NationStates Jolt Archive

A theory about why suffering still happens, why God seemingly ignore it (or lots of it), and how God helps people but still sticks to the rule about not messing about with free will.

Theory:

Because God can not interfere with free will (this is not due to limitations of His power, but is due to the fact that, if he did, there would really be no point in us having any free will as God could make us do what He wanted), he therefore, when he knows of an emergency situation, influences other humans (and almost certainly animals) to assist those who are in trouble. Because the humans are only influenced to help others, this is not an interference with their free will, as they are free to ignore the influence or heed it, just as one is free to ignore or heed the influence of a person who encourages one to put a match out with their bare hands. It is also possible that God asks Angels to help others, but again the Angels are free to ignore or heed God’s request – in addition, just as ambulances do not always arrive in time, perhaps Angels and humans who have heeded God’s influence or request do not always arrive in time – as there are indeed numerous texts asserting the power of God (The Christian Bible, the Islamic Qur’an, and literature used in other religions) but none, apparently, that assert the power of Angels. So why doesn’t God directly intervene? Even if God is all-powerful, to directly intervene personally would be a form of preventing a choice that someone has made due to their free will and thus deliberately directly preventing that choice may perhaps be a form of interfering with free will – but there is, apparently, no widely-accepted text that states that Angels, or at least that humans, do not have the right to interfere with free will (indeed humans have done so in the past, controlling the minds of others through brainwashing for example) so influencing a human to assist another person is not against the rule against God interfering with free will. It could be said that if God does influence another human to directly or indirectly interfere with free will then God is indirectly interfering with free will, but He is not, as, even if a human is interfering with free will by preventing someone from doing a bad thing due to God’s influence, God is only influencing a person to interfere with a person’s free will and is not deliberately demanding it and it is up to the human who feels God’s influence to either go ahead and interfere with a person’s free will for the sake of helping another person, or to ignore God’s influence. As long as the influence does not amount to pressure, it is not interfering with any person’s free will – just as if a person hints that they want me to buy them some chocolate by mentioning chocolate a few times, but stops after a few times and does not plead with me or beg me to buy them some chocolate, they are only influencing me to buy them some chocolate, and not pressuring me – they are not interfering with my free will. In a perhaps similar sense, God does not interfere with free will, he simply influences humans to help others – and when bad things happen or are not stopped (or not stopped quickly enough), this is because people have used their own free will to ignore God’s influence – and NOT because God doesn’t care.

First off, God loves paragraphing ,makes stuff easier to read ;)
Because God can not interfere with free will (this is not due to limitations of His power, but is due to the fact that, if he did, there would really be no point in us having any free will as God could make us do what He wanted), he therefore, when he knows of an emergency situation
Being omniscient He already knows about all of them.
, influences other humans (and almost certainly animals) to assist those who are in trouble. Because the humans are only influenced to help others, this is not an interference with their free will, as they are free to ignore the influence or heed it, just as one is free to ignore or heed the influence of a person who encourages one to put a match out with their bare hands.
Kind of like divine peer pressure? Sounds reasonable.
It is also possible that God asks Angels to help others, but again the Angels are free to ignore or heed God’s request
Do angels have free will? My only source of information on the topic(Dogma) suggests they don't.
– in addition, just as ambulances do not always arrive in time, perhaps Angels and humans who have heeded God’s influence or request do not always arrive in time – as there are indeed numerous texts asserting the power of God (The Christian Bible, the Islamic Qur’an, and literature used in other religions) but none, apparently, that assert the power of Angels.
I dare say the Bible mentions angels somewhat. Just not as much as God, obviously enough.
So why doesn’t God directly intervene? Even if God is all-powerful, to directly intervene personally would be a form of preventing a choice that someone has made due to their free will and thus deliberately directly preventing that choice may perhaps be a form of interfering with free will
God personally intervening on our behalf wouldn't interfere with our free will. If God stopped a bullet just before it turned your brain into mush, who's free will has been interfered with?
– but there is, apparently, no widely-accepted text that states that Angels, or at least that humans, do not have the right to interfere with free will (indeed humans have done so in the past, controlling the minds of others through brainwashing for example) so influencing a human to assist another person is not against the rule against God interfering with free will.
Obviously it doesn't break the rule against God messing with free will if someone who isn't God messes with free will.
It could be said that if God does influence another human to directly or indirectly interfere with free will then God is indirectly interfering with free will, but He is not, as, even if a human is interfering with free will by preventing someone from doing a bad thing due to God’s influence, God is only influencing a person to interfere with a person’s free will and is not deliberately demanding it and it is up to the human who feels God’s influence to either go ahead and interfere with a person’s free will for the sake of helping another person, or to ignore God’s influence. As long as the influence does not amount to pressure, it is not interfering with any person’s free will – just as if a person hints that they want me to buy them some chocolate by mentioning chocolate a few times, but stops after a few times and does not plead with me or beg me to buy them some chocolate, they are only influencing me to buy them some chocolate, and not pressuring me – they are not interfering with my free will. In a perhaps similar sense, God does not interfere with free will, he simply influences humans to help others – and when bad things happen or are not stopped (or not stopped quickly enough), this is because people have used their own free will to ignore God’s influence – and NOT because God doesn’t care.

