worlds' evils; argument against god(s)

[T'ai Chi]

I often read arguments against god(s) going like:

there is so much evil
death
poor design
sickness
murders
rape
etc.

But if there is no god(s), can this be interpreted as an argument against evolution, naturalism, nature, science, etc?

I don't think so and probably most people don't. Which is why I don't think the worlds' evils --> no god(s) argument is a good one.

[Darat]

You are missing a "premise" from the argument you are trying to comment on:

there is so much evil
death
poor design
sickness
murders
rape
etc.
but God is meant to be all-powerful and all-good

[Ossai]

T'ai Chi
You are referring to Epicure’s riddle.

The following three statements cannot all be true:
1. God is all-loving
2. God is omnipotent
3. Evil Exists

The argument is as follows:
• If god can prevent evil, but doesn't,
then he is not all-loving.
• If god intends to prevent evil, but cannot,
then he is not omnipotent.
• If god both intends to prevent evil and is
capable of doing so, then how can evil exist?

But if there is no god(s), can this be interpreted as an argument against evolution, naturalism, nature, science, etc? No.

I don't think so and probably most people don't. Which is why I don't think the worlds' evils --> no god(s) argument is a good one. Science, naturalism, evolution, etc. have never claimed (or people claimed in their name) to be all-loving or omnipotent.

Ossai

[T'ai Chi]

which god(s)?

And what do peoples' ideas of god(s) have to do with the real characteristics of god(s) if they actually do exist?

[T'ai Chi]

The following three statements cannot all be true:
1. God is all-loving
2. God is omnipotent
3. Evil Exists


Free will pretty much solves the riddle. The logic goes:

-god(s) loves us, gave us free will, gave us ability to make some choices, much as a loving parent would. Recognizes value of free will, still more good than evil.

-God is omnipotent.

-Evil exists.

[Roboramma]

Free will pretty much solves the riddle. The logic goes:

-god(s) loves us, gave us free will, gave us ability to make some choices, much as a loving parent would. Recognizes value of free will, still more good than evil.

-God is omnipotent.

-Evil exists.
Except that free will certainly can't explain non-human evil. The classic example of a small boy sitting by a river going blind because of the parasite in his eye (or what have you).

Nor does it explain why god created us with the capacity for evil, but we don't have to get into that because its not necessary.

[Roboramma]

which god(s)?

And what do peoples' ideas of god(s) have to do with the real characteristics of god(s) if they actually do exist?

The argument is only against an omni-benevolent, omnipotent god.
For all this argument is concerned, there very well could be some other type of god. It's silent on that issue.
Of course, most believes would still be wrong about what they mean when they say, "there is a god."

[I less than three logic]

Free will pretty much solves the riddle. The logic goes:

-god(s) loves us, gave us free will, gave us ability to make some choices, much as a loving parent would. Recognizes value of free will, still more good than evil.

-God is omnipotent.

-Evil exists.
What logic?

Free will doesn’t change the problem one bit. Even if it did, it would only account for evil actions done by people, not natural causes of what people consider evil, perhaps bad or that cause suffering is a better way to describe it. I suppose you can extend this magical solution of free will to the weather or the Earth itself. If someone is struck by lightning, is that a result of their free will? If a tornado, hurricane, earthquake, wildfire, flood, volcano, tsunami, drought, or blizzard kills a person, destroys their home or their means of living, was that the fault of the person’s free will? Can you name a place where none of these types of natural causes of suffering can occur? Should we all, every human on Earth, move to that location so our free will doesn’t put us in harms way of these natural phenomena that God either cannot prevent (no longer omnipotent) or chooses not to prevent (no longer all caring)?

[Roboramma]

But if there is no god(s), can this be interpreted as an argument against evolution, naturalism, nature, science, etc?
No, because there's no reason to believe that if those things are true there would be no evil.
Whereas there is plenty of reason to believe that if god were both omnicient and omnibenevolent there would be no evil.

[TheAntiLuddite]

Free will pretty much solves the riddle. The logic goes:

-god(s) loves us, gave us free will, gave us ability to make some choices, much as a loving parent would. Recognizes value of free will, still more good than evil.

-God is omnipotent.

-Evil exists.

