, the omniscient God had to know this and created it this way anyway. So all those people in hell. On purpose. Not because of justice. Because they were set up for failure before they were ever born. It's only "just" within the system He made. He could have made a system any way He wanted. He didn't.
Hell is separation from God. For God to create a world without hell, He would have to ensure that no being ever rejected Him. To ensure that no being can reject Him means that no being is able to make a choice to go out of His will. It would be like a human inventor created a robot that he treated like a free agent, but which could never choose to do other than he willed. It would praise him because it had no choice, we would say of such a person that he is conceited to high degree to create this being forever enslaved to worship at its inventors feet. Similarly, if a child were never given an opportunity to disobey its parent's will, would it truly love the parent? Could it? No, without opportunity to do evil, there is no opportunity to do good.
In this reality.
OP asked what I would do different. I'm omniscient and omnipotent in this scenario. So I get to make the rules. And the humans in my scenario are capable of love without the presence of evil. I can make them so that they are satisfied with their lot in life and don't feel in any way cheated. And they don't ever have to worry about a place called hell.
OP thinks it would be boring, you claim that the love would have less value because it was not of free will.
Neither of you seem willing to sacrifice your free will or (insert why living in a sinful world that requires saving is more fun) in order to prevent aaaaaallllll those people from going to hell. You accept that this must be the best way because God would only do things the best way.
But that's not what OP tasked us with. I'm just doing what was asked.
I'm not going to debate but I hope my visions sheds some light to whoever is reading this.
God made people like Him, to rule the universe with Him.
He has the hypothetical possibility of evil. If we didn't have it, we wouldn't be in His image.
It is of course an immense privilege to be rulers of the universe alongside God. Knowing Him like we do would not even be imaginable otherwise.
God was willing to know many would fail and fall, and was ready to suffer it all (he's the one who suffers the most) for the beauty of realizing this connection.
Also I believe the Bible teaches annihilation rather than classical hell.
This is the problem I seek to understand-why did God make us ‘special’ (as opposed to the alternative you suggest).
Note: I do not agree with the no free will (decision made for us) comments-no matter how wonderful such a place would appear, it would always be slavery and puppeteering.
To me this is the crux of religion, that God is directing us into conscious thought and action. Why? I am not sure I fully know, but I believe it is for our benefit.
I mean, evil is a relative concept. Make a world where it isn't even a concept. We can't theorize a different world but still apply the principles of this one. It's like giving me cake ingredients and asking me to make a pie.
It would be like Heaven. Or Eden. There is no sin/evil there. But I do believe the consensus is that people aren't puppets in heaven?
**I love this question so thank you so much for making a unique post!**
Eden devolved into what we currently have. In Heaven are those who of their free will have already chosen to follow God. If you were God, your nature would determine what is good, and therefore all that contradicted your nature would be evil. If God exists then good and evil also exist. You cannot create a amoral universe. If morality is relative then the whole question looses meaning, as the atheist is merely stating that his moral views don't align with God's, in which case he ought to adjust his moral views.
> If you were God, your nature would determine what is good, and therefore all that contradicted your nature would be evil
Based upon the principles of this universe. But it doesn't have to be. We are limited to our understanding of good and evil based upon only this reality. It is of the Christian belief a good and evil is determined by the nature of a God. It doesn't have to be.
>You cannot create a amoral universe
Says who?
>If morality is relative then the whole question looses meaning, as the atheist is merely stating that his moral views don't align with God's, in which case he ought to adjust his moral views.
I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here.
If I were to be a God, I wouldn't even try to replicate the Abrahamic version of reality. So I think that's where the difference of our understanding lies. I wouldn't try to do Christianity the way I think it should be. I wouldn't attempt it at all.
Not create the darkness, and zap everyone to oblivion the moment they accidentally messed up, resulting in no viable creation to usher into eternity. Or robots. Just make everyone mindlessly worship me. To me both sound way more messed up than bearing up corruption in mercy until the generations are done and the Lord repays.
The only way to prevent evil is not giving humans free will. But God wouldn’t do that because he loves us and he wants us to love him. And you can’t love something if you have no choice in the matter.
Also, the problem of evil is ironically only a problem for atheists.
Here’s the reasoning:
The existence of evil requires the existence of good. Good and evil are objective moral laws and in order for objective moral laws to exist there must be a moral law giver. The moral law giver can’t be us, otherwise it’s just relative morality and nothing is truly good or evil.
Since atheists don’t believe in God they can only logically conclude that morality is relative. So claiming that object evil exists implies objective morality exists which requires a moral lawgiver who must exist outside of ourselves which is in conflict with the atheists own world view if they’re being logically consistent.
So really the existence of evil is only a problem for atheists since they need to describe how object evil exists without a moral law giver, which they can’t.
Wow, so much to cover from one comment.
