The Problem of Evil

[Immanuel Can]

I believe you missed my point due to a very strong defense mechanism.

Heh. Well, I believe I read your points carefully, and found significant flaws in your assumptions. So only one of us knows what really happened...and it couldn't be you, since you weren't there when it happened.

You've changed your argument now, but I'll still address it. Your last argument had quite a different, and implausible, premise 1. This one's no better, but suffers from different misconceptions. For example, it has a very simplistic view of what "benevolence" must consist in. If you'd actually read my conversation with B, you'd have seen this problem coming and avoided it already, I suspect.

B. and I were discussing whether or not a "benevolent" God would want his creatures to have free will. We both think He would. Again, I suggest you can save us all a lot of annoyance if you read the thread carefully, and think about what we're discussing before you write back.

[Immanuel Can]

But the more that men in their choices are guided by reason the more that men are like God.

You've got that backwards. The more men's choices are Godlike, the more reasonable they will be. Human reasoning is often flawed and confused; God's never is.

That should be a fairly obvious fact, I would think. The unlimited, omniscient Creator is certain to be more "reasonable" than the contingent, limited, fallen creature. It would be unreasonable to suppose otherwise.

[bahman]

Human is free to choose good or evil.

Well, yes, I agree they are. And that means they can choose to do evil -- to the environment, at least, and to each other, if not also to animals. And we're recognizing that that is a better "good" than if human beings had been created incapable of freedom of choice, no?

Yes. I however don't think that the mind is created.

[Immanuel Can]

Human is free to choose good or evil.

Well, yes, I agree they are. And that means they can choose to do evil -- to the environment, at least, and to each other, if not also to animals. And we're recognizing that that is a better "good" than if human beings had been created incapable of freedom of choice, no?

Yes. I however don't think that the mind is created.

I get that.

However, the concern you were expressing, unless I have misunderstood, was one about my worldview rather than yours. It was about the postulate, what if God exists? not, what if everything is just mind?

Is that correct?

We can, of course, ask all kinds of questions about the postulate that all is mind. But I don't think any of them will begin with any phrase like, how could God allow...

[bahman]

Well, yes, I agree they are. And that means they can choose to do evil -- to the environment, at least, and to each other, if not also to animals. And we're recognizing that that is a better "good" than if human beings had been created incapable of freedom of choice, no?

Yes. I however don't think that the mind is created.

I get that.

However, the concern you were expressing, unless I have misunderstood, was one about my worldview rather than yours. It was about the postulate, what if God exists? not, what if everything is just mind?

Is that correct?

We can, of course, ask all kinds of questions about the postulate that all is mind. But I don't think any of them will begin with any phrase like, how could God allow...

Yes, my concern was about your worldview, how God could allow "animal" suffering.

[Belinda]

But the more that men in their choices are guided by reason the more that men are like God.

You've got that backwards. The more men's choices are Godlike, the more reasonable they will be. Human reasoning is often flawed and confused; God's never is.

That should be a fairly obvious fact, I would think. The unlimited, omniscient Creator is certain to be more "reasonable" than the contingent, limited, fallen creature. It would be unreasonable to suppose otherwise.

I have not "got it backwards" because we don't have any way to imitate Christ other than the reasoning way. Human reasoning is fallible , however human fallibility does not imply that Immanuel Can knows the will of the Almighty

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, my concern was about your worldview, how God could allow "animal" suffering.

Right. Well, in a world made up of mind, there are no such questions, of course. So when you say, "the world is made up of mind," you've just extinguished any basis for your own alleged objection.

So I'd have to answer the question from my own worldview, without diverting to yours. Therefore, if we are to answer the question at all, we have to take for granted that the existence of God is at least a possible postulate, and that the claim "all is mind" could at least potentially be untrue. Otherwise, your question isn't merely already answered, but worse -- cannot even be asked.

[Immanuel Can]

But the more that men in their choices are guided by reason the more that men are like God.

You've got that backwards. The more men's choices are Godlike, the more reasonable they will be. Human reasoning is often flawed and confused; God's never is.

That should be a fairly obvious fact, I would think. The unlimited, omniscient Creator is certain to be more "reasonable" than the contingent, limited, fallen creature. It would be unreasonable to suppose otherwise.

I have not "got it backwards" ...

Yes, you obviously do. You can't start from mankind's kind of "reason" and then deduce that God would have an obligation to conform to it. What would make a contingent being an adequate prototype of the Being who created him? What kind of man can dictate to his own Creator? How can we justify such a move?

