"God either wants to eliminate bad things and cannot, or can but does not want to, or neither wishes to nor can, or both wants to and can. If he wants to and cannot, he is weak -- and this does not apply to god. If he can but does not want to, then he is spiteful -- which is equally foreign to god's nature. If he neither wants to nor can, he is both weak and spiteful and so not a god. If he wants to and can, which is the only thing fitting for a god, where then do bad things come from? Or why does he not eliminate them?"--Epicurus

Discuss.

issues of good and bad are only issues to us humans. In god's mind, there is no good or bad to a situation, there only is the situation itself.

God does what he does and we all try to make sense of it in our own words.

"God either wants to eliminate bad things and cannot, or can but does not want to, or neither wishes to nor can, or both wants to and can. If he wants to and cannot, he is weak -- and this does not apply to god. If he can but does not want to, then he is spiteful -- which is equally foreign to god's nature. If he neither wants to nor can, he is both weak and spiteful and so not a god. If he wants to and can, which is the only thing fitting for a god, where then do bad things come from? Or why does he not eliminate them?"--Epicurus

Discuss.

You confine your arguments into two posabilities. But you should know there are other posabilities.

God wants to eliminate bad things, eventualy but is willing to allow bad things to go one untill the time is right to put an end to the bad things. God has an eternal plan and all human history is as a blink of the eye in comparrison.

Romans 9
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Revelation 6
9 When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held. 10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” 11 Then a white robe was given to each of them; and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer, until both the number of their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they were, was completed.

Things have to be completed first. All is going to plan. Your Epicurus is like a little brat having a temper tantrum because he wants his mom to buy the chocolate bar in the shop isle NOW :mad:


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

God wants to eliminate bad things, eventualy but is willing to allow bad things to go one untill the time is right to put an end to the bad things.

How convenient. Isn't it funny how the existence of god is a heck of a lot like the non-existence of god?

How convenient. Isn't it funny how the existence of god is a heck of a lot like the non-existence of god?

problem is, none of us really know what god is, so god could be (and probably is) the most obvious thing in the universe. But we just don't know it because we're looking for something else.

Things have to be completed first. All is going to plan. Your Epicurus is like a little brat having a temper tantrum because he wants his mom to buy the chocolate bar in the shop isle NOW

Actually, Epicurus was a Greek, so he wasn't considering the God of the bible. Also, he didn't deny the existence of God/gods, and he wasn't complaining about the existence of bad things. He was merely posing the question.

How convenient. Isn't it funny how the existence of god is a heck of a lot like the non-existence of god?

Yes. It's quite amusing actually, but not for the reasons you think.

Also, in order to consider the paradox as a paradox, i.e. engage in this discussion in a meaningful way, one must first accept as a basic premise that God/gods exist. Otherwise, there is no paradox.

I like Roy Lennigan's responses the most right now, actually, but of course that's because I lean (on my theistic days) towards the idea that God is not a person, with a will, and intentions, etc...

They're all good though. Continue.

Bad and good is relative.
A BBQ is good for you and me, but bad for a cow or a chicken.

Is morality relative? Yes, I would say morality is relative. It's subjective. It depends on who you are, what is "good" and what is "bad". This is quite obvious, from the earliest age people know it, despite other's attempts to force an absolute morality upon them.

However, this does not imply that there is no morality. A thing being subjective does not mean it is non-existent. Nothing about the word "subjective" implies that a thing which holds this quality does not exist, it merely means it is subject to change. I think that people have a tendency to feel that, if something is not absolute, it either doesn't exist or is inconsequential.

This paradox does not eliminate the notions of good and bad, because the fact remains that to some people bad things are happening. I think that stating morality is relative does nothing to eliminate the paradox.

Actually, if you read Gordon's post about free will in this thread--->http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=57747#post1143722, I feel that it is a good explanation of how evil can occur in the world even though God does not want it.

But then the same action might be good for one person and bad for another. How could God chose a course of action that benefits both?

If he can but does not want to, then he is spiteful -- which is equally foreign to god's nature.

So, I'm saying manipulating events could be within God's power, but if he doesn't, it might not spiteful, but rather because the choice isn't between good and evil; it's between what's good for one and what's good for another. In either case, he would have to create badness for someone, so he avoids chosing.

Also, what might be considered subjectively bad by someone could prove beneficial for a larger number of creatures in the future. For example, the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs, was that good or bad? It was good for us, but bad for the dinosaurs. If he prevented it, he would help the dinosaurs, but prevent the humans from forming. It may be impossible to make choices that are always good for every party effected, and it may have nothing to do with spite.

I would argue that the Riddle of Epicurus is the single most effective argument in the history of philosophical thought, besides maybe Aristotle's proofs of the first principles or Plato's justification for the capacity for knowledge to exist.

Moreover, here is why the "argument from free-will" fails miserably:

1. A perfect being must value perfect goodness above all else.
2. Free-will is not perfectly good as it causes evil.
3. Hence, a perfect being must value perfect goodness above and beyond free-will.

Similarly:

1. A perfect good being must act towards perfect goodness at all times.
2. Incidents of evil act against perfect good.
3. Thus a perfect good being must act against all evil.

Also, if anyone would care to respond from the idea that "God wants us to be good because we want to be good", I shall ask whether or not you think this is reasonable:

God wants us to wear jackets because we are cold, not because he made us. Thus he made jackets, when it was perfectly within his scope to simply not create cold.