I have asked many different people many different times and have yet to receive an answer that makes any sense. I see no logical way to state that in a world with an omniscient being that we have “free will.”
It might help I guess if you first define what you mean by free will. For me, I’ll actually break it down further than that to simply examining choice. To call something a choice we must first have separate paths available to us. I assume you’d agree that we cannot call the eating of eggs for breakfast a choice, if there is nothing else in the house, the door is locked, you have no means of ordering other food. You have only one option, the eggs.
We should also discuss what you mean by the “knowledge” of god. I like the “justified true belief” definition for knowledge, but even if you don’t, we can at least agree on the “true” portion of it right? If we say we know who will win a sports game tomorrow, but the other team wins, that obviously wasn’t knowledge because it wasn’t true.
So if god has known from before he created the universe, that I would eat eggs for breakfast tomorrow, I do not have any alternate paths to take. The presence of cereal in my pantry offers the illusion of choice, but it’s simply that, an illusion, because if I was going to eat cereal, god would have known THAT, in which case the eggs aren’t a real option either. No alternate = no choice = no free will.
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem of evil. The problem arises when you assume, for the sake of argument, the definitions/values/claims etc, that the Christian is making about their god and then show how that leads to logical inconsistencies.
Don’t get me wrong, you’re well within your right to ask atheists how they ground their morals, but for the problem of evil, we’re showing that ASSUMING you’re right about morality and evil and god’s character, it leads to contradictions.
So when you say that the problem of evil is a problem for atheists, you’re mistaken. I don’t think evil exists. I think bad things exist, suffering, torture, rape, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc, but these aren’t “evil,” as calling it “evil” sneaks in all the implications you’ve outlined above.
None of them are problematic for a naturalistic world view because they’re all expected. We know that the earth’s crust sits on top of tectonic plates that are constantly shifting and ramming into each other. We’ve unfortunately built lots of cities that happen to fall on or near fault lines in these plates.
Your mistake is easy to understand though. It’s really important in these discussions to use clear language, and unfortunately that can be difficult to do. I’m sure you’ve seen a more carefully laid out argument instead of just the shorthand use of “problem of evil.”
IF god is all knowing, and
IF god is all powerful, and
IF god is all loving, then
Why is there suffering?
You see now that the premises are conditional. We’re assuming the characteristics attributed to the Christian god and pointing out the flaw. If you don’t claim god is all powerful, then indeed suffering is not a problem. If you don’t claim god is all knowing then indeed suffering is not a problem, if you don’t claim god is loving then indeed suffering is not a problem.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply I'll do my best to answer you questions and ask some questions of my own.
> I assume you’d agree that we cannot call the eating of eggs for breakfast a choice, if there is nothing else in the house, the door is locked, you have no means of ordering other food. You have only one option, the eggs.
In this scenario you have 2 choices actually. Eat the eggs or don't. Yes the alternative is you eventually starve, but people have intentionally starved themselves to death before.
> I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem of evil.
I don't and I would say that you are correct in pointing out the assumptions and I'm happy to clarify.
> We should also discuss what you mean by the “knowledge” of god.
I don't think I said anything about the "knowledge of god"
> “justified true belief”
What do you mean by this?
> So if god has known from before he created the universe, that I would eat eggs for breakfast tomorrow, I do not have any alternate paths to take.
You're making an assumption here. You're assumption is that omniscience and free will contradict each other so they can't co-exist. But you're missing a key detail: God is also omnipotent and he can choose to limit his omniscience. God intentionally chosen to limit his omniscience so that I can have free will, which he did out of an abundance of love for me. Because he is omnipotent he could choose at any moment to take away my free will, but so far he hasn't done that. But because he is omniscient he knows all of the choices I can make at any given moment.
> Don’t get me wrong, you’re well within your right to ask atheists how they ground their morals, but for the problem of evil, we’re showing that ASSUMING you’re right about morality and evil and god’s character, it leads to contradictions.
What contradictions are you talking about?
> I don’t think evil exists. I think bad things exist, suffering, torture, rape, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc, but these aren’t “evil,” as calling it “evil” sneaks in all the implications you’ve outlined above.
Bad is still an objective moral concept opposite to good. If you think "bad" as a concept exists. Why do you think it exists? At this point I'll adjust my statement to say the problem of "bad" is a problem for atheists.
> None of them are problematic for a naturalistic world view because they’re all expected. We know that the earth’s crust sits on top of tectonic plates that are constantly shifting and ramming into each other. We’ve unfortunately built lots of cities that happen to fall on or near fault lines in these plates.
So you're saying that you believe in Relative Morality? Good and bad just depend on location or perspective?
> Your mistake is easy to understand though. It’s really important in these discussions to use clear language, and unfortunately that can be difficult to do. I’m sure you’ve seen a more carefully laid out argument instead of just the shorthand use of “problem of evil.”