Of course, it could be said that this is all irrelevant, because God, being omnipotent, could make it so that we had free will but couldn't come to harm or suffer because of it. Omnipotence is cool like that.

Interesting but I am more to the theory that God wants equals not spoilt children like a parent will give a 43 year old grief for living in the basement God gives us a reason to get our shit together think about if we had everything given to us would we bother? Probably not especially since trying to compete with an omnipotent being is fairly useless

Then again why is it important at all an omnipotent being doesn’t really care all to much about its playthings and there are far more beings to concern ourselves with down/up here that actually need us (yes apathy is the best option:) )

Of course, it could be said that this is all irrelevant, because God, being omnipotent, could make it so that we had free will but couldn't come to harm or suffer because of it. Omnipotence is cool like that.

That's what we did have in the Garden before the Fall; it was only after that first sin that mankind began to suffer and became mortal. Of course, it's interesting to note that it was not God that caused us to suffer but rather the temptor serpent.

Now, at the same time it is not possible for us to truly have free will without consequences for our actions; logical contradictions are trivial limits on omnipotence.

The question that should be asked (on the unlikely assumption that this God does exist) is whether or not people are happier with free-will or even disserve to have it. And why God would have to obey these rules at all.

And why God would have to obey these rules at all.

....shits and giggles:D

The question that should be asked (on the unlikely assumption that this God does exist) is whether or not people are happier with free-will or even disserve to have it. And why God would have to obey these rules at all.

God obeys those moral laws because he is omnibenevolent and totally just; it would be a contradiction to his nature to violate those laws and so he does not violate them. That kind of limit on his omnipotence is necessary for his omnibenevolence and righteousness.

God obeys those moral laws because he is omnibenevolent and totally just; it would be a contradiction to his nature to violate those laws and so he does not violate them. That kind of limit on his omnipotence is necessary for his omnibenevolence and righteousness.

Why do you assume that he wouldn't protect us at the expence of free-will if he loves us that much. Just remove it for a second and interfere, then go back to the way it was.

Assuming that religion is not manmade and reflects the will of God, wouldn't it be heresy if you try to comprehend God's will and get it wrong? Wouldn't it just make you a blasphemer by the very simple logic that justifies religion.

Even though God is supposed to be beyond mortal comprehension (try reasoning with an omnipotent deity and see where it gets you), people follow him for the very simplest reasons (God will smite my enemies, God is all-benevolent, God wants me to get rich, etc.).

That makes you all heretics and blasphemers.

I urge you to bombard me with questions and challenge my points.

That's what we did have in the Garden before the Fall; it was only after that first sin that mankind began to suffer and became mortal. Of course, it's interesting to note that it was not God that caused us to suffer but rather the temptor serpent.

Now, at the same time it is not possible for us to truly have free will without consequences for our actions; logical contradictions are trivial limits on omnipotence.

The tormentor serpent that God created.......

Why do you assume that he wouldn't protect us at the expence of free-will if he loves us that much. Just remove it for a second and interfere, then go back to the way it was.

I would say it's because giving us the ability to make our decisions freely, or "in the image of God", is a far greater expression of love than undue intervention in our affairs would ever be.

And perhaps God is intervening in our affairs, but we don't see it because it happens over years, or decades, or generations rather than immediately. Or, perhaps, he's working through individuals.

The tormentor serpent that God created.......

That's correct. But then again, we wouldn't truly have free will in the Garden without some kind of temptation; there was no suffering, but there was temptation.

That's correct. But then again, we wouldn't truly have free will in the Garden without some kind of temptation; there was no suffering, but there was temptation.

Yeah, like how you can't really love someone without other people to tempt you.




Oh wait, that's not true at all.

I would say it's because giving us the ability to make our decisions freely, or "in the image of God", is a far greater expression of love than undue intervention in our affairs would ever be.

And perhaps God is intervening in our affairs, but we don't see it because it happens over years, or decades, or generations rather than immediately. Or, perhaps, he's working through individuals.

If he is working through individuals then it violates the supposition of the thread.

What if we asked him to help us directly?
What if we told him that if he loved us he would preserve us?
If we have the choice of whether or not to ask God to interfere and choose to ask for aid then surely he has shown us that love, an we have requested that he withdraw it in return for what we consider a greater mercy.