I've heard this response to the problem of evil (or Problem of Evil, depending upon how much weight you ascribe to this issue), and I personally find it ridiculous, and here's why:

First, if God is omnipotent and omniscient, then he/she/it already knows what you are going to do in any given situation. If the deity already knows your actions, a priori, then why must the actual evil deed occur? It's bored and likes to watch death and suffering? Not exactly a deity worthy of worship (assuming you ascribe to the idea of an insecure god that needs constant flattery from its creation).

Second, if I (for the sake of the argument) decide to thrust someone into yonder void by killing them, what can you say about my victim's free will? Have I not just stepped in and pre-empted God's plan of free will for that person. Yes, I can hear it now, "But maybe God wanted that person to die, and used you as the means" Great, you've just validated religious terrorism. If by my actions, I can affect someone else's "free will", then the idea of free will is a joke and not an answer to the Problem of Evil.

I'm sure others more learned than I will have much more to say about this.

[andyandy]

Free will pretty much solves the riddle. The logic goes:

-god(s) loves us, gave us free will, gave us ability to make some choices, much as a loving parent would. Recognizes value of free will, still more good than evil.

-God is omnipotent.

-Evil exists.

so free will causes all the world's evil? But where is the value of free will?
...surely an omnipotent entity would recognise that the perfect universe would be completely deterministic (to ensure maximum benefit and complete creator-control) - but that in such a universe, the perception of free will could remain.....
thus this would be preferable to your suggested model, where God creates a non-deterministic model and as such allows evil into it.....

if i were God, i reckon i could do a better job :)

[I less than three logic]

if i were God, i reckon i could do a better job :)
Heh, now you’re just instigating. :D

[Roboramma]

To take your point one step further, andyandy, you don't even need to get rid of free will to get rid of evil. There are certainly some constraints on what we can and can't do. For instance, I can only do what is physically possible. I can only think of the things that I have the exposure and intelligence to think of.
We were only able to drop atomic weapons on hiroshima because such weapons are physically possible, because we have the resources to make them, because we have the intelligence to design them, and because we have the character to foster the desire to do so.

On the other hand, it's never happened that 90% of the earth's human population got together to hunt rabbits to extinction. Why not? Because human behavior doesn't vary randomly. If there are some tendancies and constraints on human behavior, why shouldn't "evil" be one of those things that's constrained? We could still have free will to choose how we lived our lives, who we wanted to get involved in serious relationships, and all the actually meaningful and important decisions that we make.

[Loss Leader]

The following three statements cannot all be true:
1. God is all-loving
2. God is omnipotent
3. Evil Exists


Solved as follows: God's plan is incomprehensible to mortal minds.

[El Greco]

Solved as follows: God's plan is incomprehensible to mortal minds.


If it is that incomprehensible, then we can continue living as if God doesn't exist anyway. Because all these things about Paradise and Hell etc. are probably false and just another piece in his incomprehensible plans (if they were true then I guess pretty much everything else would make some sense too).

The question though is this: Assume there is no God. What would be different ? Absolutely nothing. People would still make their own gods who would make as much sense as the allegedly "real" one.

[Cello Man]

Solved as follows: God's plan is incomprehensible to mortal minds.

Religious folks love to use this line as their final trump card, as if it solves the argument. It's just a cop-out when you've run out of ways to rationalize superstition.

Besides, if the religious folks want to claim that God's plan is unknowable, why do they turn right around and claim to know what God precisely expects of us all, and also assert with complete confidence what God would do to us if we don't play along?

[andyandy]

Besides, if the religious folks want to claim that God's plan is unknowable, why do they turn right around and claim to know what God precisely expects of us all, and also assert with complete confidence what God would do to us if we don't play along?

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know. There are things which are inherently unknowable that nevertheless we know about. There are things we know yet can't know at all.

:D

...even rumsfield couldn't talk his way out of this one.....

[El Greco]

Solved as follows: God's plan is incomprehensible to mortal minds.

Even so, the riddle is not yet solved. God is still not all-loving. An all-loving God would provide eternal bliss for all his creatures. And even if God perceives love "differently" than humans, then he's still not all-loving by human standards.

[andyandy]

Solved as follows: God's plan is incomprehensible to mortal minds.

you can't have your anthropomorphic cake and eat it....:D

[Oxymoron]

Except that free will certainly can't explain non-human evil. The classic example of a small boy sitting by a river going blind because of the parasite in his eye (or what have you).

Nor does it explain why god created us with the capacity for evil, but we don't have to get into that because its not necessary.

Why does the boy going blind because of a parasite have to be evil? What if the boy was a girl, and happened to be Helen Keller? Who in turn did a tremendous amount of good throughout her life. Positive role model...etc.