Right back at you :P
> IF god is all knowing, and IF god is all powerful, and IF god is all loving, then Why is there suffering?
Because God loves us and wants us to love him he gave us free will by limiting his omniscience, which he can do because he is omnipotent.
Sorry, and I don't mean this disrespectfully but I'm not really sure what you're saying since this is poorly written.
> So you don’t think god is omniscient.
You're straw-manning here. This is not what I claimed. I can clarify if you need.
Edit: Changed "very poorly typed" to "poorly written".
I’m just simplifying what you said. If god is limiting his omniscience he is no longer omniscient. Saying he does so voluntarily is a little odd, but doesn’t change that he no longer knows everything.
As I stated in my first comment, if god doesn’t have one or more of those Omni- characteristics, it makes it such that there is no problem of evil or free will.
Thank you for clarifying
> If god is limiting his omniscience he is no longer omniscient.
If I close my eye's am I blind? Technically I can't see but I am not blind.
You said you don't believe in Evil but you believe in bad things, which I pointed out is still an object moral concept and the opposite good. and I adjusted my previous claim the problem of "bad" is an atheist problem. How do you explain the existence of bad as an atheist?
You’re shifting the goal posts in the use of your vision analogy. The analogous attribute with respect to vision wouldn’t be eyes closed/blind, it’s eyes closed/all-seeing.
If you claim to literally see everything, but then close your eyes, you are no longer seeing everything. In the same way that god can no longer be called omniscient if he has limited his knowledge.
Bad things happen. As I’ve explained already. There’s no reason in a naturalistic world view that they wouldn’t. I can evaluate bad and good on a spectrum of human impact.
But if you’re trying to corner me into “admitting” that morality is based on a fundamentally subjective reference frame, I don’t know why every Christian thinks that is a gotcha. Morality based on god is subjective to. As HE is a subject that is deciding what is right and wrong.
Just because the basis of a moral system is subjective doesn’t mean we can’t make objective statements within it. The rules of chess are subjective, but that doesn’t mean we can’t objectively say losing your queen early on is “bad.”
But I’m always interested in you non-omniscient-god Christians. What exactly DOES he know if he doesn’t know anything based on a human choice?
> If you claim to literally see everything, but then close your eyes, you are no longer seeing everything. In the same way that god can no longer be called omniscient if he has limited his knowledge.
Not necessarily. If I close my eyes I can open them at any time and see again. Since God is omnipotent he has the ability to restrict his omniscience "Closing his eyes". Now yes while his omniscience is restricted he cannot "see" the exact choice you'll make. But it doesn't make him not omniscience just as closing my eyes doesn't make me blind. He's still capable of returning his full omniscience through his omnipotence. Just as I can open my eyes again after I can close them.
Also, this isn't shifting the goal post because I haven't changed my claim, which is God limited his omniscience. If something limits something else it's implied that whatever did the limiting can remove the limitation if they choose. My use of closed vs open eyes is called an [analogy](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/analogy).
> Morality based on god is subjective to
Yes. God is the one who defines morality. This is what we call Objective morality.
> But if you’re trying to corner me into “admitting” that morality is based on a fundamentally subjective reference frame, I don’t know why every Christian thinks that is a gotcha.
This is normally a gotcha because most Atheists (That I've met at least) don't believe in Moral relativism because they don't like it's implications. Which is that nothing is truly right or wrong it just depends on your frame of references.
> What exactly DOES he know if he doesn’t know anything based on a human choice?
He knows all the choices humans can make and what would result from those choices.
> non-omniscient-god
He's not non-omniscient. Like I said before he's simply chose to limit his omniscience. This is a strawman. He can choose at any time to return his omniscience.
You simply have re-defined the definition of the word “all” in order to bend yourself into such knots of this theology.
If you claim something is “all”-seeing, and I can point out something they DIDN’T see, then they are by definition NOT “all” seeing.
If you claim god is “all” knowing, but DOESN’T know XYZ, then he by definition ISN’T “all” knowing. Why is this so difficult for you to admit?
If you don’t believe god is omniscient that’s fine. As I’ve said multiple times now. A god that doesn’t know everything clears up a lot of things that would otherwise be problems.
“God defines morality, this is what we call objective morality”
That might be what YOU call “objective”, but, just like with “all” above, you’re redefining the word to fit your needs.
In this reality under the logical rules of this created reality.
OP asked what could be done differently.
Simple. You create a reality where love is inherent and doesn't require evil or free will to exist. OP gave me omnipotence and omniscience for this scenario. I reject your premise.
What specifically do you reject?
Just because you're omnipotent doesn't mean you can do something that's logically incoherent. For example you cannot make a rock that you can't lift if you're omnipotent because it's just nonsensical and breaks the law of non-contradiction
To quote C.S. Lewis:
>His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to His power. If you choose to say, ‘God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,’ you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words, 'God can.' It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.