Oh, and to show that free-will and God are not incompatible:

1. God is perfectly good.
2. God is perfectly free.
3. Thus perfect goodness and perfect freedom are not incompatible.

1. A perfect being must value perfect goodness above all else.

Why? Please explain.

Jaster Mereel:

I should have clarified it as saying "a perfect being which has the attribute of perfect goodness", like I did with "a perfectly good being" later on.

If that was your critique, then sorry about that. A slip up on my part.

Jaster Mereel:

I should have clarified it as saying "a perfect being which has the attribute of perfect goodness", like I did with "a perfectly good being" later on.

If that was your critique, then sorry about that. A slip up on my part.

Nope. All I needed was clarification. Thanks.

How convenient. Isn't it funny how the existence of god is a heck of a lot like the non-existence of god?

Yes. In that way only those who love the truth will come to it and those who love something else have their justification not to come to the truth.

God is very wise and has made it this way. to give those who hate Him as way to claim plausible denial so that they will not be saved and they can be condemned those who love unrighteousness.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

"God either wants to eliminate bad things and cannot, or can but does not want to, or neither wishes to nor can, or both wants to and can. If he wants to and cannot, he is weak -- and this does not apply to god. If he can but does not want to, then he is spiteful -- which is equally foreign to god's nature. If he neither wants to nor can, he is both weak and spiteful and so not a god. If he wants to and can, which is the only thing fitting for a god, where then do bad things come from? Or why does he not eliminate them?"--Epicurus
Discuss.
This argument is akin to the idea that if aliens come to earth they will be peaceful because their advanced technology implies an "advanced" culture. Complete BS.

What makes a god a god? Power. God created the universe. He did it for reasons of his own. Different religions have different ideas about him, but the fact that a being has the power to create the universe says nothing about his motives or his intentions {if any} regarding mankind.

Ya, ok. It's not my quote. Take it up with Epicurus. Wait. He's dead. I just wanted to watch the discussion.

Well the obvious point of rebuttal is how is it possible fo free will to exist without the possability of making the right and wrong decisions - in other words is the ultimate relationship between god and the living entity one where god is the servant and must eternally wrestle hammers out of our hands so that we don't perform the "evil" of hitting ourselves in the head in order to prove that he is good, or is the experience of temporary suffering in the material world sufficient to socialize us around the proper foundations of eternal spiritual life evidence of his goodness?

is the experience of temporary suffering in the material world sufficient to socialize us around the proper foundations of eternal spiritual life evidence of his goodness?
Well said. I made the same argument in a different thread, but didn't say it as well.

See my "Argument from Winter Jackets" for a point on whether God could reasonably want us to "learn to be good".

Also note: If learning to be good is good, then God lacks a perfection, for he is held to be innately good.

See my "Argument from Winter Jackets" for a point on whether God could reasonably want us to "learn to be good".

Also note: If learning to be good is good, then God lacks a perfection, for he is held to be innately good.

Its not so much about teaching us to be good but enabling us to forget being stupid

:D

I never saw the point, to worship a god, except to suppose that the god knows better than we do, beyond our present comprehension.

As soon as they presume to second guess the god it is idolatry that they question, not theism.

--- Ron.

I guess it stems from a supriority complex that got us innvolved in the whole thing of material life to begin with "OK we will accept god but only if he just the same or perhaps a little bit better than us"

Who would want to worship a personality who fits such a job description?

Is good an innate condition of the universe, or can it only be recognized when contrasted with something that is not good?

perplexity:

"I don't see the problem, nor on what basis one would reasonably presume to judge "perfection"."

The logically highest expression of an attribute that admits, or is purported to admit, of such.

"How else should a god choose to amuse herself?"

Amusement entails a want. A perfect being cannot want.

LightGigantic:

"Its not so much about teaching us to be good but enabling us to forget being stupid"

Then if it is held that learning to be not be stupid is good, then God who has always been not-stupid, lacks the perfection of being made excellent.

Baumgarten:

"Is good an innate condition of the universe, or can it only be recognized when contrasted with something that is not good?"

In so much as we admit of neutral moral states, or "less than opitimal, but still good" moral states, we presume that the scale needn't switch to "absolute evil" in order to be satisfied for morality. The only difference is that good would not be held to be as extremely beneficial, as neutrality is not as offensive as evil.

On a few occasions when extremely depressed I prayed to God for help, and the very next day the Jehovah's Witnesses came to knock at my door.
Seriously, that actually happened.
For the first couple of times I put it down to coincidence but then I saw the joke:
This was God's way, in effect, to tell me to be an atheist, that I should have been old enough to look after myself,
so from then on that is how I played it.
--- Ron.
One day I was on the way to school driving about sixty miles an hour on an expressway. I hit a patch of ice and began spinning around. I somehow managed to stay on the road, despite the fact that this part of the road had a steep curve, I also avoided hitting any other vehicles. I came to rest with a gentle bump against an overpass. Relieved, I turned around to look at the overpass and saw the words right above where my vehicle had made a miraculously gentle stop, "Trust Jesus".

Baumgarten:

"Is good an innate condition of the universe, or can it only be recognized when contrasted with something that is not good?"

In so much as we admit of neutral moral states, or "less than opitimal, but still good" moral states, we presume that the scale needn't switch to "absolute evil" in order to be satisfied for morality. The only difference is that good would not be held to be as extremely beneficial, as neutrality is not as offensive as evil.
But what is "absolute evil?" If there only existed a relatively "neutral" (as compared to our current concept of evil) level of morality at the extreme below good, then would we still see it as neutral? If we could not conceive of a morality less than this neutral level, would we then not see it as the absolute worst possible? This could be the case now, and we would not know it.