You would have to suppose that "reason," whatever we take it to be, is more fully-realized in God than in man. Then you could ask why God reasons as He does, and try to explain it in human terms. But if man is the wellspring of reason, then you've let God off the hook. He can't plausibly be obligated to meet a standard we merely invented. It would have to be an objective standard, transcending all particular men, and even mankind itself. It would have to be part of the necessary order of things; which is to say, a feature of God.

But you could never rationally suppose that God had obligations to match some standard that, by your own account, contingent man only cooked up in his own fevered imagination. If that's all "rationality" is, an accidental thing mortals imagine to be real, then neither God nor man has any obligation to conform to it. No further explanations would be required.

...we don't have any way to imitate Christ other than the reasoning way.

We do, actually. But if rationality began with man, then what would convince us we had any duty to "imitate Christ"? Does not the very phrase, "the imitation of Christ," position us as the mere reflection, and Christ as the Original? Obviously.

[Belinda]

You've got that backwards. The more men's choices are Godlike, the more reasonable they will be. Human reasoning is often flawed and confused; God's never is.

That should be a fairly obvious fact, I would think. The unlimited, omniscient Creator is certain to be more "reasonable" than the contingent, limited, fallen creature. It would be unreasonable to suppose otherwise.

I have not "got it backwards" ...

Yes, you obviously do. You can't start from mankind's kind of "reason" and then deduce that God would have an obligation to conform to it. What would make a contingent being an adequate prototype of the Being who created him? What kind of man can dictate to his own Creator? How can we justify such a move?

You would have to suppose that "reason," whatever we take it to be, is more fully-realized in God than in man. Then you could ask why God reasons as He does, and try to explain it in human terms. But if man is the wellspring of reason, then you've let God off the hook. He can't plausibly be obligated to meet a standard we merely invented. It would have to be an objective standard, transcending all particular men, and even mankind itself. It would have to be part of the necessary order of things; which is to say, a feature of God.

But you could never rationally suppose that God had obligations to match some standard that, by your own account, contingent man only cooked up in his own fevered imagination. If that's all "rationality" is, an accidental thing mortals imagine to be real, then neither God nor man has any obligation to conform to it. No further explanations would be required.

...we don't have any way to imitate Christ other than the reasoning way.

We do, actually. But if rationality began with man, then what would convince us we had any duty to "imitate Christ"? Does not the very phrase, "the imitation of Christ," position us as the mere reflection, and Christ as the Original? Obviously.

It is silly to ask why God reasons as He does. The question does not make sense. God is cause of itself so there is reason for God. God just is.

To imitate Christ you need reason, and a brain to reason with, and a body of which the brain is one of many other components. To this end we cure diseases, educate the ignorant, feed the hungry, and shelter the homeless.The faculty of reason is necessary but not sufficient for any man to attain the truth of God, however some ideas are more reasonable than other ideas.

It is my responsibility to use whatever talent for reason that I have, and try to help others to do so with regard to their talents. If someone has lost their reason or is too young to have developed adult ideas I should try to help them. The faculty of reason is necessary but not sufficient for any man to attain the truth of God, however some ideas are more reasonable than other ideas.

[Immanuel Can]

It is silly to ask why God reasons as He does. The question does not make sense. God is cause of itself so there is reason for God. God just is.

I would agree with Francis Bacon, the father of the Scientific Method: God is a God of reason. He did, after all, invent it. By asking what reasons pertain to God and to the world He created, we can know more about the character of God. I would also agree with Leibniz, that our problem in as human beings is not that God fails to be reasonable, but that we mere contingent, local and fallible human beings do not have the entire picture of what God is always doing. So sometimes we will lack the premises we need to make the right conclusions about why the world is the way it is. So when we reason about God, we sometimes have to be duly humble, and realize we're asking him to condescend to the smallness of our understanding. All the reasons that exist are an ocean; and we stand on the shore with nothing more than a cup.

But God is not afraid of your questions or mine. And He is not incapable of having answers to them. Those who ask in faith get explanations: the rest get cyphers, so that they will find nothing to see. For without faith, it is impossible to be acceptable to God. He does not reward cynics. Those who will show a mustard-seed sized faith, He answers; but those who come cynically, He lets them find what they expect -- nothing.

As Jesus said to his believing disciples on one occasion, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest they are told in parables, so that while seeing they may not see, and while hearing they may not understand." (Luke 8:10)

The faculty of reason is necessary but not sufficient for any man to attain the truth of God, however some ideas are more reasonable than other ideas.

Very true.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I believe you missed my point due to a very strong defense mechanism.