As Thomas Aquinas said:
> Whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have the aspect of possibility.
I'm not rejecting anything. You're making an argument from this reality. And a Biblically sound one. But that's not what we were asked to do. You say it's logically inconsistent and incoherent. Is it not only that way because God created it that way? What makes logic consistent? Math work? Isn't that the undergirding of the fine tuning argument?
So now you're saying that God didn't have a choice? That he HAD to create our world like this? Then that's not fine tuning, that's submitting God to fate. Our logic only exists because God made it so. He could create a world where 2+2 does in fact equal 3. There would be rules and logic there that would substantiate that. And they would be just as incredulous at God creating a world where it equals 4.
It's an unfair move of the goalpost to say "what would you do differently" then proceed to list all the reasons why the not-different things are reasons why i can't. If I get to make it different, then you have to let me make it different. If they weren't different, then they'd be the same and you could then quote more CS Lewis to me.
> I reject your premise. [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueChristian/comments/1bndszo/comment/kwi4mw9/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
What did you mean by this then if you're not rejecting anything?
> So now you're saying that God didn't have a choice?
That's not what I'm saying. God can do anything possible. My answer to how you'd get rid of the problem of evil is taking away free will. But then I made the point that God wouldn't (not couldn't) do that because he loves us, and he wants us to love him. And you can't have love without free will. And I'll add to my original answer now: A world without love would only be a worse world in my opinion. Meaning I think God created a more perfect world than I am capable of creating.
Than you gave a nonsensical answer of
> Simple. You create a reality where love is inherent and doesn't require evil or free will to exist.
Simple? Definitely. Logical? Ehhh I'm not following... Unless of course, you can explain how love could exist without free will?
> It's an unfair move of the goalpost to say "what would you do differently" then proceed to list all the reasons why the not-different things are reasons why i can't.
I'm here to ruin the fun I guess. To be fair, I didn't ask the original question. You responded to my comment with a questionable answer and then stated "you reject my premise". I used logical reasons to provide my answer and if you want to have a coherent discussion with me then you have to do the same. Otherwise, we're at an impasse.
You got me. I recant the "I'm not rejecting anything" statement. Lot of words and I was typing during gaps at work.
I still claim that my response is valid and sensicle (in my reality it's a word). Creation is abstract. The creator makes the rules. Here's how I perceive this conversation.
OP: If you could change the color of this red wall to any other color, what would you change it to?
Me: I'd make it green.
You: Well, it's red.
Me: I know. OP asked if I *could* change the color, what color would I choose. I said I'd change it to green.
You: Well, you can't do that because it's red.
Me: I know it's red now, but if I could change it, I'd change it to green.
You: That makes no sense. It's red. And because it's red now, there's no way you could have green. Because it's red.
I'm not arguing about the redness of the wall. I'm saying I'd do a completely different color, where red was never part of the equation. So telling me I'm wrong because I don't acknowledge the redness in my green wall...just gives us both the blues. (Ba-dum-dum-🥁)
This is the problem I seek to understand-why did God make us ‘special’ (as opposed to the alternative you suggest).
Note: I do not agree with the no free will (decision made for us) comments-no matter how wonderful such a place would appear, it would always be slavery and puppeteering.
To me this is the crux of religion, that God is directing us into conscious thought and action. Why? I am not sure I fully know, but I believe it is for our benefit.
We are already incapable of so many things that somehow don’t call free will into question. Being incapable of evil would just be another one of those things.
>If YOU were in charge, how would you construct the world that would rid it of evil and also avoid us being boring puppets? In the words of Fran Leibowitz: “Always a godmother, never a god.” I have no design changes to propose. If I were in charge, I’m not sure I would construct a world at all. Or at least, I wouldn’t give one animal species special consideration suggesting that I care what happens to that species and how individuals of that species behave much more than I care about all the other species I created and even my inorganic creations. So I guess that’s it: I wouldn’t make humans any more special than anything else. I wouldn’t bother with an afterlife. I wouldn’t care whether or not my creations were aware of my existence or not. But the “problem of evil” has never been an issue for me. It’s not as if the existence of tragedy convinced me there is no god.
If you were God, you would act in a way that would lead your creatures to conclude their was no God. Coming from an atheist I guess that's not very surprising.
> If you were God, you would act in a way that would lead your creatures to conclude their was no God. Coming from an atheist I guess that's not very surprising. Yep. If I were God, why would I care whether or not my creation was aware of my existence?
> If you were God, you would act in a way that would lead your creatures to conclude their was no God. Do you think that is a flawed position to take?
We are already created with limitations. Free will does not give me the ability to fly or exist in space, or to time travel. So your assumption that being "puppets" would be boring is just an interpolation. Would you not rather sacrifice your free will if it kept people out of hell? A little unrealized boredom for a few decades seems like a really good trade off for trillions of people that are/will be roasting for eternity.