Yeah, like how you can't really love someone without other people to tempt you.

Oh wait, that's not true at all.

You can't really love someone without knowing whether or not you truly love them. It requires freedom to know for sure, and freedom includes punishment for wrong actions; a person who loved God and who did not have the freedom to choose that love or to know it would be nothing more than an automaton, a slave, created for the purpose of loving God.

Humans are free beings created in the image of God, and with that image comes the freedom to know right from wrong and to choose accordingly.

The question that should be asked (on the unlikely assumption that this God does exist) is whether or not people are happier with free-will or even disserve to have it. And why God would have to obey these rules at all.

First off, God does exist. Secondly, God made the rules. And thirdly, we do have free will to sin, but everything was preordaned. God knows what sins ur gonna commit tomorrow. God knows what sins ur gonna commit the day you die. God knows what sins ur great-grandchildren are gonna commit on their seventh Christmas morning at 11:24 right before they eat lunch. He knows because he preordaned everything. It's like he wrote out a giant to-do list for everyone and included all their sins, all their bad and good thoughts, and all their actions.

I know more about this topic than many people on these boards and, sadly, I'm only a 14 year old girl.:eek:

You can't really love someone without knowing whether or not you truly love them. It requires freedom to know for sure, and freedom includes punishment for wrong actions; a person who loved God and who did not have the freedom to choose that love or to know it would be nothing more than an automaton, a slave, created for the purpose of loving God.

Humans are free beings created in the image of God, and with that image comes the freedom to know right from wrong and to choose accordingly.

However such a massive megalomaniac would surely rather have slaves than stuck up atheists and devil worshiping heretics.

If he is working through individuals then it violates the supposition of the thread.

Unless "working through individuals" is really their free choices that are in accordance with the will of God. If a person reads the Bible, for example, and decides to follow God and devote their lives to doing good for others, then they could be said to be doing the will of God even if God is not directly involved.

What if we asked him to help us directly?

[QUOTE]What if we told him that if he loved us he would preserve us?

You're not supposed to put God to the test; that's a pretty big one in the New Testament.

If we have the choice of whether or not to ask God to interfere and choose to ask for aid then surely he has shown us that love, an we have requested that he withdraw it in return for what we consider a greater mercy.

But what we consider the greater mercy may not be what God considers it to be. His decisions may be rooted in events 5 minutes or 5 million years in the future...there are so many externalities and possible outcomes of any event that our conception of the greater mercy is entirely rooted in our limited perception of the world.

re: The bullet scenario and God protecting us.

Bullet scenario: My theory is that by stopping the bullet directly, God would be interfering with the free will of the person who aimed the gun, as the person had made a choice due to their free will and God would be interfering with taht choice, thus indirectly interfering with free will - but not if he influenced (but didn't pressure) someone else to do something to prevent the person firing the bullet in the first place, whether that be by shooting them in the leg first or by changing the would-be bullet shooter's attitude so taht they decided not to get hold of a gun in the first place or decided not to go out that day/night.

God protecting us: As suggested in my theory above, He tried to protect us by influencing others to help. For him to break a rule of free will in one case possibly means he might as well break it in every case and prevent people from ever choosing to do anything bad.

Punishment: The laws of the universe (remember either the universe was here before God, or even if God appeared first then he set up things to make it difficult for everyone to go around hurting others - he gave us emotions such as guilt (which doesn't interfere with free will, as a person can feel guilty about something but still go out and do it again without fully considering the implications of their actions))... I believe in, at the very least, the idea of "what goes around comes around" - that is to say, regardless of whether God exists or not (and I believe He does), whatever someone does, it returns to them somehow, though not necessarilly in the same way; just that if they send out negative energy, they get it back. Wiccans believe in the Rule of Three which is that whatever energy you send out (negative or positive), it returns threefold.

First off, God does exist.
Prove it.
Secondly, God made the rules.
Prove it.
And thirdly, we do have free will to sin, but everything was preordaned.
Not possible because: It's like he wrote out a giant to-do list for everyone and included all their sins, all their bad and good thoughts, and all their actions.
So God gave you free will and then made all your decisions for you, because he apparently made everything about you and everything about the world you live in, so however you come to whatever decision you come to it's because that's the decision God wants you to make, since he created everything about your decision making process. It's the same as creating a computer than can do Action A or Action B, and programming it to do Action A, then claiming it has free will.

I know more about this topic than many people on these boards and, sadly, I'm only 14.:eek:
Of course you do.

Where do things that are unrelated to free will fit into this, like volcanoes?

