(April 30, 2014 at 6:53 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: @Esquilax

While interesting, the examples you, Esq., provide (the misfired gun & flaccid rapist) are not enough by themselves to validate the premise that an all-knowing, beneficent, and all-powerful god could actually create a perfect world (whatever that means) And your idea of a perfect world seems vague and not particularly well thought out. The potential rape victim is spared, but what happens to the frustrated rapist. Being thwarted and frustrated, even from a wicked desire, is also a form of suffering. To remove all frustration means preventing people from desiring what they cannot have without causing harm to themselves and others. So let’s see where that line of reasoning leads…

You have, unfortunately, strayed quite far out from the bounds of my initial argument, here. I'm not discussing a perfect world, just the fact that god could easily make marked improvements to the one that we currently live in, and that the christian standard response to this, that it would violate free will, is nonsensical.

As it stands I'm not terribly worried about the frustrations of the rapist, any more than I would be worried about the injuries a criminal incurs while fleeing from the police, and for the same reason; they wouldn't be feeling that way if they weren't doing something they weren't supposed to do in the first place. Their suffering, such as it is, is entirely their own making, and as such they are hardly innocent victims, as the raped person or murder victim would be.

I don't think a perfect world, for every person, at all times, is possible without violating free will because some people are psychopaths who would find the suffering of others to be a part of their perfect world. But one who had the powers of a god could make a markedly better world without violating free will, certainly.

Quote:Making people incapable of considering arson or robbery does not eliminate all potential harm and subsequent suffering. The ignorant and inattentive can cause damage without harmful intent. A grease fire can start while the cook is distracted by a co-worker. People can build houses without knowing they sit on a fault line. In order to prevent all potential harm, humans would need to be fully aware of all potential the consequences of their actions, including the actions of other humans. This creates a problem: all knowledge is limited to what can be known. Since the future does not yet exist, it cannot be known. No one, not even a god that can know everything that it is possible to know, can exactly predict all the outcomes of one’s actions. As such, the actions of free agents may inadvertently bring about harm and suffering, absent moral accountability.

But there's a difference between "suffering" and "human produced suffering," the latter of which being what the problem of evil seeks to address, and the free will argument seeks to excuse. It'd just be a bizarre argument if someone asserted that the reason god lets accidental fires start is because he doesn't want to violate free will; the fire wasn't a conscious action and therefore the decision-making processes of the person involved aren't violated, since no doubt they would prefer that the fire not start at all.

(April 30, 2014 at 11:05 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote:

(April 30, 2014 at 9:25 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Your expectations about what God should be able to do are irrelevant. Either present a coherent example of perfect world or admit you're just a blowhard clinging to juvenile objections.

A perfect world would be one free of any manner of anything anybody could ever possibly conceive of, or even imagine, as being negative. Which should be small beans for a perfect creator to do, but it's obviously way out of the league of the one you believe in.

Do you know why I have an expectation that your god is perfect and all-capable? Because you assfucks insist he is.

So you just blow harder and cry that God didn't give you a pony. And really? A world without any negative aspects...can you be any more vague? The devil is in the details, friend.

Basically you have nothing. Even after I clearly and logically showed that knowing all that can be known does not necessarily prevent unfortunate outcomes. Still waiting to hear a logical argument proving that a perfect world is even a coherent concept...(sound of crickets)

I have often imagined that a perfect world would be one devoid of religion, one without socioeconomcal injustice, and one without the unnecessary hierarchy.

I think the argument only requires that a better world be possible, and not necessarily a perfect or ideal one.

Although there is a potential counterargument. If there is no limit to how good the world could be, then a better world will always be possible, no matter how good the world is.

Does anyone else find it odd that Chad accused me of moving the goalposts, and yet he's the one taking the argument away from the problem of evil so he can start talking about perfect worlds?

I was still editing. Bad Esquilax!

(April 30, 2014 at 11:42 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: So you just blow harder and cry that God didn't give you a pony. And really? A world without any negative aspects...can you be any more vague? The devil is in the details, friend.

I'm not an omnipotent and omniscient and perfect being. If I was, I have no doubt I could figure it out in an instant. Yours obviously couldn't.

Quote:Basically you have nothing. Even after I clearly and logically showed that knowing all that can be known does not necessarily prevent unfortunate outcomes. Still waiting to hear a logical argument proving that a perfect world is even a coherent concept...(sound of crickets)

That's cool. I'm still waiting to hear a logical argument proving that god is a coherent concept.

So it's the devil who's responsible for our supposed free will.
Thanks Satan. :-)

(April 30, 2014 at 11:42 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: And really? A world without any negative aspects...can you be any more vague? The devil is in the details, friend.

Heaven. At least, most adherents say that it's supposed to be perfect. That notion of heaven seems to wreak havoc on free will arguments, though. It always ends the same: if a perfect heaven can exist, then a perfect existence can exists. It's tautologically true.

Either heaven isn't as good as Christians say it is, or God is holding back here for arbitrary reasons and we suffer solely because he wants us to. God saying that we need to be tested before we can get to heaven is arbitrary. The test is arbitrary. If we can love him in heaven with our without free will (and we aren't killing or raping each other up there), then giving us the ability to kill and rape each other down here is pointless.

Unless you're going to try to defend the "test" as some form of justice, in which case:

• "Justice" is a concept more powerful than God, to which he is beholden, or
  
• it's arbitrary and unnecessary.
  

Or, to sum it up

• He is not able
  
• He is not willing
  

(May 1, 2014 at 12:56 am)Coffee Jesus Wrote: I think the argument only requires that a better world be possible, and not necessarily a perfect or ideal one.

Although there is a potential counterargument. If there is no limit to how good the world could be, then a better world will always be possible, no matter how good the world is.

Depends on what you mean by "better".