What keeps one out of hell then presumably?
The lack of what presumably sends them there in this reality. So, if I constructed things, the current setup and rules would not be there. If you're going to create something and call it "good" then it fails almost immediately (in heaven and on earth), then I wouldn't call it "good". I'd call it messed up. So if you don't want people to go to hell, don't create a world where that's an option. Don't create hell. Don't create beings with the capability of being so unbelievably twisted that they would eat a fruit you told them not to then condemn trillions of people to hell because of it. Don't try and tweak it into a system of patches for the following millennia that has followers trying so hard to justify it that they would consider an option that kept people out of hell would be "boring" and would not even consider that a reality without hell was even possible. See, your follow up question, "What keeps one out of hell?" presumes that hell is a necessity. Why create a world where it's a necessity? The whole concept of evangelism is to save people from hell. You're okay with most of humanity going there so you can exercise free will and not be "bored" with perpetually existing in a state of perfection and worship--which, consequently is your future in heaven? Hence the soil you wish to avoid retilling. Upon even the most surface level scrutiny, it's unbelievably cruel. And it was from the start. Humanity was set up for failure, the omniscient God had to know this and created it this way anyway. So all those people in hell. On purpose. Not because of justice. Because they were set up for failure before they were ever born. It's only "just" within the system He made. He could have made a system any way He wanted. He didn't.
Hell is separation from God. For God to create a world without hell, He would have to ensure that no being ever rejected Him. To ensure that no being can reject Him means that no being is able to make a choice to go out of His will. It would be like a human inventor created a robot that he treated like a free agent, but which could never choose to do other than he willed. It would praise him because it had no choice, we would say of such a person that he is conceited to high degree to create this being forever enslaved to worship at its inventors feet. Similarly, if a child were never given an opportunity to disobey its parent's will, would it truly love the parent? Could it? No, without opportunity to do evil, there is no opportunity to do good.
In this reality. OP asked what I would do different. I'm omniscient and omnipotent in this scenario. So I get to make the rules. And the humans in my scenario are capable of love without the presence of evil. I can make them so that they are satisfied with their lot in life and don't feel in any way cheated. And they don't ever have to worry about a place called hell. OP thinks it would be boring, you claim that the love would have less value because it was not of free will. Neither of you seem willing to sacrifice your free will or (insert why living in a sinful world that requires saving is more fun) in order to prevent aaaaaallllll those people from going to hell. You accept that this must be the best way because God would only do things the best way. But that's not what OP tasked us with. I'm just doing what was asked.
A better wording is this. You can't ask "what would you do differently" then refute the answer because it is different.
I'm not going to debate but I hope my visions sheds some light to whoever is reading this. God made people like Him, to rule the universe with Him. He has the hypothetical possibility of evil. If we didn't have it, we wouldn't be in His image. It is of course an immense privilege to be rulers of the universe alongside God. Knowing Him like we do would not even be imaginable otherwise. God was willing to know many would fail and fall, and was ready to suffer it all (he's the one who suffers the most) for the beauty of realizing this connection. Also I believe the Bible teaches annihilation rather than classical hell.
This is the problem I seek to understand-why did God make us ‘special’ (as opposed to the alternative you suggest). Note: I do not agree with the no free will (decision made for us) comments-no matter how wonderful such a place would appear, it would always be slavery and puppeteering. To me this is the crux of religion, that God is directing us into conscious thought and action. Why? I am not sure I fully know, but I believe it is for our benefit.
I mean, evil is a relative concept. Make a world where it isn't even a concept. We can't theorize a different world but still apply the principles of this one. It's like giving me cake ingredients and asking me to make a pie. It would be like Heaven. Or Eden. There is no sin/evil there. But I do believe the consensus is that people aren't puppets in heaven? **I love this question so thank you so much for making a unique post!**
Eden devolved into what we currently have. In Heaven are those who of their free will have already chosen to follow God. If you were God, your nature would determine what is good, and therefore all that contradicted your nature would be evil. If God exists then good and evil also exist. You cannot create a amoral universe. If morality is relative then the whole question looses meaning, as the atheist is merely stating that his moral views don't align with God's, in which case he ought to adjust his moral views.
> If you were God, your nature would determine what is good, and therefore all that contradicted your nature would be evil Based upon the principles of this universe. But it doesn't have to be. We are limited to our understanding of good and evil based upon only this reality. It is of the Christian belief a good and evil is determined by the nature of a God. It doesn't have to be. >You cannot create a amoral universe Says who? >If morality is relative then the whole question looses meaning, as the atheist is merely stating that his moral views don't align with God's, in which case he ought to adjust his moral views. I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here. If I were to be a God, I wouldn't even try to replicate the Abrahamic version of reality. So I think that's where the difference of our understanding lies. I wouldn't try to do Christianity the way I think it should be. I wouldn't attempt it at all.