First off, God does exist. Secondly, God made the rules. And thirdly, we do have free will to sin, but everything was preordaned. God knows what sins ur gonna commit tomorrow. God knows what sins ur gonna commit the day you die. God knows what sins ur great-grandchildren are gonna commit on their seventh Christmas morning. He knows because he preordaned everything. It's like he wrote out a giant to-do list for everyone and included all their sins, all their bad and good thoughts, and all their actions.

I know more about this topic than many people on these boards and, sadly, I'm only 14.:eek:

I'm not sure you understand more about the topic than many people, you are just less willing to hear other points of view and so assume them to be incorrect nonsense.

Second of all, knowing everything is called omniscience and what you said is rather strange. If God has already decided what you are going to do then you don't have free will :rolleyes: , and furthermore if God has decided what sins you are going to commit then you are not sinning and should not be punished for it, only a cruel God would force you to do something so that he could punish you later.

Also you are only a few yeas younger than me, but what does it matter?

However such a massive megalomaniac would surely rather have slaves than stuck up atheists and devil worshiping heretics.

Well, the real question is whether or not God really is a megalomaniac; if we use the Christian interpretation of "Jesus or Hell" then I would say that's fairly likely. However, that concept is unfounded in Judaism; everyone but the most evil people after death go to be tormented in Sheol for a specific and finite time (no more than one year, IIRC). It's not great, but it's hardly eternal torment; eternal punishment for temporal sin is irrational and baseless.

And, of course, technically a megalomaniac is someone with delusions of wealth or power...God has both, and in infinite quantity. He's no megalomaniac in that case, but rather a tyrant.

First off, God does exist. Secondly, God made the rules. And thirdly, we do have free will to sin, but everything was preordaned. God knows what sins ur gonna commit tomorrow. God knows what sins ur gonna commit the day you die. God knows what sins ur great-grandchildren are gonna commit on their seventh Christmas morning at 11:24 right before they eat lunch. He knows because he preordaned everything. It's like he wrote out a giant to-do list for everyone and included all their sins, all their bad and good thoughts, and all their actions.

I know more about this topic than many people on these boards and, sadly, I'm only a 14 year old girl.:eek:

Sorry but you're deluded. God is LOVING and has not pre-ordained all the bad things that happen in the world. Think about it - if He had pre-ordained everything, why would He be so sick as to give us emotions? And what would be the point? If everything is preordained, we are like robots and there is no need for us to even have the power to think, let alone have emotions or free will.

First off god is omniscient and superprevalent, our puny senses can barely understand god, when we get a glimpse it makes us crazy and poetic to the point where we try and justify what we experienced in pure human terms which really can't be done in either a rational or irrational way. Why we aren't even supposed to name him is because he is so far beyond any context or name which can be given. This is why humans spend so much time trying to experience something transcendent, after all god created everything good, evil, you name it and is ultimately more than even saints or people seeking transcendent reasons for existence either through science or religion can bear for even a few moments.

Where do things that are unrelated to free will fit into this, like volcanoes?

I don't think they matter. Volcanic eruptions and other natural disasters are unfortunate, but I imagine if God were to step in and prevent natural disasters we would have even more problems than we do now.

Sorry but you're deluded. God is LOVING and has not pre-ordained all the bad things that happen in the world. Think about it - if He had pre-ordained everything, why would He be so sick as to give us emotions? And what would be the point? If everything is preordained, we are like robots and there is no need for us to even have the power to think, let alone have emotions or free will.
He may not have pre-ordained it on purpose, but doesn't omnipotence allow him to see everything that will ever happen? That essentially amounts to the same thing.

Where do things that are unrelated to free will fit into this, like volcanoes?

Punishments. Cus God couldn't prevent actions that are due to free will (see previous post), He decided to punish people for bad things afterwords by chucking volcanoes at em. That's the theory anyway, and I remember that after some Tsunami it was discovered that people in that country had been behaving in a very bad way somehow, though I don't remember exatly how. And considering all the rapes (including of kids) that happened in that shelter (some sports place I think) used during the New Orleans hurricane that the U.S. government seemingly didn't do much about, there were clearly some bad people who needed punishing.

He may not have pre-ordained it on purpose, but doesn't omnipotence allow him to see everything that will ever happen? That essentially amounts to the same thing.

Not necessarily. Knowing all possible outcomes doesn't mean that those outcomes have been previously chosen by God.

For example, I can know every possible hand in a game of poker (as nigh-impossible as that might be), but that doesn't mean that the hands I deal out to each player are preselected. It's up to a combination of chance and the decisions of each player that determines their final hands.

He may not have pre-ordained it on purpose, but doesn't omnipotence allow him to see everything that will ever happen? That essentially amounts to the same thing.