Oh, and to show that free-will and God are not incompatible:

1. God is perfectly good.
2. God is perfectly free.
3. Thus perfect goodness and perfect freedom are not incompatible.

That has to be the weakest argument of all time. Nothing follows from your givens, except that you have given them.

How about:

1. God loves pigs.
2. God loves things that can fly.
3. Thus pigs can fly.

You have no middle term, and yet you are treating your formulation as if it is a syllogism of sorts. It isn't. It is two facts that you made up, followed by another statement that combines and sums of those facts, with no clue as to how you logically got from the former to the latter.

Why don't you solve another conundrum by saying:

1. God can do all things
2. God is not evil
3. Thus there is no paradox, God is omnipotent AND benevolent.

Paradox solved, eh? :bugeye:

On a few occasions when extremely depressed I prayed to God for help, and the very next day the Jehovah's Witnesses came to knock at my door.
Seriously, that actually happened.
For the first couple of times I put it down to coincidence but then I saw the joke:
This was God's way, in effect, to tell me to be an atheist, that I should have been old enough to look after myself,
so from then on that is how I played it.

--- Ron.

That is how I see it too.

I fail to see why we cannot, as rational humans be responsible for our own actions, without looking for someone else to take responsibility and magically solve all the problems we create or ignore.

"Its not so much about teaching us to be good but enabling us to forget being stupid"

Then if it is held that learning to be not be stupid is good, then God who has always been not-stupid, lacks the perfection of being made excellent.
But its not god that needs to learn it

SB 10.88.5: Lord Hari, however, has no connection with the material modes. He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the all-seeing eternal witness, who is transcendental to material nature. One who worships Him becomes similarly free from the material modes.

The qualities of god (ie freedom from ignorance, or as said here, the modes of nature) are exhibited by the persons who take shelter of him -

Once again it is not so much about acquiring something through learning but of relinquishing something (a stupid outlook on life)

That is how I see it too.

I fail to see why we cannot, as rational humans be responsible for our own actions, without looking for someone else to take responsibility and magically solve all the problems we create or ignore.

No matter how much we try and pretend that we are dull matter it never seems to be quite the case

baumgarten:

"But what is "absolute evil?" If there only existed a relatively "neutral" (as compared to our current concept of evil) level of morality at the extreme below good, then would we still see it as neutral? If we could not conceive of a morality less than this neutral level, would we then not see it as the absolute worst possible? This could be the case now, and we would not know it."

That is an intriguing point, actually. However, I would counter it through this consideration: Evil always has an aspect of making things worse than they would be, whereas neutrality is simply without it being particularly good and bad. If the character of the neutral moral object in question did not change, then its "not particularly good or bad" aspect would be retained.

swivel:

"That has to be the weakest argument of all time. Nothing follows from your givens, except that you have given them."

You did not realize that I took those ideas as axioms because they are used in the arguments of omnibenevolent theists. In essence: If God can have those things, then it stands to reason that freedom is not against pure good or the "argument from free will" to keep omnibenevolence is erroneous.

LightGigantic:

"But its not god that needs to learn it"

Then if such is good, then God is depriving something else of something good, which is evil.

Prince James

"But its not god that needs to learn it"

Then if such is good, then God is depriving something else of something good, which is evil.

Your saying that you feel deprived of the opportunity to practice spiritual life -lol - on the contrary most atheists seem to complain that there is too much canvasing going on

Lightgigantic:

"Your saying that you feel deprived of the opportunity to practice spiritual life -lol - on the contrary most atheists seem to complain that there is too much canvasing going on "

An amusing comment, actually, but yes, if it is supposed to be good, a perfectly good being must force one to participate in it, lest it not value goodness above all else.

perplexity:

"Do you think it is therefore reasonable to construe that proud people,
those who make a point of not wanting, would thereby attempt to be perfect?"

Considering the prideful consider themselves perfect and indeed, pride's aim is to be perfect, then the desire to have no wanting is indeed somewhat connected to this idea of perfection. Prideful people, of course, are evidently -not- perfect, but in so much as they are prideful, they both think they are, and attempt to be so. So yes, self-sufficiency does indeed seem to be an aspect of perfection. For does not all want imply a lack? And all lack an imperfection?

Prince James

"Your saying that you feel deprived of the opportunity to practice spiritual life -lol - on the contrary most atheists seem to complain that there is too much canvasing going on "

An amusing comment, actually, but yes, if it is supposed to be good, a perfectly good being must force one to participate in it, lest it not value goodness above all else.

well in one sense you are forced - like you are forced to suffer insatiable desires and die in the process of fulfilling them in the material world for as long as you don't participate in spiritual "goodness" - if that is not beating us with a stick to force us to do something I don't know what is - of course the level of force depends on the party being innvolved (namely their intelligence)- for instance a school teacher can achieve on e result merely by raising their eyebrows that a buffalo herdsman cannot achieve with a large stick and clods of dirt

Your translation of the quote is a newer one, and i think it's a bit skewed.
Here is an older translation, which I feel is closer to the original:

If god is willing to prevent evil but is not able, he is NOT omnipotent.
If he is able but not willing, he is malevolent.
If he is both able and willing, then why does evil exist?
If he is neither able nor willing, then why should we call him God?

I'LL TAKE THEM IN REVERSE - because the last has the shortest reply:

#4) If "neither" able or willing? Answer: we should not call him god.