Heh. Well, I believe I read your points carefully, and found significant flaws in your assumptions. So only one of us knows what really happened...and it couldn't be you, since you weren't there when it happened.

You've changed your argument now, but I'll still address it. Your last argument had quite a different, and implausible, premise 1. This one's no better, but suffers from different misconceptions. For example, it has a very simplistic view of what "benevolence" must consist in. If you'd actually read my conversation with B, you'd have seen this problem coming and avoided it already, I suspect.

B. and I were discussing whether or not a "benevolent" God would want his creatures to have free will. We both think He would. Again, I suggest you can save us all a lot of annoyance if you read the thread carefully, and think about what we're discussing before you write back.

I did read your point re whether or not a "benevolent" God would want his creatures to have free will.
I take that to be giving absolutely-absolute-freewill to his humans.
That was where I intercepted in a post that you have have skewed view of what is freedom.
Both you and Bahman did not differentiate absolutely-absolute-freewill of God from limited free will.

1. A benevolent God being omni-wise would not give humans absolutely-absolute [totally unconditional] free will.
Only God has absolutely-absolute-free will.

2. As such if a God exists, that God by default must be intrinsically omni-benevolent and omni-wise; such an all powerful God would not be so stupid to give humans absolutely-absolute free will to the extent that they commit terrible evil acts so freely.
Instead such a wise God would only give human limited free will and with inhibitions and limitation for human to commit evil acts.

3. BUT, it is so evident there are terrible evil and violence [e.g. genocides, babies are tortured for pleasure, etc.] in the history of humanity committed absolutely freely by humans without restraints. - contradict 2.

4. Since 3 [ evil acts happened] a God by default which must be intrinsically omni-benevolent and omni-wise plus omni-whatever, does not exist.

[Belinda]

It is silly to ask why God reasons as He does. The question does not make sense. God is cause of itself so there is reason for God. God just is.

I would agree with Francis Bacon, the father of the Scientific Method: God is a God of reason. He did, after all, invent it. By asking what reasons pertain to God and to the world He created, we can know more about the character of God. I would also agree with Leibniz, that our problem in as human beings is not that God fails to be reasonable, but that we mere contingent, local and fallible human beings do not have the entire picture of what God is always doing. So sometimes we will lack the premises we need to make the right conclusions about why the world is the way it is. So when we reason about God, we sometimes have to be duly humble, and realize we're asking him to condescend to the smallness of our understanding. All the reasons that exist are an ocean; and we stand on the shore with nothing more than a cup.

But God is not afraid of your questions or mine. And He is not incapable of having answers to them. Those who ask in faith get explanations: the rest get cyphers, so that they will find nothing to see. For without faith, it is impossible to be acceptable to God. He does not reward cynics. Those who will show a mustard-seed sized faith, He answers; but those who come cynically, He lets them find what they expect -- nothing.

As Jesus said to his believing disciples on one occasion, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest they are told in parables, so that while seeing they may not see, and while hearing they may not understand." (Luke 8:10)

The faculty of reason is necessary but not sufficient for any man to attain the truth of God, however some ideas are more reasonable than other ideas.

Very true.

But those who ask in faith do not get ultimate and eternal explanations . The faith of investigators into a crime is not sufficient for them to get an explanation. Similarly the faith that God is ultimate truth and goodness does not guarantee ultimate truth and goodness will reveal its nature to them.

True, Xianity has provided an explanation and revelation of ultimate truth and goodness and how to attain it. The saving of the poor, the homeless, the sick, the criminal, the prisoner, and the downtrodden is not popular with most people who are unable to stop being greedy and who want more than their fair share of the finite total of worldly goods. Greedy people fool themselves into believing the total of worldly goods is not finite. And that belief which , despite being unreasonable is common, results in political policies that favour economic growth above other considerations.


Reason shows that habitual greed is caused by fear of deprivation which causes a man to be too afraid for his future to postpone immediate satisfaction of his desires. Fear for his future also causes the habitual greed that causes a man to accumulate more money than he needs. Love is extremely hard work and superstitious 'faith' is inadequate for inspiring and encouraging greedy and sceptical men. For the latter we need reason not Biblical authority.

[Immanuel Can]

B. and I were discussing whether or not a "benevolent" God would want his creatures to have free will. We both think He would. Again, I suggest you can save us all a lot of annoyance if you read the thread carefully, and think about what we're discussing before you write back.

I did read your point re whether or not a "benevolent" God would want his creatures to have free will.
I take that to be giving absolutely-absolute-freewill to his humans.

Ah, that was where you went wrong.

