How's My Driving?

[Johnny Pneumatic]

The following is the hardest theological debate I've been in as of yet, how am I doin'? Warning, strong language, and other stuff can and is said there: http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5132

[Babe from Missouri]

Originally Posted by ceptimus
And if he did know what the outcome would be, then why bother to create it?
Existence is preferable to nonexistence.


This is toward the end. He skirted the question and his answer makes no sense. This is what I was looking for, though, calling into question the free will she's on about. She keeps using it to counter that pesky evil problem.

There's a thread around here that might help, I'll link it....

We need a fundie around here, they seem amusing.

ETA: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=42389

There's some good stuff in here.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

This is toward the end. He skirted the question and his answer makes no sense. This is what I was looking for, though, calling into question the free will she's on about. She keeps using it to counter that pesky evil problem.

There's a thread around here that might help, I'll link it....

We need a fundie around here, they seem amusing.

ETA: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=42389

There's some good stuff in here.

She's not a fundie by a long shot, and no, we don't need the F People here. We've had them, they come and go, and they're real pains in the ass. A guy named Riddick posted here last year, he had a penchant for threatening damnation and mocking the people who ran away from the World Trade Center attack. Foul tasting fellow he was.
1inchirst, another gone fundi, liked to do very much the same thing as Riddick, except he'd write HELL with red letters, usually with "fire" tacked on the end of HELL for good measure.

[DarkMagician]

1inchirst, another gone fundi, liked to do very much the same thing as Riddick, except he'd write HELL with red letters, usually with "fire" tacked on the end of HELL for good measure.
Yeah, 1inCh was great.

BTW, I win the debate. Argument by inside joke.

[c4ts]

We need a fundie around here, they seem amusing.


No! No we don't!

For exactly the same reasons that we do.

[DarkMagician]

Yeah, we'd enjoy the idiocy so much that nothing'd get done.

[c4ts]

I blame Kilik for the B on my last essay, since I wrote it in the middle of refuting his spam.

[bpesta22]

I need to see if I can understand the theist's argument by paraphrasing:

An allknowing god devised an apple test to see if his creations would follow his rules. Apparently, this god didn't want robot creations-- he wanted his creations to love the creator of their own free will. Seems reasonable so far.

Problem: At the time of creating the test, the all knowing god knew that adam and eve would fail.

Resolution: the theist argues the test is still important, because adam and eve were created with free will, and the apple was a fair way to test whether their free-willed acts would be those that showed love for the creator (by not eating the apple) or those that would reject the creator's love (by eating the apple).

As support for the rigged test still being valuable, the theist mentions a dilemma faced by god: What were God's options: (1) not create them (in which case the perfect god doesn't get something he desires, which makes him no longer perfect-- or at least all powerful).

God gets what he wants, so he must create them-- further, to react to humans who reject god (after) by not creating them (before) would be impossible-- if god is all powerful-- as god would be forced to change his desire based on the actions of the humans he created.

(2) Save his creations by removing the test. But, then gods removed the free will requirement from the test, the whole purpose of which was to ensure that his creations loved him.

So, "not creating humans" is ruled out logically by god being one who gets what he wants.

"Not saving someone you know will get into trouble" is ruled in logically because it preserves free will, and god wanted his creations to have free will.

If the above is an accurate paraphrase of the argument, here's my reply:

1) This is all good for adam and eve. They had the benefit of knowing god personally-- he interacted with them.

No one alive today would be taken seriously if they claimed god spoke directly to them. Worse, there are a number of other viable (i.e. equally vigorously defended) gods that might instead be the true god.

Without any real evidence suggesting one god is better than another, what's the rational person to do? I might want to please the xtian god by loving him, but since I have no proof of his existence (he cannot be verified through my senses, or with logic/evidence) I risk pissing off some other god-- the one who actually created us.

It's sorta the reverse pascal's wager.

I think I can buy the theist's argument perhaps for the specific case of adam and eve, but it's not such a fair test for anyone who lacks any evidence whatsoever that the xtian god is the one true god.

2) Evil things happen to some people so that free will gets preserved. But, evil happens to some trully innoncent people. Consider the two year old murdered by his father. I imagine the theist would say god knew this would happen, and didn't stop it, because he wanted to preserve the father's free will.

If so, what about the two year old-- also god's creation? What purpose did god have for creating him? God knew the two year old would be murdered before ever getting to exercise his/her free will, or realize his/her potential as a loving person. God created this kid and his soul to be nothing but canon fodder for the dad's exercize of free will

So god has different types of human creations-- those he creates that live long enough to be tested various times through the exercize of free will, and the victims of those creations, who are often the most innocent and least able to defend for themselves (i.e., children).