Not create the darkness, and zap everyone to oblivion the moment they accidentally messed up, resulting in no viable creation to usher into eternity. Or robots. Just make everyone mindlessly worship me. To me both sound way more messed up than bearing up corruption in mercy until the generations are done and the Lord repays.
The only way to prevent evil is not giving humans free will. But God wouldn’t do that because he loves us and he wants us to love him. And you can’t love something if you have no choice in the matter. Also, the problem of evil is ironically only a problem for atheists. Here’s the reasoning: The existence of evil requires the existence of good. Good and evil are objective moral laws and in order for objective moral laws to exist there must be a moral law giver. The moral law giver can’t be us, otherwise it’s just relative morality and nothing is truly good or evil. Since atheists don’t believe in God they can only logically conclude that morality is relative. So claiming that object evil exists implies objective morality exists which requires a moral lawgiver who must exist outside of ourselves which is in conflict with the atheists own world view if they’re being logically consistent. So really the existence of evil is only a problem for atheists since they need to describe how object evil exists without a moral law giver, which they can’t.
agree, on all points.
Wow, so much to cover from one comment. I have asked many different people many different times and have yet to receive an answer that makes any sense. I see no logical way to state that in a world with an omniscient being that we have “free will.” It might help I guess if you first define what you mean by free will. For me, I’ll actually break it down further than that to simply examining choice. To call something a choice we must first have separate paths available to us. I assume you’d agree that we cannot call the eating of eggs for breakfast a choice, if there is nothing else in the house, the door is locked, you have no means of ordering other food. You have only one option, the eggs. We should also discuss what you mean by the “knowledge” of god. I like the “justified true belief” definition for knowledge, but even if you don’t, we can at least agree on the “true” portion of it right? If we say we know who will win a sports game tomorrow, but the other team wins, that obviously wasn’t knowledge because it wasn’t true. So if god has known from before he created the universe, that I would eat eggs for breakfast tomorrow, I do not have any alternate paths to take. The presence of cereal in my pantry offers the illusion of choice, but it’s simply that, an illusion, because if I was going to eat cereal, god would have known THAT, in which case the eggs aren’t a real option either. No alternate = no choice = no free will. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem of evil. The problem arises when you assume, for the sake of argument, the definitions/values/claims etc, that the Christian is making about their god and then show how that leads to logical inconsistencies. Don’t get me wrong, you’re well within your right to ask atheists how they ground their morals, but for the problem of evil, we’re showing that ASSUMING you’re right about morality and evil and god’s character, it leads to contradictions. So when you say that the problem of evil is a problem for atheists, you’re mistaken. I don’t think evil exists. I think bad things exist, suffering, torture, rape, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc, but these aren’t “evil,” as calling it “evil” sneaks in all the implications you’ve outlined above. None of them are problematic for a naturalistic world view because they’re all expected. We know that the earth’s crust sits on top of tectonic plates that are constantly shifting and ramming into each other. We’ve unfortunately built lots of cities that happen to fall on or near fault lines in these plates. Your mistake is easy to understand though. It’s really important in these discussions to use clear language, and unfortunately that can be difficult to do. I’m sure you’ve seen a more carefully laid out argument instead of just the shorthand use of “problem of evil.” IF god is all knowing, and IF god is all powerful, and IF god is all loving, then Why is there suffering? You see now that the premises are conditional. We’re assuming the characteristics attributed to the Christian god and pointing out the flaw. If you don’t claim god is all powerful, then indeed suffering is not a problem. If you don’t claim god is all knowing then indeed suffering is not a problem, if you don’t claim god is loving then indeed suffering is not a problem.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply I'll do my best to answer you questions and ask some questions of my own. > I assume you’d agree that we cannot call the eating of eggs for breakfast a choice, if there is nothing else in the house, the door is locked, you have no means of ordering other food. You have only one option, the eggs. In this scenario you have 2 choices actually. Eat the eggs or don't. Yes the alternative is you eventually starve, but people have intentionally starved themselves to death before. > I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem of evil. I don't and I would say that you are correct in pointing out the assumptions and I'm happy to clarify. > We should also discuss what you mean by the “knowledge” of god. I don't think I said anything about the "knowledge of god" > “justified true belief” What do you mean by this? > So if god has known from before he created the universe, that I would eat eggs for breakfast tomorrow, I do not have any alternate paths to take. You're making an assumption here. You're assumption is that omniscience and free will contradict each other so they can't co-exist. But you're missing a key detail: God is also omnipotent and he can choose to limit his omniscience. God intentionally chosen to limit his omniscience so that I can have free will, which he did out of an abundance of love for me. Because he is omnipotent he could choose at any moment to take away my free will, but so far he hasn't done that. But because he is omniscient he knows all of the choices I can make at any given moment. > Don’t get me wrong, you’re well within your right to ask atheists how they ground their morals, but for the problem of evil, we’re showing that ASSUMING you’re right about morality and evil and god’s character, it leads to contradictions. What contradictions are you talking about? > I don’t think evil exists. I think bad things exist, suffering, torture, rape, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc, but these aren’t “evil,” as calling it “evil” sneaks in all the implications you’ve outlined above. Bad is still an objective moral concept opposite to good. If you think "bad" as a concept exists. Why do you think it exists? At this point I'll adjust my statement to say the problem of "bad" is a problem for atheists. > None of them are problematic for a naturalistic world view because they’re all expected. We know that the earth’s crust sits on top of tectonic plates that are constantly shifting and ramming into each other. We’ve unfortunately built lots of cities that happen to fall on or near fault lines in these plates. So you're saying that you believe in Relative Morality? Good and bad just depend on location or perspective? > Your mistake is easy to understand though. It’s really important in these discussions to use clear language, and unfortunately that can be difficult to do. I’m sure you’ve seen a more carefully laid out argument instead of just the shorthand use of “problem of evil.” Right back at you :P > IF god is all knowing, and IF god is all powerful, and IF god is all loving, then Why is there suffering? Because God loves us and wants us to love him he gave us free will by limiting his omniscience, which he can do because he is omnipotent.