No - preordaining something means causing it to happen. God can perhaps see what is going to happen, but stuff that he did NOT preordain (and due to things mentioned in my theory, he can't directly do anything about it)

Unless "working through individuals" is really their free choices that are in accordance with the will of God. If a person reads the Bible, for example, and decides to follow God and devote their lives to doing good for others, then they could be said to be doing the will of God even if God is not directly involved.
Then God himself is doing nothing, just letting people exercise the free will he gave them.

You're not supposed to put God to the test; that's a pretty big one in the New Testament.
Why not, he has to forgive us if we do. Besides if we do not test God how can we work towards disproving him or attempt to understand what he is.

But what we consider the greater mercy may not be what God considers it to be. His decisions may be rooted in events 5 minutes or 5 million years in the future...there are so many externalities and possible outcomes of any event that our conception of the greater mercy is entirely rooted in our limited perception of the world.
So God is interfering on a grand scale? And making people suffer because it allows him not to show his divine hand is how he plays the game. Not such a great guy, especially considering the fact that he could change the world instantly and leave no one with any memory of it.

Punishments. Cus God couldn't prevent actions that are due to free will (see previous post), He decided to punish people for bad things afterwords by chucking volcanoes at em. That's the theory anyway, and I remember that after some Tsunami it was discovered that people in that country had been behaving in a very bad way somehow, though I don't remember exatly how. And considering all the rapes (including of kids) that happened in that shelter (some sports place I think) used during the New Orleans hurricane that the U.S. government seemingly didn't do much about, there were clearly some bad people who needed punishing.
Yay for collective punishment. Couldn't he just strike down the transgressors with diseases or something, rather than killing thousands of other people to get to them? I don't really see a pattern to natural disasters. To me, they seem to be just chucked around at random. You could argue that everyone is a sinner and should be punished, but if God is just, shouldn't he punish everyone?

First off god is omniscient and superprevalent, our puny senses can barely understand god, when we get a glimpse it makes us crazy and poetic to the point where we try and justify what we experienced in pure human terms which really can't be done in either a rational or irrational way. Why we aren't even supposed to name him is because he is so far beyond any context or name which can be given. This is why humans spend so much time trying to experience something transcendent, after all god created everything good, evil, you name it and is ultimately more than even saints or people seeking transcendent reasons for existence either through science or religion can bear for even a few moments.

I'm not convinced God created everything evil. The Christian Bible states that Satan CHOSE to be evil, and even if all religions are bollocks, if God magically appeared out of thin air or no air, why couldn't the devil have done the same?

Not necessarily. Knowing all possible outcomes doesn't mean that those outcomes have been previously chosen by God.

For example, I can know every possible hand in a game of poker (as nigh-impossible as that might be), but that doesn't mean that the hands I deal out to each player are preselected. It's up to a combination of chance and the decisions of each player that determines their final hands.

But God created all the factors that influence the outcome, and to what extent they influence the outcome. To stick with the poker analogy, not only does God know all the possible hands in the poker game, he knows the order the cards will be in before they're even shuffled, because he knows every detail, concievable and unconcievable, of the person/s who will shuffle it. Because he created all those details.

Yay for collective punishment. Couldn't he just strike down the transgressors with diseases or something, rather than killing thousands of other people to get to them? I don't really see a pattern to natural disasters. To me, they seem to be just chucked around at random. You could argue that everyone is a sinner and should be punished, but if God is just, shouldn't he punish everyone?

Well maybe he could just use the disease idea, but maybe he's too busy influencing other people.

Or maybe the devil's creating the earthquakes?

Well maybe he could just use the disease idea, but maybe he's too busy influencing other people.

Or maybe the devil's creating the earthquakes?

Can an omnipotent being really ever be too busy to do something?

If god cannot intervene to stop these things, he is not omnipotent,

If god is omnipotent and chooses not to, he is not good.

Or maybe god is female and is too busy breeding?

But God created all the factors that influence the outcome, and to what extent they influence the outcome. To stick with the poker analogy, not only does God know all the possible hands in the poker game, he knows the order the cards will be in before they're even shuffled, because he knows every detail, concievable and unconcievable, of the person/s who will shuffle it. Because he created all those details.

God MAY have created factors that influence an outcome, but they could be conflicting factors which people can choose to listen to or ignore. But that seems a bit daft, so I reckon God didn't - he just gave people free will to do anything they want (total free will) subject only to the limits of society (eg. HUMANS interfering) which God does not control.

Then God himself is doing nothing, just letting people exercise the free will he gave them.

Or is he? By providing guidelines to good and evil, he has given us the ability to freely choose to do his will; a person could just as easily read a holy book and reject its teachings as they could follow them.

Why not, he has to forgive us if we do. Besides if we do not test God how can we work towards disproving him or attempt to understand what he is.