It seems to me that coincidence is at the root of the issue. It's evil when "we" consider it to be harmful or have a negative impact, but some might argue it's divine intervention if the outcome is positive. Just a thought. :)

[Ossai]

T'ai Chi
Free will pretty much solves the riddle. The logic goes:

-god(s) loves us, gave us free will, gave us ability to make some choices, much as a loving parent would. Recognizes value of free will, still more good than evil.

-God is omnipotent.

-Evil exists.
No, omnipotence trumps freewill. If god is omnipotent then freewill does not exist. An illusion of freewill may exist but is not necessary.

Ossai

[Sceptic Realist]

If someone is struck by lightning, is that a result of their free will? If a tornado, hurricane, earthquake, wildfire, flood, volcano, tsunami, drought, or blizzard kills a person, destroys their home or their means of living, was that the fault of the person’s free will? Can you name a place where none of these types of natural causes of suffering can occur? Should we all, every human on Earth, move to that location so our free will doesn’t put us in harms way of these natural phenomena that God either cannot prevent (no longer omnipotent) or chooses not to prevent (no longer all caring)?

Most of these examples are pointless. For example: a Blizzard won't directly kill anyone unless that person is stupid enough to drive like an idiot on an icy road, or whatever. The rest of it involves random chance, just as much as, say, tripping over yourself and breaking your neck (same with the storm itself). With regards to this argument (and understand this is just musing, not actual belief), perahps "god" meerly set up the world and its physics and players, and just hit the play button and sat back; much like a game designer, who can control how the physics work and what happens when a player dies, but cannot/doesn't want to control what the player does while he is alive (cause it would make for a terrible game ;) ).

[T'ai Chi]

...surely an omnipotent entity would recognise that the perfect universe would be completely deterministic (to ensure maximum benefit and complete creator-control)


I disagree with your perception of "maximum benefit". This is like claiming that parents who control everything their kids do are supplying maximum benefit to their kids.

[T'ai Chi]

Assume there is no God. What would be different ? Absolutely nothing. People would still make their own gods who would make as much sense as the allegedly "real" one.

That's why these world evils --> no god arguments don't make much sense. You admit that nothing would change. So without god(s) these world evils still exist, so what is the value of the emotional argument?

[T'ai Chi]

, then he's still not all-loving by human standards.

I'm wondering when was that ever a requirement?

Likewise when we say "evil", by human standards, of course. Take a wasp that lays its eggs inside other insects. Evil to us, sure, but to the wasps? To Nature? Probably not.

[T'ai Chi]

No, omnipotence trumps freewill. If god is omnipotent then freewill does not exist.


Perhaps. I've argued this line myself before.

But I'm not sure how anyone, you included, could determine if free will is really free will or an illusion of free will. It seems more parsimonious to assume free will rather than an illusion of free will.

[I less than three logic]

Most of these examples are pointless. For example: a Blizzard won't directly kill anyone unless that person is stupid enough to drive like an idiot on an icy road, or whatever.
Blizzards don't only kill the stupid. They are quite capible of killing others as well. What if a blizzard were to hit while something like this happened:

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2006/10/12/nogasservice/
Buffalo, Minn. — (AP) - Thousands of residents in Buffalo, Minnesota were left without natural gas service Thursday after problems with repair and maintenance work on gas lines, and officials said it could be two days before the service was restored.

About 5,500 residents were affected. City officials said the gas could be out for 48 hours or more - a concern if there are significant drops in the temperature overnight. Plans were being prepared to house residents who might need a warm location for the night, such as those in nursing homes.
They also have a tendency to knock out power lines and cause trees to fall. Is it the fault of the peoples' stupidity if a tree falls on their nice warm house, possibly killing some in the process and quickly removing the home's ability to store heat as well as it did before?

As for the rest of your musing, that doesn't sound like an "all-caring" God, which is what the problem of evil question addresses. Otherwise the point is moot.

[El Greco]

That's why these world evils --> no god arguments don't make much sense. You admit that nothing would change. So without god(s) these world evils still exist, so what is the value of the emotional argument?

There's not any value to the "world evils --> no god" arguments, but there's much value to "world evils --> no all-loving & omnipotent god" arguments. Of course "all-loving" is not a requirement, but it's what many religions preach.

God could also be all-hating and with limited powers. In such a case he would be the root of all evil in the world, and the reason he doesn't cause even more evil is because he can't. As provable as the previous one.