#3) If both? Answer: someone addressed why evil exists assuming you believe god is good; i disagree because I disbelieve in most versions of god. I believe if that type of God existed then evil would not exist. Therefore that sort of God does not exist.

Which leaves some implied questions:
#2) If he is able to prevent evil but not willing, he is malevolent.
Q: is this a false assumtion. Maybe god is indifferent. Maybe God enjoys seeing what we do with free will. (Many points can be argued on "maybe" issues.)
which leads to Q: SO WHY SHOULD WE WORSHIP HIM? Answer: we should not! Or if we do worship "it", we should not assume God is always a Benevolent being, or that it's always omnipotent, or even assume that it is a "him".

#1) If he is willing but is not able, he is NOT omnipotent.
Q: So why do most religions insist God is omnipotent, and demand obedience to the point of putting everyone in religious bondage. If it is wrong for a man to have slaves then it is wrong for a god (or a church). When religions insist "God can do no wrong",(and by implication their Church can do no wrong) maybe it's because THEY want power, and THEY want slaves. Why do religious leaders howl about their authority so long and loud, and demand that everyone pretends the church knows what God is thinking.
THE ANSWER IS: they have no right, and we should not buy into it. (For those who are Christian -somewhere in your bible it says something about hiding in a closet to pray rather than making a public spectacle of yourself.) A good idea in those writings does not prove the Church is omnipotent, nor does it prove God is.
Most religous problems come from those who use GOD as a bogeyman - to gain earthly power. Solution: deny them the power.
I will leave you with another quote:

Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind,
making it unfit for any noble enterprise or expanded prospect.
– James Madison

how is it possible fo free will to exist without the possability of making the right and wrong decisions

Very easily lg, although it seems god just wasn't smart enough to figure it out.

There are some people right now that choose only to do good, to worship gods and to do all the things that please these beings. These people are using their free will.

There are some other people right now that choose to do bad, to ignore gods and to do whatever displeases these beings. These people are using their free will.


Solution: Just create the former people. You can't argue that they don't have free will, we've already established that they do - they used it to do good.

Don't create the latter people and you have a planet full of people with free will that choose to do good.

Problem solved. Free will exists, nobody does bad.

"God either wants to eliminate bad things and cannot, or can but does not want to, or neither wishes to nor can, or both wants to and can. If he wants to and cannot, he is weak -- and this does not apply to god. If he can but does not want to, then he is spiteful -- which is equally foreign to god's nature. If he neither wants to nor can, he is both weak and spiteful and so not a god. If he wants to and can, which is the only thing fitting for a god, where then do bad things come from? Or why does he not eliminate them?"--Epicurus

Discuss.

This whole reasoning is dependant on the assumption that if God wanted to put an end to bad things He would do it immediately.

But what if for the greater good God was prepared to put up with bad things for a time until the greater Good would be fulfilled.

Where God is concerned the End does Justify the means.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Very easily lg, although it seems god just wasn't smart enough to figure it out.

There are some people right now that choose only to do good, to worship gods and to do all the things that please these beings. These people are using their free will.

There are some other people right now that choose to do bad, to ignore gods and to do whatever displeases these beings. These people are using their free will.


Solution: Just create the former people. You can't argue that they don't have free will, we've already established that they do - they used it to do good.

Don't create the latter people and you have a planet full of people with free will that choose to do good.

Problem solved. Free will exists, nobody does bad.
so in other words don't create people with free will

:scratchin:

so in other words don't create people with free will


What? The only way that stands is if you argue that free will itself is non existent.

You have free will, you chose it to do nothing but good. If only you were created your free will still exists. If you say no, you're going to end up with a serious dilemma. Take some time to think about it.

What? The only way that stands is if you argue that free will itself is non existent.
actually that is the basis of your argument

You have free will, you chose it to do nothing but good.
so run it by me again how you propose that god only create people who perform good
:scratchin:

If only you were created your free will still exists. If you say no, you're going to end up with a serious dilemma. Take some time to think about it.
ok to cut to the chase, how could a person who is created to only perform good actually be termed "good" - IOW how does one define issues of morality (good/bad) without having recourse to free will?
needless to say, many philosophers have taken time to think about this issue already ....

so run it by me again how you propose that god only create people who perform good

Ok, you're struggling.

1) You have free will.. Yes or no?

2) If you happened to be the only person in existence would you still have that free will? Yes or no?

3) If you chose to do only good, have you used your free will? Yes or no?

4) If you take question 2 and add a few more billion people and then combine that with 1 and 3 you have a world populated by people with free will that all chose to do good.

Simple really, I don't see why you're struggling.

ok to cut to the chase, how could a person who is created to only perform good actually be termed "good"

They can't, now I see where the problem lies.

You weren't created only to perform good, but you choose to using your free will. Therefore you're good and have free will.

Snakelord
“
so run it by me again how you propose that god only create people who perform good
”
Ok, you're struggling.

1) You have free will.. Yes or no?
yes

2) If you happened to be the only person in existence would you still have that free will? Yes or no?
yes

3) If you chose to do only good, have you used your free will? Yes or no?
yes, but because I have free will, I could choose not to sometime in the future

4) If you take question 2 and add a few more billion people and then combine that with 1 and 3 you have a world populated by people with free will that all chose to do good.
and if you examine 3 you will see that they could also choose to not do good in the future -provided of course that they actually had free will in the first place

Simple really, I don't see why you're struggling.
I don't see why you are using the word "free-will" when you are obviously indicating something else

“
ok to cut to the chase, how could a person who is created to only perform good actually be termed "good"
”
They can't, now I see where the problem lies.