No such thing has ever been promised, and no such thing ever will be. Because while God is not constrained by circumstances, age, knowledge, wisdom, space, resources, illness, or many of the other things that prevent all human beings from having "absolute" volition, we are. Human beings can have moral and physical freedom within limitations imposed by the available circumstances and conditions of life -- but not "absolute" freedom.

f they had "absolute" freedom, we could all flap our arms and fly.

[Sculptor]

B. and I were discussing whether or not a "benevolent" God would want his creatures to have free will. We both think He would. Again, I suggest you can save us all a lot of annoyance if you read the thread carefully, and think about what we're discussing before you write back.

I did read your point re whether or not a "benevolent" God would want his creatures to have free will.
I take that to be giving absolutely-absolute-freewill to his humans.

Ah, that was where you went wrong.

No such thing has ever been promised, and no such thing ever will be. Because while God is not constrained by circumstances, age, knowledge, wisdom, space, resources, illness, or many of the other things that prevent all human beings from having "absolute" volition, we are. Human beings can have moral and physical freedom within limitations imposed by the available circumstances and conditions of life -- but not "absolute" freedom.

f they had "absolute" freedom, we could all flap our arms and fly.

I love it when theists invent whatever sort of god they want to comply with their arguments and personal view points.
If only reality was like that!!
LOL

[Immanuel Can]

But those who ask in faith do not get ultimate and eternal explanations .

Actually, they get all the explanations they may need. See James 1:1-3.

The faith of investigators into a crime is not sufficient for them to get an explanation.

Well, really, B., that has nothing to do with the case. You've extracted any question of God from your example, and you're right: we're never told "just have faith in things, and they'll all come true." Disney might believe that, but nobody else does.

No, Biblically, faith is always "faith in God's character," not just "faith." It's a willingness to invest some hope in the prospect that God will do what He has promised, and will show Himself to be the kind of Person He has revealed Himself to be. Those who have mere "faith in faith" are just foolish.

The saving of the poor, the homeless, the sick, the criminal, the prisoner, and the downtrodden is not popular with most people who are unable to stop being greedy and who want more than their fair share of the finite total of worldly goods. Greedy people fool themselves into believing the total of worldly goods is not finite. And that belief which , despite being unreasonable is common, results in political policies that favour economic growth above other considerations.

Well, "economic growth" is a very good thing for everybody...even the poor. You can see that because if you've been to the Developing World, as I have, you have seen that even our poorest citizens have far more than the average person in a nation with low economic growth. So we do want our countries all to have "economic growth." Without it, everybody ends up miserable.

It's not "economic growth" that's bad: it's things like addiction, crime, single-parenthood, refusal to work, mental illness and so forth that account for poverty in developed countries. And even there, there are social networks and charitable agencies that will give help. There are also welfare programs, food banks, employment services, and other forms of "social safety net" that the poor can access, if they want to. There are no such things in much of the developing world: or at least, not nearly enough of them, and they are not nearly generally available. For the developing world, "economic growth" is the only hope of a better life for the poor. So don't be down on "economic growth."

It's not even "distribution" that's the problem. In developed nations, people can earn wealth, and they generally do. That's why there's a middle class. The fact that some people have more money and some have less is not a product of inequality or oppression, but rather of the natural differentials in education, experience, intelligence, skill, creativity, practicality, diligence, work type, opportunity, and even fortune sometimes. There is no conspiracy to rob the poor. As a consequence of such differentials, some people succeed and others fail -- rather like all of life, actually. You have to take your opportunities, or you can anticipate consequences.

But you're right about human nature: it has good elements, but it also gives us things like greed, covetousness, theft, war, exploitation, and so on. That's why putting a cadre of ideologues in charge of the rest of us only ever results in things like greed, covetousness, theft and exploitation. The only way to prevent that from being as bad as it could be is to put limited terms on all those we give power, along with other constraints like a plurality of parties, the franchise, the rule of law, a constitution, limited terms, and so on. Giving total power to the hands of the government inevitably results in exactly what you fear.

Reason shows that habitual greed is caused by fear of deprivation

Not really. Greed can be caused by many things. Some of the richest people, the farthest from "deprivation" are the greediest, according to you. And if your "fear" theory were correct, then the poorest would be the most rapacious and dangerous, since they would be closest to the prospect of deprivation. That CAN be the case, but is not necessarily so. Greed can be an expression of narcissism, aggression, or even cynicism or contempt. I wouldn't waste a lot of time feeling sorry for the "fear" of greedy people. They can choose to be otherwise, and should.