[andyandy]

I disagree with your perception of "maximum benefit". This is like claiming that parents who control everything their kids do are supplying maximum benefit to their kids.

an individual could live in a deterministic universe, but still have the illusion of free will - and as such the omnipotent/benevolent creator would be able to ensure that maximum benefit was achieved. You seem to want to argue that such a universe would be a worse place to live than the one we occupy? But we don't even know if free will exists in this one...As such how would this universe actually being deterministic affect an individual's life if they still believed free will to exist? How would it be worse?

An omnipotent/benevolent being would by default want the absolute best for me (extending to all that i care for and about...). What I want is that which is the best for me. We both want the same thing - and this God could provide it. I would be a fool to presume that i could achieve more than the absolute best of my own free will. Indeed i could still believe that my actions were due to free will if that was what God believed was best for me. In an instant i would choose a deterministic universe where a supreme entity far more wise and powerful than myself was looking after my best interests. If i was a parent i would choose such a future for my children.
If i was God I would choose* to create a deterministic universe. I'd be crazy not to.....

*assuming that i had free will that is :D

edit to paraphrase;

option 1) "evil" exists, people sit around discussing whether free will exists, whether the universe is deterministic and what the heck compatabilists are talking about...(:) )

option 2) "evil" does not exist, people sit around discussing whether free will exists, whether the universe is deterministic and what the heck compatabilists are talking about..

if you were an omnipotent/benevolent God, which option would you choose in creating a universe?

[Sceptic Realist]

Blizzards don't only kill the stupid. They are quite capible of killing others as well. What if a blizzard were to hit while something like this happened:

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2006/10/12/nogasservice/

They also have a tendency to knock out power lines and cause trees to fall. Is it the fault of the peoples' stupidity if a tree falls on their nice warm house, possibly killing some in the process and quickly removing the home's ability to store heat as well as it did before?

As for the rest of your musing, that doesn't sound like an "all-caring" God, which is what the problem of evil question addresses. Otherwise the point is moot.

As to the storm and the whole tree thing, it's still the same kind of possibility of tripping over your own feet and breaking your neck, which I adressed in the previous post. But I see what you are saying: natural disasters can kill people without them being able to do much about it (like an earthquake or disease). It could be that these are a form of population control, established by nature. Therefore, one could argue (not saying I am) that God is watching out for the greater good through means of this population control. As to wheather or not that's evil is purly a matter of opinion. Furthering my devil's advocate argument, one could argue that god is also watching out for those who die by bringing them closer to himself. Remember, death doesn't have the same connotation in religion. Please note these are not my opinions, just food for thought.

[Ossai]

T'ai Chi
But I'm not sure how anyone, you included, could determine if free will is really free will or an illusion of free will. It seems more parsimonious to assume free will rather than an illusion of free will. In which case you’re nullified the argument and removed omnipotent from the premise.

[Tricky]

the·od·i·cy (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary-tb?book=Dictionary&va=theodicy)
Pronunciation: thE-'ä-d&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: modification of French théodicée, from théo- the- (from Latin theo-) + Greek dikE judgment, right
: defense of God's goodness and omnipotence in view of the existence of evil

[T'ai Chi]

In which case you’re nullified the argument and removed omnipotent from the premise.

Not at all.

I'm asking you for how you'd go about determining if free will was real or was fake free will or an illusion as you hypothesize (if god(s) exist).

You probably can't, and Occam's Razor suggests going with free will as the more rational explanation.

[T'ai Chi]

an individual could live in a deterministic universe, but still have the illusion of free will - and as such the omnipotent/benevolent creator would be able to ensure that maximum benefit was achieved.


You're effectively saying there is more benefit to living a lie.


An omnipotent/benevolent being would by default want the absolute best for me


Parents often let their children make their own mistakes for the purposes of growing, learning, and being better people. Why wouldn't god(s) do the same with his creations?

[andyandy]

You're effectively saying there is more benefit to living a lie.

An omnibenevolent/potent God has the option of (1) or (2)


option 1) "evil" exists, people sit around discussing whether free will exists, whether the universe is deterministic and what the heck compatabilists are talking about...

option 2) "evil" does not exist, people sit around discussing whether free will exists, whether the universe is deterministic and what the heck compatabilists are talking about..


and you're arguing that "living a lie"* trumps "evil"?

wow......:jaw-dropp

(leaving aside your assumption that our universe is not deterministic....)