A god who's ok with letting hitler rule because of free will issues, even though that resulted in the sacrifice of millions of innocents is an immoral god not worth worshipping (sorry to bring hitler into the argument).

I don't believe free will solves the mystery of evil when the receipient is trully innocent (as are most 2 year olds).

If god is willing to sacrifice the lifes of true innocent creations so that the free will of his not-so-innocent creations can be preserved, then God is evil.

Unless one can justify a moral system where allowing a two year old to be murdered to preserve the father's free will is ok...

3) The apple test (and other tests of free will) are still moot because god is all knowing. Why bother testing if you know the result beforehand. You can still have your mix of creations-- some love you some don't-- but testing them is ineficient at best, as god knows which are which anyway. By definition, we test people when we don't yet know how they score on the attribute being tested. But, God knows this, so why test?

Testing then becomes folly: Does anyone here actually need to give me a test to confirm whether I am a pervert?

So, is god just a fan of fixed spectator sports? If so, why should we worship him (I reject the premise that just because he is more powerful than us, we are obligated-- morally-- to worship him. Even with a power difference, the moral road is still to reject immoral belief systems, even if those who espouse them can kick your butt).

[BJQ87]

bpesta22-
One thing that is at least apparent is that evil, sin, and suffering are all inherited. When we enter into this world we inherit its restrictions, and its qualities (with respect to when, where, and how we are raised and socialized). But take for instance if a child grew up in poverty because his/her parents made mistakes in life such as crime or lack of financial responsibility. The child inherits a burden because of his/her parents mistakes. But the thing is, if this is where the child is at in life, it is the child’s life and that child has a certain sense of ownership of it, even though it is not the child's initial fault. This is similar to how evil is in our world, but to conclude this example, the child grows up and goes on to make the same mistakes his parents made (which many times is the case, i.e. alcoholics, drug addicts, physical abuse, gang activity). This child in this example similarly represents each one of us and how sin and evil coincide.

Now you give the example of the 2 year old, and perhaps you see the result of this world of sin and evil. The inescapable inheritance of mankind is death.

Maybe if we're looking at an argument based upon the "problem of evil" then we should try and answer the question "what is the essence of evil?" I don't have much insight as to come up with a full blown description of the essence of evil but I do know that it spreads, it infects. It can in many cases be said that if you compromise or give into evil then it may quite possibly infect things you wish it wouldn't. I believe the essence of evil is that it is free, and it is deviant, raging and always longing for certain temporary satisfactions. Maybe it can be said that the limit of evil in the world is defined by the amount of good.

If there were no test there would be no outcomes, thus it may be that there would exist no determination of reason for the life that was planned beforehand. Maybe tests are more like laws of physics, they exist to explain and to keep things in order according to the structures of life.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

bpesta22-
One thing that is at least apparent is that evil, sin, and suffering are all inherited. When we enter into this world we inherit its restrictions, and its qualities (with respect to when, where, and how we are raised and socialized). But take for instance if a child grew up in poverty because his/her parents made mistakes in life such as crime or lack of financial responsibility. The child inherits a burden because of his/her parents mistakes. But the thing is, if this is where the child is at in life, it is the child’s life and that child has a certain sense of ownership of it, even though it is not the child's initial fault. This is similar to how evil is in our world, but to conclude this example, the child grows up and goes on to make the same mistakes his parents made (which many times is the case, i.e. alcoholics, drug addicts, physical abuse, gang activity). This child in this example similarly represents each one of us and how sin and evil coincide.


By what mechanism is evil passed down though? What is it about a parent doing wrong that passes the wrong on to the next generation? If I cut my arm off, my child won't be armless. If I do wrong, why must my child have my nature?

You'll remember God is the one that put the curse on the Earth and humanity. Adam and Eve's sin didn't force them to leave the garden and be capable of feeling pain and dying, God gave them that as a punishment for disobeying. We get punished for what they did. Did you eat the fruit? No. So you didn't disobey God. Think of it this way, if your great, great, great, great, great grandfather murdered someone, should you have to spend your life in jail as well?

[Babe from Missouri]

If so, what about the two year old-- also god's creation? What purpose did god have for creating him? God knew the two year old would be murdered before ever getting to exercise his/her free will, or realize his/her potential as a loving person. God created this kid and his soul to be nothing but canon fodder for the dad's exercize of free will
There's also the 2-yr-old who gets cancer and dies. That's pretty evil, and the child is, of course, sinless excepting OS. Whose free will is exercised there? That of the cancer?