You weren't created only to perform good, but you choose to using your free will. Therefore you're good and have free will.
yes
goodness (or badness) is contingent on free will

yes, but because I have free will, I could choose not to sometime in the future

Most certainly.

and if you examine 3 you will see that they could also choose to not do good in the future -provided of course that they actually had free will in the first place

Most certainly.

I don't see why you are using the word "free-will" when you are obviously indicating something else

It's unclear where such a conclusion comes from. Nowhere was it stated or implied that these people could not choose to do bad, simply that they chose not to.

Most certainly.



Most certainly.



It's unclear where such a conclusion comes from. Nowhere was it stated or implied that these people could not choose to do bad, simply that they chose not to.
then its not clear why you are arguing that the simple solution is to only create people who perform good acts

There are some people right now that choose only to do good, to worship gods and to do all the things that please these beings. These people are using their free will.

There are some other people right now that choose to do bad, to ignore gods and to do whatever displeases these beings. These people are using their free will.


Solution: Just create the former people. You can't argue that they don't have free will, we've already established that they do - they used it to do good.

:wtf: :confused: :shrug:

then its not clear why you are arguing that the simple solution is to only create people who perform good acts


It should be.. Obviously I have lost you.. Let me try this another way..

I chose to go to the pub, (pub A) tonight using my free will. There were 100 people there that also chose to go to the same pub using their free will.

The pub down the road, (pub B) also had 100 people that used their free will to choose to go to that pub.

With me so far? Do you at this point concur that all 201 people used their free will?

If earlier this afternoon the 100 people that chose to go to pub B were all eliminated in some freak accident all you would be left with are 101 people that used their free will to go to pub A.

Do you at this point concur that all you have right now are 101 people that used their free will to go to pub A?

In saying: Free will still stands perfectly untouched. All the pub A occupants used their free will - none of them chose to go to pub B. That does not mean they couldn't choose to go to pub B, simply that they don't.

It's really should be quite simple to grasp, indeed I am under the distinct impression that you do understand it, you're simply stalling.

As a final attempt, I drew this just for you:

http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/3f6f146019.jpg

It should be.. Obviously I have lost you.. Let me try this another way..

I chose to go to the pub, (pub A) tonight using my free will. There were 100 people there that also chose to go to the same pub using their free will.

The pub down the road, (pub B) also had 100 people that used their free will to choose to go to that pub.

With me so far? Do you at this point concur that all 201 people used their free will?

If earlier this afternoon the 100 people that chose to go to pub B were all eliminated in some freak accident all you would be left with are 101 people that used their free will to go to pub A.

Do you at this point concur that all you have right now are 101 people that used their free will to go to pub A?

In saying: Free will still stands perfectly untouched. All the pub A occupants used their free will - none of them chose to go to pub B. That does not mean they couldn't choose to go to pub B, simply that they don't.

It's really should be quite simple to grasp, indeed I am under the distinct impression that you do understand it, you're simply stalling.


and what do you propose happens when person A uses their free will to act like person B?

and what do you propose happens when person A uses their free will to act like person B?

There's the point, simply create people that never choose to. You're left with a wonderful perfect world full of free will.

There's the point, simply create people that never choose to. You're left with a wonderful perfect world full of free will.

the problem is that person A isn't created like that - provided of course they are created with free will

This is not a paradox. The author is making assumptions limiting the possible outcomes by assuming God is either impotent or wicked because evil exists. But that is a simplistic view.

There is a war between Satan and God. Satan has rebelled against God and taken many angels with him. Satan wants control of the Earth by having everyone follow him. But Satan doesn’t force people to follow him; he wins followers through deceit, greed, hate, pride, discouragement, power and other tools of his trade. God does not force either, winning followers through love and grace.

The key takeaway here is that this battle between good and evil is not a battle of power. It is a battle of ideas. Yes, God could simply strike down Satan and destroy evil. That does not happen because this is a war of ideas. Striking down Satan would only prove God has the power. It would not prove God is right. Herein lies the importance of free will. Choose your path. One road leads to death; the other, life.

The war between good and evil does have an end though. Eventually Satan, failing to convert all on Earth to follow him, becomes desperate and will use power instead of ideas to kill all those who oppose him. This will be the time of sorrows. That is crossing a line God will not allow. At Armageddon, God does step in and destroy evil.

the problem is that person A isn't created like that - provided of course they are created with free will

Clearly not given the theist claimed state of the world, but there's no reason it can't be with free will still perfectly intact as explained above.

Clearly not given the theist claimed state of the world, but there's no reason it can't be with free will still perfectly intact as explained above.
the theist claimed state is that everyone is created with free will - as opposed to your suggestion that some people are created with the free will to only perform bad things while other people are created with the free will to perform good things (which is just another way of saying people are created with no free will)

the theist claimed state is that everyone is created with free will - as opposed to your suggestion that some people are created with the free will to only perform bad things while other people are created with the free will to perform good things (which is just another way of saying people are created with no free will)

I can't believe you still don't understand it. Hmm..

So you're pregnant. You know your child is going to be a mass murderer. You abort. You're pregnant again.. You know your child is going to win the nobel peace prize.. You continue with your pregnancy. You didn't make your children choose their paths, you simply didn't give birth to one that was going to choose to go down a nasty path. Free will is still perfectly intact, there's no mass murderer.

Does that help?

issues of good and bad are only issues to us humans. In god's mind, there is no good or bad to a situation, there only is the situation itself.