God doesn't have to forgive you, you have to ask for forgiveness which he will grant if you are truly penitent. And God cannot be truly understood by humans; he is infinitely more than we are, and the only knowledge we can learn of him is what he gives us.

And there will never be "proof" of God, for the simple reason that God has neither reason to prove himself nor would any evidence of God be sufficient to truly convince a skeptic.

So God is interfering on a grand scale? And making people suffer because it allows him not to show his divine hand is how he plays the game. Not such a great guy, especially considering the fact that he could change the world instantly and leave no one with any memory of it.

But he would have no desire to do so; a God that tricks people is hardly a good or loving God. And, of course, we also have to remember that suffering is as much a product of other people as it is of God or nature; we are all free, and we all suffer the consequences of others' actions.

If god cannot intervene to stop these things, he is not omnipotent,

If god is omnipotent and chooses not to, he is not good.

Or maybe god is female and is too busy breeding?

As I suggested, even if God is omnipotent, directly intervening would be interfering with free will - BUT God does influence HUMANS to intervene (how many times you got a "bad feeling" before something bad has happened?) as He IS good.

Unfortunately (understatement), people too often choose to ignoe their feelings.

And, of course, technically a megalomaniac is someone with delusions of wealth or power...God has both, and in infinite quantity. He's no megalomaniac in that case, but rather a tyrant.

He has these, and yet he cannot even control things on a planitary scale, how odd.

I would say, considering how badly he has messed up human affairs, he has definately been living the dream of a megalomaniac.

I would say that the delusion is of God, rather than in it.

As I suggested, even if God is omnipotent, directly intervening would be interfering with free will - BUT God does influence HUMANS to intervene (how many times you got a "bad feeling" before something bad has happened?) as He IS good.
I think he may be referring to the disaster thing. I don't see why he can't intervene to stop the devil killing people.

As I suggested, even if God is omnipotent, directly intervening would be interfering with free will - BUT God does influence HUMANS to intervene (how many times you got a "bad feeling" before something bad has happened?) as He IS good.

There have been many times that I've had a bad feeling before doing something that has benefited me. You're exploiting human doubt and uncertaintly. For shame. Shame.

God MAY have created factors that influence an outcome, but they could be conflicting factors which people can choose to listen to or ignore. But that seems a bit daft, so I reckon God didn't - he just gave people free will to do anything they want (total free will) subject only to the limits of society (eg. HUMANS interfering) which God does not control.

Of course he created the factors. Or if not them then things that created them, or the things that created them and so on back to something he did create. God if God created the universe and all the rules governing it, then he indirectly created all the things that came about because of those ruels and that universe, and being omniscient he knew those things would be created because of that universe and those rules.

I think he may be referring to the disaster thing. I don't see why he can't intervene to stop the devil killing people.

Cus He'd be interfering with the devil's free will. So instead, He influences other people to do something (like get out the way) - before the Tsunami, animals apparently went crackers.

Of course he created the factors. Or if not them then things that created them, or the things that created them and so on back to something he did create. God if God created the universe and all the rules governing it, then he indirectly created all the things that came about because of those ruels and that universe, and being omniscient he knew those things would be created because of that universe and those rules.

You make a good point. I don't believe God can see how everyone is going to act now. I believe he can see sometimes how they are going to act, but people can change their mind.

But God created all the factors that influence the outcome, and to what extent they influence the outcome. To stick with the poker analogy, not only does God know all the possible hands in the poker game, he knows the order the cards will be in before they're even shuffled, because he knows every detail, concievable and unconcievable, of the person/s who will shuffle it. Because he created all those details.

Exactly. Even so, he has not preordained their choices, he only knows what all of them are. There are a finite number of decisions that any person can make because of our inherent physical limitations and the limitations of the universe itself.

Cus He'd be interfering with the devil's free will. So instead, He influences other people to do something (like get out the way) - before the Tsunami, animals apparently went crackers.
The devil has free will now? Wouldn't imprisoning him in Hell be a violation of his free will?
You make a good point. I don't believe God can see how everyone is going to act now. I believe he can see sometimes how they are going to act, but people can change their mind.
*coughomnipotencecough*

You make a good point. I don't believe God can see how everyone is going to act now. I believe he can see sometimes how they are going to act, but people can change their mind.

So your God isn't the omnipotent, omniscient omni-I'm-sure-there's-a-third-thing-but-I-can't-remember-it? Things would make a lot more sens with a fallible God.

Hehe. You can peddle all the fairy stories you want to - I live in a democratic, secular nation.

Your problem if you don't.

The devil has free will now? Wouldn't imprisoning him in Hell be a violation of his free will?

No more than putting a human prisoner in jail is a violation of their free will; they freely chose to commit the crime, and now are being freely punished according to the crime they comittted.