Parents often let their children make their own mistakes for the purposes of growing, learning, and being better people. Why wouldn't god(s) do the same with his creations?

in a deterministic universe why would mistakes be necessary to learn from? People would become the best they could without any mistakes at all.

[Ossai]

T'ai Chi
I'm asking you for how you'd go about determining if free will was real or was fake free will or an illusion as you hypothesize (if god(s) exist). I wouldn’t. If there is an omnipotent god, the test is meaningless because it would reveal only what god wanted it to reveal. There would be no means of differentation between the two states: free will or illusionary free will.

You probably can't, and Occam's Razor suggests going with free will as the more rational explanation. Which eliminates an omnipotent god.

Ossai

[UserGoogol]

Parents often let their children make their own mistakes for the purposes of growing, learning, and being better people. Why wouldn't god(s) do the same with his creations?

Because parents don't have any better alternatives, they can't simply snap their fingers and have their children be better people. An omnipotent being, presumably, would be able to pull this off.

And honestly, I don't see the benefit from free will. It is impossible to absolutely prove that you have free will, and I don't see how a person can benefit from something they can't even prove exists.

[Ossai]

T'ai Chi
Parents often let their children make their own mistakes for the purposes of growing, learning, and being better people. Why wouldn't god(s) do the same with his creations? What are the creations supposed to be learning such that god could not grant them instant knowledge?

(I read one response and by the time I respond there are two more.)

Ossai

[I less than three logic]

Parents often let their children make their own mistakes for the purposes of growing, learning, and being better people. Why wouldn't god(s) do the same with his creations?
Most parents at least try, to the best of their ability, to prevent their children from mistakes that may potentially cause severe bodily harm or death. If they see their child, while learning to ride a bike, start to fall they may let them as it probably wouldn't cause severe harm. If they see them riding their bike into a busy highway, not many parents are going to say, "let him go, he'll learn his lesson faster this way."

[andyandy]

Parents often let their children make their own mistakes for the purposes of growing, learning, and being better people. Why wouldn't god(s) do the same with his creations?

as others have mentioned, the parent/child analogy is pretty poor for Omni-God/man....

parents do exercise as close to complete control over their children as they can manage whilst that child is a baby. As the child grows they become closer in "intelligence" (for want of a better word) to their parents - culminating in adulthood where parents (perhaps reluctantly) relinguish control over their offspring....
but with omni-God/man however much we learn and become "better people" we will never come close to omnipotence or omnibenevolence - in these vast terms we are effectively at the parent/baby stage throughout our entire lives.

[T'ai Chi]

There would be no means of differentation between the two states: free will or illusionary free will.


You currently apparently have no means to differentiate now, so why should anyone believe that illusory free will exists?


Which eliminates an omnipotent god.


Perhaps. I've argued this line myself before.

But I'm not sure how anyone, you included, could determine if free will is really free will or an illusion of free will.

[T'ai Chi]

What are the creations supposed to be learning such that god could not grant them instant knowledge?


Why do you believe instant knowledge would really teach anybody anything?

[T'ai Chi]

Because parents don't have any better alternatives, they can't simply snap their fingers and have their children be better people. An omnipotent being, presumably, would be able to pull this off.


But the analogy still holds. A parent could, in theory, control much more that their kid does. But they don't. Why?


And honestly, I don't see the benefit from free will.


You don't see a benefit to being free?

[T'ai Chi]

and you're arguing that "living a lie"* trumps "evil"?


I'm not arguing that. I asked why people assume living a lie (ie. illusory free will) would be preferable to anything else. People seem to think "instant knowledge" somehow implies real learning.


in a deterministic universe why would mistakes be necessary to learn from? People would become the best they could without any mistakes at all.

Then we obviosuly don't live in a truly deterministic universe since we make mistakes. There must be some free will.

[andyandy]

I'm not arguing that. I asked why people assume living a lie (ie. illusory free will) would be preferable to anything else. People seem to think "instant knowledge" somehow implies real learning.

option 1) "evil" exists, people sit around discussing whether free will exists, whether the universe is deterministic.....

option 2) "evil" does not exist, people sit around discussing whether free will exists, whether the universe is deterministic.....

of the options (1) and (2), option 1 is the universe in which we live, option 2 is a universe which is better than option 1. So i'm arguing that the illusory free will of (2) where people do not know whether free will exists or not is preferable to (1) where free will may or may not be illusory, and where people do not know whether free will exists or not.