God does what he does and we all try to make sense of it in our own words.

That's the same thing as "he neither wants nor can".. :shrug:

I can't believe you still don't understand it. Hmm..

So you're pregnant. You know your child is going to be a mass murderer. You abort. You're pregnant again.. You know your child is going to win the nobel peace prize.. You continue with your pregnancy. You didn't make your children choose their paths, you simply didn't give birth to one that was going to choose to go down a nasty path. Free will is still perfectly intact, there's no mass murderer.

Does that help?
how can a person be created with free will along with a predisposition that determines how that free will can and cannot be utilized?

how can a person be created with free will along with a predisposition that determines how that free will can and cannot be utilized?

Are you arguing that god does not know every single decision we shall ever make? Does that in any way hinder the 'choices' we make? If I 'choose' to do only good and god is aware of that prior to my existence do I therefore have no free will? I can utilize my free will in any way I choose, I simply choose to only do good. I will never ever ever choose to do anything bad, god already knows this and always has. Is that predisposed or simply knowledge of what I will do?

How is free will any less if you create 6 billion people like me that choose to only do good? Unless of course you use a relatively common atheist argument that knowledge of choice negates free will or unless you espouse that there is something unfair about the non existent not being given a choice, (:bugeye:)?

Once more for hopefully the last time: Knowing that this person will only choose to do good does not hinder his free will, it does not suggest that one "cannot utilise" that free will, it is simply prior knowledge that they wont, not that they can't. Simply leaving those that choose to do bad out of existence leaves an entire world populated by those that choose to only do good.. those who still have their free will completely intact.

Think of heaven.. It will be full of people that only choose to do good, (apparently). Is their free will negated?

how can a person be created with free will along with a predisposition that determines how that free will can and cannot be utilized?

Snakelord has created "A Clockwork Orange" scenario.

Snakelord, in case you are too young to see the movie, a guy Alex who always chooses evil is eventually caught by the police. They choose to "cure" him of his evil ways by brainwashing him: forcing him to watch violent movies clamping his eyes open and giving him drugs that make him feel horrible - thus programming him to get violently ill any time he chooses to do violence.

Unfortunately the movies always played Beethoven in the background so he also becomes violently ill anytime he hears Beethoven.

Your case, of creating people with free will but will only choose "good" is a case equivalent to brainwashing. What meaning does free will have if one can choose only one path?

Again, the battle between good and evil is a battle of ideas and opinion, not a battle of power. Your scenario gives no value or purpose to free will.

Are you arguing that god does not know every single decision we shall ever make?
No

Does that in any way hinder the 'choices' we make?
If your internet provider can determine what you are downloading before it gets to your hard drive, does that hinder what you choose to download?

If I 'choose' to do only good and god is aware of that prior to my existence do I therefore have no free will?
I wasn't aware that I had to argue in agreement with your idea that the living entity is not eternal

I can utilize my free will in any way I choose, I simply choose to only do good.
and the moment your sense of self is covered by ignorance (which happens quite frequently in the material world) , what you deem "good" can easily turn out to be something else

I will never ever ever choose to do anything bad, god already knows this and always has.
due to the nature of ignorance, the living entity finds it difficult to commit to mere marriage vows, what to say of eternal vows of piety

Is that predisposed or simply knowledge of what I will do?
its a mess

How is free will any less if you create 6 billion people like me that choose to only do good?
throw a bit of self induced ignorance it with the mix and it gets messy

Unless of course you use a relatively common atheist argument that knowledge of choice negates free will or unless you espouse that there is something unfair about the non existent not being given a choice, (:bugeye:)?
try again
;)

What meaning does free will have if one can choose only one path?


Not a great deal. But you're falling in to the same error as lg.. It is not the only path you can go down, it is the only path you will go down.

That's standard for every human currently in existence. You have gone down a specific path.... You chose to go to the pub last night.. You're arguing that because you took that one path the other path was not available. It was, you chose not to go down it.

As explained on my last post: gods knowledge of the path you will go down does not hinder your free will. If you suggest it does then none of us have free will anyway and thus your argument becomes moot. If you suggest it doesn't then having a bunch of people that only choose one path does not hinder their free will to choose another one.. they simply choose not to.

-----

Lg: Your post has instantly seemed to have gone off into your usual vague, quite meaningless meandering and lack of actual question answers. There are however a couple of things worth addressing.

I wasn't aware that I had to argue in agreement with your idea that the living entity is not eternal

Ultimately you don't. We have spoken before and you have stated that there are an infinite amount of like spirity entities in some spiritual realm. We, (those of us that chose to come to the material realm), are merely a miniscule drop in the ocean. Can it be stated that all those spirity entities that never choose to come to the material world still have free will? Our non existence would hinder that.... how?

what you deem "good" can easily turn out to be something else


'Good' as used relates to good as this entity sees it.

If your internet provider can determine what you are downloading before it gets to your hard drive, does that hinder what you choose to download?


No. That's the point.

Not a great deal. But you're falling in to the same error as lg.. It is not the only path you can go down, it is the only path you will go down.

That's standard for every human currently in existence. You have gone down a specific path.... You chose to go to the pub last night.. You're arguing that because you took that one path the other path was not available. It was, you chose not to go down it.

As explained on my last post: gods knowledge of the path you will go down does not hinder your free will. If you suggest it does then none of us have free will anyway and thus your argument becomes moot. If you suggest it doesn't then having a bunch of people that only choose one path does not hinder their free will to choose another one.. they simply choose not to.
your argument is just another version of "You have no free will"
:shrug:

Not a great deal. But you're falling in to the same error as lg.. It is not the only path you can go down, it is the only path you will go down.