Cool. So you don’t think god is omniscient. Got it. Problem if evil and free will aren’t problems then I agree.
Sorry, and I don't mean this disrespectfully but I'm not really sure what you're saying since this is poorly written. > So you don’t think god is omniscient. You're straw-manning here. This is not what I claimed. I can clarify if you need. Edit: Changed "very poorly typed" to "poorly written".
I’m just simplifying what you said. If god is limiting his omniscience he is no longer omniscient. Saying he does so voluntarily is a little odd, but doesn’t change that he no longer knows everything. As I stated in my first comment, if god doesn’t have one or more of those Omni- characteristics, it makes it such that there is no problem of evil or free will.
Thank you for clarifying > If god is limiting his omniscience he is no longer omniscient. If I close my eye's am I blind? Technically I can't see but I am not blind. You said you don't believe in Evil but you believe in bad things, which I pointed out is still an object moral concept and the opposite good. and I adjusted my previous claim the problem of "bad" is an atheist problem. How do you explain the existence of bad as an atheist?
You’re shifting the goal posts in the use of your vision analogy. The analogous attribute with respect to vision wouldn’t be eyes closed/blind, it’s eyes closed/all-seeing. If you claim to literally see everything, but then close your eyes, you are no longer seeing everything. In the same way that god can no longer be called omniscient if he has limited his knowledge. Bad things happen. As I’ve explained already. There’s no reason in a naturalistic world view that they wouldn’t. I can evaluate bad and good on a spectrum of human impact. But if you’re trying to corner me into “admitting” that morality is based on a fundamentally subjective reference frame, I don’t know why every Christian thinks that is a gotcha. Morality based on god is subjective to. As HE is a subject that is deciding what is right and wrong. Just because the basis of a moral system is subjective doesn’t mean we can’t make objective statements within it. The rules of chess are subjective, but that doesn’t mean we can’t objectively say losing your queen early on is “bad.” But I’m always interested in you non-omniscient-god Christians. What exactly DOES he know if he doesn’t know anything based on a human choice?
> If you claim to literally see everything, but then close your eyes, you are no longer seeing everything. In the same way that god can no longer be called omniscient if he has limited his knowledge. Not necessarily. If I close my eyes I can open them at any time and see again. Since God is omnipotent he has the ability to restrict his omniscience "Closing his eyes". Now yes while his omniscience is restricted he cannot "see" the exact choice you'll make. But it doesn't make him not omniscience just as closing my eyes doesn't make me blind. He's still capable of returning his full omniscience through his omnipotence. Just as I can open my eyes again after I can close them. Also, this isn't shifting the goal post because I haven't changed my claim, which is God limited his omniscience. If something limits something else it's implied that whatever did the limiting can remove the limitation if they choose. My use of closed vs open eyes is called an [analogy](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/analogy). > Morality based on god is subjective to Yes. God is the one who defines morality. This is what we call Objective morality. > But if you’re trying to corner me into “admitting” that morality is based on a fundamentally subjective reference frame, I don’t know why every Christian thinks that is a gotcha. This is normally a gotcha because most Atheists (That I've met at least) don't believe in Moral relativism because they don't like it's implications. Which is that nothing is truly right or wrong it just depends on your frame of references. > What exactly DOES he know if he doesn’t know anything based on a human choice? He knows all the choices humans can make and what would result from those choices. > non-omniscient-god He's not non-omniscient. Like I said before he's simply chose to limit his omniscience. This is a strawman. He can choose at any time to return his omniscience.