*coughomnipotencecough*

An ominpotent being can have limits to their power if a lack of those limits were to actually reduce or contradict their nature.

Or is he? By providing guidelines to good and evil, he has given us the ability to freely choose to do his will; a person could just as easily read a holy book and reject its teachings as they could follow them.
But the holy books are written by humans, and do not necessarily reflect his will.

God doesn't have to forgive you, you have to ask for forgiveness which he will grant if you are truly penitent.
Whats the worst he can do, he loves us all, right, and wouldn't want to hurt us.

And God cannot be truly understood by humans; he is infinitely more than we are, and the only knowledge we can learn of him is what he gives us.
How convinient. A being that cannot be disproved.

And there will never be "proof" of God, for the simple reason that God has neither reason to prove himself nor would any evidence of God be sufficient to truly convince a skeptic.
I disagree, if God were to manifest on earth and begin making a show of divine power (a real show) then, after substantial testing to prove he was not a fake, I would accept that a God does indeed exist. You may mean the theist, as they will never accept proof that God does not exist. If it were presented to them they would claim God was above such things, put it there to trick us, etc.


But he would have no desire to do so; a God that tricks people is hardly a good or loving God. And, of course, we also have to remember that suffering is as much a product of other people as it is of God or nature; we are all free, and we all suffer the consequences of others' actions.
And God could stop all of that but doesn't, what a terrible being he must be, not worthy of worship.

Exactly. Even so, he has not preordained their choices, he only knows what all of them are. There are a finite number of decisions that any person can make because of our inherent physical limitations and the limitations of the universe itself.

Limitations which God created, along with us and all the things that could influence our decisions. And being omniscient he knew before hand exactly how these things would influence us. Like, if X does A, then Y will do B, only vastly more complicated with more variables than the human mind could possibly imagine, let alone understand.

Hehe. You can peddle all the fairy stories you want to - I live in a democratic, secular nation.

Your problem if you don't.

This is relevant how?

The devil has free will now? Wouldn't imprisoning him in Hell be a violation of his free will?

*coughomnipotencecough*

I never said the devil was in hell. The Old Testament did. Also if he's imprisoned for something which he has ALREADY done, then it's not interfering with his free will - it's punishment.

As for omnipotence, O.K., then I now reckon God IS everywhere and can see what is about to happen (which is why He influences humans to do something about it when it's bad) but that he could not ORIGINALLY see what was going to happen in the far away future.

No more than putting a human prisoner in jail is a violation of their free will; they freely chose to commit the crime, and now are being freely punished according to the crime they comittted.



An ominpotent being can have limits to their power if a lack of those limits were to actually reduce or contradict their nature.
This may be a stupid question, but did the devil actually freely choose to commit those crimes? He is the devil, after all, evil is part of the job description.

This part I'm not sure I understand. I've always seen omnipotence as being, well, omnipotence, so that God really should have some special way of preserving free will but zapping suffering out of existence. From what I've seen your views and the views of Christians who try to counter us atheists' suffering argument say that God's power is limited by logic. Can you elaborate on this? By definition, isn't omnipotence unlimited?

This may be a stupid question, but did the devil actually freely choose to commit those crimes? He is the devil, after all, evil is part of the job description.
Actually the Christian devil was driven by pride to attempt a rebellion in Heaven, he should, theoretically, have had a choice.

This may be a stupid question, but did the devil actually freely choose to commit those crimes? He is the devil, after all, evil is part of the job description.

It's pretty murky, actually. One account is that Satan was an angel of God, but chose to rebel out of pride and was cast down to Hell as a result; that would suggest it was a free decision and so he became evil rather than was evil.

In Job, however, Satan is an angel of God that is under his control; he is allowed to torment Job, but only to a certain degree set by God.

This part I'm not sure I understand. I've always seen omnipotence as being, well, omnipotence, so that God really should have some special way of preserving free will but zapping suffering out of existence. From what I've seen your views and the views of Christians who try to counter us atheists' suffering argument say that God's power is limited by logic. Can you elaborate on this? By definition, isn't omnipotence unlimited?

Well, "omnipotent" means "all powerful" or "almighty"; it doesn't necessarily mean that God's power is unlimited, just that he is the most powerful being in existence and that his power is unlimited within the confines of his nature. If God does something that violates his nature or is inherently contradictory, he could not do so. Violating free will by abolishing suffering would inherently violate free will, which is a contradiction against his nature and can't be done. It also means that he has virtually unlimited authority and influence; again, he is the supreme authority of the universe and can affect anything in it, but that does not mean he does not have limitations.

Unless, of course, the law of non-contradiction does not apply to God, in which case he could be both omnipotent and powerless, or finite and infinite, totally good and totally evil, and existent as well as nonexistent.