Do you disagree with that? Why would Omni-God choose (1) when he could have (2)?

Tai Chi Then we obviosuly don't live in a truly deterministic universe since we make mistakes. There must be some free will.

if the universe is deterministic, "mistakes" no longer have meaning. That which we think of as "mistakes" may be completely determined - how do you seek to prove "free will" from that which you perceive as "mistakes"?

[Beerina]

T'ai Chi
You are referring to Epicure’s riddle.

The following three statements cannot all be true:
1. God is all-loving
2. God is omnipotent
3. Evil Exists

There are lesser premises that are unspoken above.

4. Assuming you are forced to exist in this universe without your permission, against your will, and possibly without knowledge of what you were getting into.

I can conceive of this being some bizarre Star Trek holodeck where you are placed with a wiped mind and allowed to exist, as entertainment. Though why you'd want to risk a life with broken bones and pain if you are lucky and protracted want, need, suffering, torture, and murder if you are not, I don't know.

[Beerina]

Solved as follows: God's plan is incomprehensible to mortal minds.

Which, by the Church-Turing Thesis, we presume to mean it's incomprehensible to the most powerful computational device that can compute, at most, a finite number of operations in a finite amount of time, assuming the mind is such a thing, which most computer scientists believe, though Roger Penrose does not, believing the human mind is capable of solving some tiling problems that a Turing machine cannot (but this doubtful concept, even if true, would merely suggest the human mind sits at a more powerful, but still finite, location in the computational pecking order, not that there is something infinite in the nature of the human mind's computational paradigm.)

And that, quite frankly, is a result I find highly suspect.

And, even if true, does not get around the concept of permission. I didn't ask (my mind wipe concept aside) to be sitting here, right now. Humans find such experiments on each other, even the mildest of "trickery" psychological experimentation, to be considered unethical without the person's permission, with, at a minimum, the warning that they are volunteering for an experiment that may involve tricking them.

As far as I know, I wasn't warned about being placed in a universe where I would break an arm and suffer a massive back pain for 3 days when a teenager and other medical problems as an adult.

So god can go f*** himself. That is the logical conclusion if "god works in mysterious ways.

[UserGoogol]

You don't see a benefit to being free?

I see a benefit to being free in certain situations, but not freedom in of itself. I like being free because when I am restricted, I tend to feel uncomfortable. But an omnipotent being could make me perfectly comfortable with my situation. Also, freedom is good because if my fate is decided by other people or a cruel impersonal nature, I will generally get a less nice situation than if I made the decision on my own. But if an omniscient all-loving being decided my fate for me, he'd set me up with a situation vastly possible than I could possibly imagine. There are probably other more subtle defenses of freedom as well. But the point is that freedom is not neccesarily a good thing, merely contingently good, although contingent on some things which are fairly fundamental to the world in which we live. But an omnipotent being could just waltz right in and change things.

Again, I cannot distinguish free will from merely thinking I'm free, (nor can I determine that someone else has free will) and it seems patently irrational to prefer one thing to another if nobody can tell the difference between the two, so I don't see what's so special about it.

[T'ai Chi]

I like being free because when I am restricted, I tend to feel uncomfortable. But an omnipotent being could make me perfectly comfortable with my situation.


As a parent, do you always make your children feel comfortable, protect them from every possible discomfort, no matter what? Why not?


...
if nobody can tell the difference between the two, so I don't see what's so special about it.


So you don't see the value in being free, OK. The point is that

1) we feel like we have free will

2) this is because there is free will, or illusory free will

3) the latter is multiplying entities, so stick with free will as the best explanation

[T'ai Chi]

option 1) "evil" exists
(snip- it doesn't matter what people sit around and discuss)

option 2) "evil" does not exist,
(snip- it doesn't matter what people sit around and discuss)


In 2) there is no free will since "evil" does not exist. You're trying to convince that a world where we are not free is better than one where we are. That the lack of "evil" makes up for lack of choices. It depends on your definition of "evil".


of the options (1) and (2), option 1 is the universe in which we live, option 2 is a universe which is better than option 1.


Simply what you see as "evil" is from a human standpoint. Do you view wasps laying eggs in other insects (so they can eat their way out, while the insect is alive) as "evil", or merely as part of nature?


Why would Omni-God choose (1) when he could have (2)?