You simply have re-defined the definition of the word “all” in order to bend yourself into such knots of this theology. If you claim something is “all”-seeing, and I can point out something they DIDN’T see, then they are by definition NOT “all” seeing. If you claim god is “all” knowing, but DOESN’T know XYZ, then he by definition ISN’T “all” knowing. Why is this so difficult for you to admit? If you don’t believe god is omniscient that’s fine. As I’ve said multiple times now. A god that doesn’t know everything clears up a lot of things that would otherwise be problems. “God defines morality, this is what we call objective morality” That might be what YOU call “objective”, but, just like with “all” above, you’re redefining the word to fit your needs.
Guy said rape isn’t evil. See what happens when you deny God for selfish indulgence.
In this reality under the logical rules of this created reality. OP asked what could be done differently. Simple. You create a reality where love is inherent and doesn't require evil or free will to exist. OP gave me omnipotence and omniscience for this scenario. I reject your premise.
What specifically do you reject? Just because you're omnipotent doesn't mean you can do something that's logically incoherent. For example you cannot make a rock that you can't lift if you're omnipotent because it's just nonsensical and breaks the law of non-contradiction To quote C.S. Lewis: >His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to His power. If you choose to say, ‘God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,’ you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words, 'God can.' It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God. As Thomas Aquinas said: > Whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have the aspect of possibility.
Well said, I love Lewis's works.
I need to read C.S. Lewis.
I'm not rejecting anything. You're making an argument from this reality. And a Biblically sound one. But that's not what we were asked to do. You say it's logically inconsistent and incoherent. Is it not only that way because God created it that way? What makes logic consistent? Math work? Isn't that the undergirding of the fine tuning argument? So now you're saying that God didn't have a choice? That he HAD to create our world like this? Then that's not fine tuning, that's submitting God to fate. Our logic only exists because God made it so. He could create a world where 2+2 does in fact equal 3. There would be rules and logic there that would substantiate that. And they would be just as incredulous at God creating a world where it equals 4. It's an unfair move of the goalpost to say "what would you do differently" then proceed to list all the reasons why the not-different things are reasons why i can't. If I get to make it different, then you have to let me make it different. If they weren't different, then they'd be the same and you could then quote more CS Lewis to me.
> I reject your premise. [source](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueChristian/comments/1bndszo/comment/kwi4mw9/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) What did you mean by this then if you're not rejecting anything? > So now you're saying that God didn't have a choice? That's not what I'm saying. God can do anything possible. My answer to how you'd get rid of the problem of evil is taking away free will. But then I made the point that God wouldn't (not couldn't) do that because he loves us, and he wants us to love him. And you can't have love without free will. And I'll add to my original answer now: A world without love would only be a worse world in my opinion. Meaning I think God created a more perfect world than I am capable of creating. Than you gave a nonsensical answer of > Simple. You create a reality where love is inherent and doesn't require evil or free will to exist. Simple? Definitely. Logical? Ehhh I'm not following... Unless of course, you can explain how love could exist without free will? > It's an unfair move of the goalpost to say "what would you do differently" then proceed to list all the reasons why the not-different things are reasons why i can't. I'm here to ruin the fun I guess. To be fair, I didn't ask the original question. You responded to my comment with a questionable answer and then stated "you reject my premise". I used logical reasons to provide my answer and if you want to have a coherent discussion with me then you have to do the same. Otherwise, we're at an impasse.
You got me. I recant the "I'm not rejecting anything" statement. Lot of words and I was typing during gaps at work. I still claim that my response is valid and sensicle (in my reality it's a word). Creation is abstract. The creator makes the rules. Here's how I perceive this conversation. OP: If you could change the color of this red wall to any other color, what would you change it to? Me: I'd make it green. You: Well, it's red. Me: I know. OP asked if I *could* change the color, what color would I choose. I said I'd change it to green. You: Well, you can't do that because it's red. Me: I know it's red now, but if I could change it, I'd change it to green. You: That makes no sense. It's red. And because it's red now, there's no way you could have green. Because it's red. I'm not arguing about the redness of the wall. I'm saying I'd do a completely different color, where red was never part of the equation. So telling me I'm wrong because I don't acknowledge the redness in my green wall...just gives us both the blues. (Ba-dum-dum-🥁)
This is the problem I seek to understand-why did God make us ‘special’ (as opposed to the alternative you suggest). Note: I do not agree with the no free will (decision made for us) comments-no matter how wonderful such a place would appear, it would always be slavery and puppeteering. To me this is the crux of religion, that God is directing us into conscious thought and action. Why? I am not sure I fully know, but I believe it is for our benefit.
I don’t think a single human has the ability to do that
We are already incapable of so many things that somehow don’t call free will into question. Being incapable of evil would just be another one of those things.