So you at least admit now that the concept of free will does not have "a great deal" of meaning if everyone is predisposed to make only the right choice.

God wishes for people's allegiance to be freely given. If God had done something magical so that everyone always chose God over Satan, God Himself would know that he had not given people complete free choice.

If God really wanted His creations to actually love Him and appreciate what He does for them, He would have to work out this rebellion/sin problem right out in front of the whole universe, so that God's own created beings would be able to know for themselves what God is like and they would be able to choose to really serve Him.

The entire Bible is about God working with us to help us make the right choices. "I will strengthen you, Yes, I will help you, I will uphold you with My righteous right hand". (Isaiah)

So you at least admit now that the concept of free will does not have "a great deal" of meaning if everyone is predisposed to make only the right choice.

God wishes for people's allegiance to be freely given. If God had done something magical so that everyone always chose God over Satan, God Himself would know that he had not given people complete free choice.

If God really wanted His creations to actually love Him and appreciate what He does for them, He would have to work out this rebellion/sin problem right out in front of the whole universe, so that God's own created beings would be able to know for themselves what God is like and they would be able to choose to really serve Him.

The entire Bible is about God working with us to help us make the right choices. "I will strengthen you, Yes, I will help you, I will uphold you with My righteous right hand". (Isaiah)
*************
M*W: Revolvr, I'm glad you're on this forum, because it would be a sad thing to know you were here but refused to learn the truth about your religious delusions.

So you at least admit now that the concept of free will does not have "a great deal" of meaning if everyone is predisposed to make only the right choice.


Pay close attention - you have changed what was asked.

"What meaning does free will have if one can choose only one path?"

The important part is bolded. I have not anywhere in my arguments stated that these people can only, but that they will only. There is a vast difference.

You have free will, you can choose to kill your neighbour, you can choose not to kill your neighbour. The fact is that you will only ever choose one of those paths. How does my knowledge of which one of those you will choose in any way change the fact that you chose it?

Your argument is stating that if a god knows in advance what you're going to do, and if a person ever makes a specific choice then that person has no free will..

That leaves no human in existence with free will and the argument need not continue.

God wishes for people's allegiance to be freely given. If God had done something magical so that everyone always chose God over Satan, God Himself would know that he had not given people complete free choice.

Incorrect. Regardless to whether you're even born or not, god knows what choices you will make using your own free will, your "complete free choice". I for instance choose only to do good using my complete free will. god knows this. Whether anyone else ever exists or not does not change the fact that I have made that choice using my complete free will.

Take some time to actually think about it..

Its not so much about teaching us to be good but enabling us to forget being stupid

:D

In other words rejecting the ignorance of our ego (evil) to embrace our true inner nature which is part of God.
The challenge as met by figures such as Krishna, Jesus,Aset(Isis) and others---to allign ourselves with God as separate individuals while at the same time being part of the greater whole (God) and remain in that state while still dwelling in the physical universe.

This is just my take on God. Not God as a separate entity that is apart from his creation but rather the concept that God dwells within all of us as smaller portions of the same being and that all of creation everywhere is in essense part of God.
As the Ancient Egyptians would have said "From the one..came the many"

Your argument is that God could have created people who only did good, who only made the right decisions, and that would solve the problem of good vs. evil, eliminating evil, while still allowing for free will.

My argument is that yes, God could have done that. You are absolutely correct. But obviously God didn’t. The question is why?

We have free will, and with that comes the freedom to choose poorly. This I am sure we both agree. Eliminating evil by simply eliminating evil would only prove God has the power to create anything God pleases. It would not prove that good is better than evil. By giving us the choice we learn for ourselves.

You are trying to get rid of the “free will” argument against the original thesis by stating one can have free will in the absence of choice over good and evil. Your argument fails because obviously one must have free will to choose evil for evil to exist. And one could never learn to choose good over evil in the absence of evil.

The Christian belief is that there is essentially a universal war between good and evil – evil represented by Satan. The war is not won by simply eliminating evil. That doesn’t convince anybody of anything. This is a war of ideas not power.

[i] If he can but does not want to, then he is spiteful -- which is equally foreign to god's nature.

If we are separate from God as opposed to "God already resides within us"--the internal concept as opposed to the "apart from God" concept, then yes..spiteful would be accurate.

I know it seems cruel when you think of God standing by while people starve to death or are beaten and murdered or suffering in poverty but if we are indeed all already smaller bits of the greater whole (God) then the suffering or evil we experience in this tiny stretch of time would be no more than God stubbing his /her toe.

My argument is that yes, God could have done that. You are absolutely correct.

That's a start, at least you now understand the concept.

Eliminating evil by simply eliminating evil would only prove God has the power to create anything God pleases.

One could surely at this point state that theists already know god has such power, eliminating evil would merely prove omnibenevolence and make for a more peaceful world.. sort of like a heaven or something.

Your argument fails because obviously one must have free will to choose evil for evil to exist.

But as shown, they do still have that free will. They can choose to do evil but they don't.

And one could never learn to choose good over evil in the absence of evil.

Two important objections:

1) At this stage we need to then take a look at the general theist argument that all of us are born with an innate understanding of good and evil.

2) One most certainly could choose to do good in the absence of evil because life does not work in opposites but differences in relation to a standard baseline. There exists no such thing as 'hot' or 'cold'. At this stage the only thing that exists is moderate. The temperature for the first time ever actually increases. Hot now exists even though cold does not. You recognise hot because it is different to the standard, not the opposite.