1) allows us to have free will.


if the universe is deterministic, "mistakes" no longer have meaning. That which we think of as "mistakes" may be completely determined - how do you seek to prove "free will" from that which you perceive as "mistakes"?

I'm still waiting for someone to answer how we'd determine if free will is real or illusory.

[Dunstan]

The point is that

1) we feel like we have free will

2) this is because there is free will, or illusory free will

3) the latter is multiplying entities, so stick with free will as the best explanation


Only because of the way you've chosen to word it. I can easily rephrase it as:

1. The world has characteristics X, Y, Z (where x, y, and z are the things that you would say "feel like we have free will")

2. X, Y, and Z are consistent with free will and with no free will.

3. Since free will is unnecessary to explain the existence of X, Y, and Z, then "no free will" is the more parsimonious explanation.

[UserGoogol]

As a parent, do you always make your children feel comfortable, protect them from every possible discomfort, no matter what? Why not?

I'm twenty, but if I was a parent no I would not. That is because protecting children from every possible discomfort is a ****** parenting strategy because it is (a) impossible and (b) will raise your child to be a pussy. But again, blah blah God plays by different rules than I do.

So you don't see the value in being free, OK. The point is that

1) we feel like we have free will

2) this is because there is free will, or illusory free will

3) the latter is multiplying entities, so stick with free will as the best explanation

I don't think you're using Occam's Razor properly, (if free will is an illusion, then all there is is illusions, but if free will is not an illusion, then both free will and illusions exist) but I don't think you got my point. I'm saying that free will is of no value. Feelings are all that matter, ultimately. But it's irrelevant to the larger issue, because an omnipotent being could simply will it so that we do not have free will, do not think that we have free will, and still are perfectly content and happy.

[andyandy]

I'm still waiting for someone to answer how we'd determine if free will is real or illusory.

this undermines your earlier argument -

T'ai Chi-god(s) loves us, gave us free will, gave us ability to make some choices, much as a loving parent would. Recognizes value of free will, still more good than evil.

-God is omnipotent.

-Evil exists.

you are assuming that the universe in which we live is not deterministic and that free will does exist - that "evil" exists in this universe because of free will

but what is this assumption based on? You seem to be starting with a conclusion (Omni-God exists) and then arguing backwards...

your start point should be the question of whether or not free will exists in this universe before you try to explain "evil" as a result of it....

[skeptic griggsy]

I stand for the compatibility of free will and determinism and find that one supports the other.Without causal forces,our wills would be chaotic and we would not be responsible for our actions.We can make our own determinants: for example, if one has had enough jail time, one gets good friends who encourage one to stay straight .See Daneil Dennett.So,I stand for soft determinism.

[Mr Clingford]

If someone is struck by lightning, is that a result of their free will? If a tornado, hurricane, earthquake, wildfire, flood, volcano, tsunami, drought, or blizzard kills a person, destroys their home or their means of living, was that the fault of the person’s free will? Can you name a place where none of these types of natural causes of suffering can occur? Should we all, every human on Earth, move to that location so our free will doesn’t put us in harms way of these natural phenomena that God either cannot prevent (no longer omnipotent) or chooses not to prevent (no longer all caring)?So you haven't been to God's own country, England? Seriously, some of the above phenomena occur and a few people die, but it is a very safe place to live. In addition, about the only animals that kill people are pet dogs.

[Ossai]

T'ai Chi
You currently apparently have no means to differentiate now, so why should anyone believe that illusory free will exists? I never claimed to believe or that anyone else believes in illusory free will. I stated

If there is an omnipotent god, the test is meaningless because it would reveal only what god wanted it to reveal. There would be no means of differentiation between the two states: free will or illusionary free will.

Why do you believe instant knowledge would really teach anybody anything? You’re trying to play games. There is no caveat about knowledge/teach/learn because the god proposed is omnipotent. What knowledge could an omnipotent god not grant anyone instantly? It’s a obvious answer, “none”. Any other answer would negate the omnipotent qualifier on god.

I'm not arguing that. I asked why people assume living a lie (ie. illusory free will) would be preferable to anything else. People seem to think "instant knowledge" somehow implies real learning.There is no implication. From an omnipotent god instant knowledge would equal real learning. Anything else would negate the omnipotent qualifier on god.

Then we obviosuly don't live in a truly deterministic universe since we make mistakes. There must be some free will. Incorrect. There could be an omnipotent god just not an omni-benevolent.

Ossai