Theodicy and kicking the can

[Angrboda]

The most common answer to this lately is the notion of free will. It's basically the idea that we're allowed to do evil because it's super important

What I as a believer finds super important is love in all its forms: love of God, brotherly love, romantic love, and, yes, erotic love. What is at stake is whether people love of their own accord or if external influences fully override their ability to decide who they love.

I've never been impressed by the love argument because from my recollection of when I believed, and observation of others, it's a stretch to call the feelings felt about God as "love." It seems more often to be a mix of fearful respect and wonder, but not love. But that goes against the narrative, so people say that the relationship is one of love. I know of no other actual love relationship which even resembles the typical attitude towards God. So to me, to suggest that the basis of our life in this world is so we can choose to love God is a complete non-starter. Just the whole thing about "choosing" to love just doesn't make any sense. We don't choose to love another person, how do we do it with God? One might say we can choose to commit ourselves to God, or the sacred, or the good, but that's not the same thing as 'love'.

---

I think the best answer I've heard to this is that the 'test' is not for God's benefit, but for our own. It gives us the opportunity to develop and grow morally, as Chad suggests. In that sense, God's omniscience would be a non-issue because the purpose of life is our development, not the formation of a judgement about our worthiness for heaven.

[Neo-Scholastic]

We don't choose to love another person, how do we do it with God?

Here we must agree to disagree, since I believe that people do indeed choose who they love. I cannot speak for you, but I have a rather expansive view of what love entails. I believe it goes far beyond affection and includes the duties to which people commit, whether they feel like it or not, and thoughtful habits that may not involve any affect at all. People cultivate loving relationships consciously over time. That said, I do agree that a relationship with the divine is different in kind, just as brotherly love differs from conjugal love.

[FatAndFaithless]

One thing I do know about love is that it has nothing to do with "fear and trembling".

[Neo-Scholastic]

One thing I do know about love is that it has nothing to do with "fear and trembling".

You haven't met my wife. :-)

[FatAndFaithless]

Ugh..

[RobbyPants]

Why not just make Earthly life “never be bad”? Because removing the potential for moral evils simultaneously removes the potential for moral goods like love. For example, learning to harness the power of fire is a tremendous benefit, but the same power can be misused, as in the case of arson, or handled carelessly, as in the case of grease fires from cooking.

Your current notion of love revolves around comparing it to other states. That isn't to say that it cannot exist without those other negatives.

Are you saying that God is incapable of creating creatures capable of knowing love without also knowing suffering/evil? This notion can still be summed up with a can't vs won't proposition. Either God cannot create such beings (why?), or he chooses not to, making these moral evils unnecessary.

Then how can Heaven be a “never bad” place? Because Heaven is a state of being only attained by a process of moral development*, either by experience or instruction.

But, why can't God just create us with that level of development? He supposedly created adults in Eden, despite the fact that every human thereafter must be born as an infant. Is it impossible for God to create a human with this level of development?

Again, this is a can't vs won't proposition. Either God cannot create people this way (why?), or he chooses not to, and "the journey" is arbitrary.

How someone feels about their role in loving. For example, suppose someone was under the influence of a ‘love potion’ or some form of mind control, such that they had no say over the feelings of affection and duty towards another. Can anyone claim that such a person truly loved the object of their love. Now replace the love potion with the initial conditions of the universe. I don’t see much of a difference.

Given free will, someone has the potential choose to love some and not others. Anyone can see that the absence of love introduces the potential for relationships based on indifference or malice. Which potentials, for good or ill, are actualized depends completely on the free agent.

If heaven is a state achieved due to moral development, and people "always" do the right thing, then it seems you've ended up with a place where everyone has voluntarily taken the love potion.

[Nope]

In the thread on Free Will, I asked about angels. How do angels and the story of Lucifer's fall fit in with your view of heaven, Chadwooters? Most Christian that I know believe that Lucifer lived in heaven and rebelled against god. It didn't matter that Lucifer and a portion of the angels were in god's presence, they still rebelled. If the angels were able to have free will while living in a place that is supposed to be perfect, why do humans have to suffer so god can be loved?

It still boils down to a child is raped because god wants us to decide to love him. It would all make more sense if god wasn't all powerful or all knowing.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Your current notion of love revolves around comparing it to other states…That isn't to say that it cannot exist without those other negatives.

Not exactly. The potential for moral evil is necessarily present when the potential for voluntary love is present. But the actualization of moral evil is not necessary.

Are you saying that God is incapable of creating creatures capable of knowing love without also knowing suffering/evil?

No, what I am saying is that God cannot create creatures capable of actualizing good, without the potential for doing evil.

…why can't God just create us with that level of development?

Because it is not necessary to do so because creation is an on-going process. Children’s’ fields of moral action are comparatively smaller than those of mature adults. Each stage of development corresponds with different levels of potential for both moral good and moral evil.

If heaven is a state achieved due to moral development, and people "always" do the right thing, then it seems you've ended up with a place where everyone has voluntarily taken the love potion.

Not at all. They have habituated themselves to good and cultivated righteous character.

[Neo-Scholastic]

In the thread on Free Will, I asked about angels. How do angels and the story of Lucifer's fall fit in with your view of heaven, Chadwooters?

I do not believe angels are a special creation. And I consider Satan to be a literary personification, not an actual entity.

[RobbyPants]

Are you saying that God is incapable of creating creatures capable of knowing love without also knowing suffering/evil?

No, what I am saying is that God cannot create creatures capable of actualizing good, without the potential for doing evil.
...

If heaven is a state achieved due to moral development, and people "always" do the right thing, then it seems you've ended up with a place where everyone has voluntarily taken the love potion.

Not at all. They have habituated themselves to good and cultivated righteous character.

Why?

I'm not saying you're wrong, and I understand why you feel that's the case. We live in a world where both good and evil are possible, and we have a mentality that constantly conceptualizes other things by comparison (X is more good than Y, Y is more evil than X). That being said, this seems like it could be entirely post hoc rationalization.

If we're positing a deity that can create things that otherwise wouldn't be able to be created, such as fully grown, mentally developed adults, it stands to reason that God could create people with the level of "moral maturity" needed so that they would never to evil, even given the opportunity.

If you believe people of that level of character can exist, why couldn't God simply create them that way? You've compared these types of people to "adults" having reached a certain level of "moral maturity", and you believe that God created adults in Eden (at least, I'm assuming you do). Why couldn't he create people at a stage which you believe is possible to attain?