One can choose to do good in the absence of evil. I would assume this to also be so in heaven otherwise all the inhabitants aren't going to be able to do anything.


The Christian belief is that there is essentially a universal war between good and evil

Yes, I saw the cartoon. "By the power of Greyskull!"

The war is not won by simply eliminating evil

He-Man would have done it if he really had the power as would any other entity that fights for the forces of good. Marduk.. there's a real god.. Saw the evil tiamat and killed the bitch. He didn't become an "evil apologist", he destroyed evil. Kindly, in your own words tell me why this god can't or wont just do away with satan and done with it. Killing satan does not prevent humans from having free will, what it does do is remove an evil entity that is quite well known for tempting and possessing humans.

If you claim this god needs to see who will or wont go to him then he needs just create the heavenly realm with those people without causing everyone else eternal damnation - because he knows every choice well in advance. Nothing changes by actually having us run through this simulation other than many people burn - an eternal torture created by that very same being.

That doesn’t convince anybody of anything.

Hell yeah it does.

Two important objections:

1) At this stage we need to then take a look at the general theist argument that all of us are born with an innate understanding of good and evil.

2) One most certainly could choose to do good in the absence of evil because life does not work in opposites but differences in relation to a standard baseline. There exists no such thing as 'hot' or 'cold'. At this stage the only thing that exists is moderate. The temperature for the first time ever actually increases. Hot now exists even though cold does not. You recognise hot because it is different to the standard, not the opposite.


1) No we don't - that is a separate thread. Irrelevant. For this discussion we only need to have an understanding that good and evil exists.

2) Oh grasshopper, with what will you measure temperature if everything is the same temperature? If everything is "moderate" how does one define a baseline? How does one even develop a temperature scale if one has knowledge of only one temperature? Grasshopper, whenever we measure anything, we measure it relative to some difference. Life does work in differences. Without difference there is no measurement, no baseline, no scale. Without evil one cannot understand good.

You aren't trying to say there is a baseline for morality are you? Or that God causes entropy to decrease?

Sorry I cannot respond to your other paragraphs - I just don't watch enough cartoons. Is this where you get your views of theology, from cartoons?

I think you are grasping at straws and arguing for the sake of argument once again. I leave you then with this one last thought for you to contemplate: I tell you most solemnly grasshopper: Better is the evil of good.

1) No we don't - that is a separate thread. Irrelevant. For this discussion we only need to have an understanding that good and evil exists.

Not irrelevant at all, for if we are all born with an innate understanding of good and evil before even witnessing the existence of good and evil then your entire argument goes down the pan. One does not need people up and about doing evil things to know it exists. If only people that chose to do good were created then they would still have free will, would only do good and yet would have knowledge of evil because they are born with that knowledge.

Irrelevant? I think not munchkin.

Grasshopper, whenever we measure anything, we measure it relative to some difference. Life does work in differences.

Munchkin, I said that in my last post.. "You recognise hot because it is different to the standard, not the opposite."

It says that you measure difference, you don't measure opposites. An eskimo does not measure the cold of his igloo by taking a trip to the bottom of a volcano. He measures differences to the norm. "Shit, it's colder than normal".

Without evil one cannot understand good.


Yes they can. Any difference to the norm in either direction gives rise to that thing without the opposite needing to exist.

Sorry I cannot respond to your other paragraphs - I just don't watch enough cartoons. Is this where you get your views of theology, from cartoons?


If it helps you actually respond to what was asked I shall remove the mention of He-Man? I mean c'mon, your best response is that you don't watch cartoons? Humour certainly isn't lost on you.

"Marduk.. there's a real god.. Saw the evil tiamat and killed the bitch. He didn't become an "evil apologist", he destroyed evil. Kindly, in your own words tell me why this god can't or wont just do away with satan and done with it. Killing satan does not prevent humans from having free will, what it does do is remove an evil entity that is quite well known for tempting and possessing humans.

If you claim this god needs to see who will or wont go to him then he needs just create the heavenly realm with those people without causing everyone else eternal damnation - because he knows every choice well in advance. Nothing changes by actually having us run through this simulation other than many people burn - an eternal torture created by that very same being."

There you go, cartoon reference removed. Can you respond to it now?

P.S Listen carefully munchkin, my name ain't grasshopper.

*************
M*W: Revolvr, I'm glad you're on this forum, because it would be a sad thing to know you were here but refused to learn the truth about your religious delusions.

as opposed to your blissful atheistic takes on religion, huh?
:p

as opposed to your blissful atheistic takes on religion, huh? :p
*************
M*W: Why is it so hard for theists to believe that atheists can be happy?

*************
M*W: Why is it so hard for theists to believe that atheists can be happy?
Its their ability to discuss religion that tends to shroud me in doubt ....

Its their ability to discuss religion that tends to shroud me in doubt ....
*************
M*W: It's a proven fact that atheists are more knowledgeable about religions than their own believers are. That, in itself, makes us happy.

*************
M*W: It's a proven fact that atheists are more knowledgeable about religions than their own believers are. That, in itself, makes us happy.
proven fact?
:roflmao:

He didn't become an "evil apologist", he destroyed evil. tell me why this god can't or wont just do away with satan and (be) done with it.
Nothing changes by actually having us run through this simulation other than many people burn - an eternal torture created by that very same being.



Very well put - I think that is the best rephrasing of the questions this paradox offers I've ever read.