Well, "omnipotent" means "all powerful" or "almighty"; it doesn't necessarily mean that God's power is unlimited, just that he is the most powerful being in existence and that his power is unlimited within the confines of his nature. If God does something that violates his nature or is inherently contradictory, he could not do so. Violating free will by abolishing suffering would inherently violate free will, which is a contradiction against his nature and can't be done. It also means that he has virtually unlimited authority and influence; again, he is the supreme authority of the universe and can affect anything in it, but that does not mean he does not have limitations.

Unless, of course, the law of non-contradiction does not apply to God, in which case he could be both omnipotent and powerless, or finite and infinite, totally good and totally evil, and existent as well as nonexistent.

How is violating free will a contradiction of gods nature? Also, by general consent omnipotence implies that he has no limitations. God can always do 'x', whatever 'x' may be.

I never said the devil was in hell. The Old Testament did.
No it doesn't. Doesn't even mention any sort of ultimate evil. Well, aside from God, who is explicitly described as both good and evil.

A theory about why suffering still happens, why God seemingly ignore it (or lots of it), and how God helps people but still sticks to the rule about not messing about with free will.

Theory:
.

didnt you just make a vow this morning not to start religious threads?

yeah, but did god have to make us so evil minded? cant we have free will without being so freaking inclined to do very bad things to each other?

couldnt he have done a better job giving us a body that isnt so prone to disease? birth defects, childhood leukemia, appendicitis, alsheimers.... those things have nothing to do with free will

couldnt he have done a better job making a world not quite so prone to killing us? lightning strikes, tsunamis, earthquakes, wildfires, floods, famines, these things suck even more than school shootings and infidelity.

there is more than just free will making the world suck.

didnt you just make a vow this morning not to start religious threads?

yeah, but did god have to make us so evil minded? cant we have free will without being so freaking inclined to do very bad things to each other?

couldnt he have done a better job giving us a body that isnt so prone to disease? birth defects, childhood leukemia, appendicitis, alsheimers.... those things have nothing to do with free will

couldnt he have done a better job making a world not quite so prone to killing us? lightning strikes, tsunamis, earthquakes, wildfires, floods, famines, these things suck even more than school shootings and infidelity.

there is more than just free will making the world suck.


The power the human mind and the application of the science that the human has discovered has not yet been fully developed and implemented. No doubt soon will new discoveries make past understandings seem elementary in comparison.


Know thou that the soul of man is exalted above, and is independent of all infirmities of body or mind. That a sick person showeth signs of weakness is due to the hindrances that interpose themselves between his soul and his body, for the soul itself remaineth unaffected by any bodily ailments. Consider the light of the lamp. Though an external object may interfere with its radiance, the light itself continueth to shine with undiminished power. In like manner, every malady afflicting the body of man is an impediment that preventeth the soul from manifesting its inherent might and power. When it leaveth the body, however, it will evince such ascendancy, and reveal such influence as no force on earth can equal. Every pure, every refined and sanctified soul will be endowed with tremendous power, and shall rejoice with exceeding gladness.

(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 153)

So your God isn't the omnipotent, omniscient omni-I'm-sure-there's-a-third-thing-but-I-can't-remember-it? Things would make a lot more sens with a fallible God.

omnipresent


going with the christian angle, it's my understanding that free will was given exclusively to humanity, and angels were servants
in which case lucifer was compelled to rebel
so punishing him for eternity for an act he was created to perform is cruel and unusual
which would make god a right prick in my mind

and if lucifer hadn't rebelled, what would sinners be punished with?
heaven requires an opposite or the whole carrot-and-stick routine doesn't work

omni-I'm-sure-there's-a-third-thing-but-I-can't-remember-it

omninjant

the property of being all-ninja

So why doesn’t God directly intervene? Even if God is all-powerful, to directly intervene personally would be a form of preventing a choice that someone has made due to their free will and thus deliberately directly preventing that choice may perhaps be a form of interfering with free will

Right, and so the Nine Plagues of Eygpt which God used to force the Pharaoh to let the Jews go were just 'peer pressure'? No offence, but I hate that explanation. According to the Bible and other Biblical stories, God and his Angels have interefered many a time. Convienently, it was when we couldn't it in anyway.

So why doesn’t God directly intervene? Even if God is all-powerful, to directly intervene personally would be a form of preventing a choice that someone has made due to their free will and thus deliberately directly preventing that choice may perhaps be a form of interfering with free will

Right, and so the Nine Plagues of Eygpt which God used to force the Pharaoh to let the Jews go were just 'peer pressure'? No offence, but I hate that explanation. According to the Bible and other Biblical stories, God and his Angels have interefered many a time. Convienently, it was when we couldn't record it in anyway.