The Problem of Evil, Free Will, and the "Greater Good"

[A_Nony_Mouse]

It seems that many Christians try to avoid the problem of evil by arguing that God has given men "free will", but doesn't this just hide the problem behind another layer of abstraction?

Syllogistic Argument:
I. If a being is omnipotent, then he has a means to every end to which any other being has a means, and he carries out all means to which he wills the ends.

Anything which requires humans to do anything or be part of is not.

II. If a being is omnibenevolent, then every end that he wills is good, and he wills all ends that are good and to which he has a means.

Where did you find anything which might support this assumption?

III. There exists at least one scenario in which there exists two distinct beings (A and B) such that A carries out a means to an evil end E, and B has a means to an end E' such that if B would have carried out the means to E' then A would not have had the means to E.

Given the abuse of OMNI one could with the word had never been invented.

Proof: Assume there exists some being G such that G is simultaneously omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then G has (I) but does not carry out (III) the means to E'. Hence, G does not will E' (I) which implies that E' is not good (II). Assuming objective morality, it is then, therefore, wrong for B to carry out the means to E'.

Intuitive Appeal:
Bob hates Bobbette and decides that he is going kill her, but first confides in his close friend Bobby. Bobby could call the police and stop Bob, but since he also hates Bobbette, he decides to let his friend go through with his sinister plan. Since Bobby has a means to stop Bob from killing Bobbette, certainly an omnipotent god would also have some means. This god could act to stop the murder but does not; thus, he does not want to stop the murder. If this god is also omnibenvolent, he or she wants only what is good, so the act of stopping Bobbette's murder must not have been good. Assuming objective morality, it would have been wrong for Bobby to stop Bob. To put it plainly, either no omnipotent, omnibenevolent god exists, or it is wrong to inhibit another from evil. Both are absurd in light of Biblical Christianity.

Argumentation is worthless. Show me the physical evidence.

---

Actually, the first is not. Biblical Christianity (especially the OT) does not portray god as omnibenevolent.

Holy crap i almost fell out of my Chair! Wow i guess at least some of what I have said has stuck.. Even if it wasn't my words specifically your are pointed in the right direction.

That said you can also expand the God of the Nt as not being 'omni benevolent' through the vengence and wrath being poured out on the last generation of revelations. Not to mention what Christ says about the unrepentant sinners.

For the God of the OT and Nt are the Same God, the only thing that has changes is we now have a buffer between us and God's wrath. That buffer according to the book of Revelation has an experation date meaning it is not infinate. Once the cup of man's iniquity is full God's wrath will rain down upon this world one final time.

Seems to me a mature human does not live by vengeance and wrath and in fact such behavior is considered immature and juvenile. It is unclear why some people accept a god subject to uncontrolled behavior indistinguishable from childish trantrums.

---

...
I knew it was too good to last.

We talked about this the word for generation also translates into 'people' as in the Jewish people. The Jewish people have not 'passed away' have they?

How in the world did I miss that bit of bullshit? The idea of a Jewish people was invented in the 19th c. Why do you think you can get away with backdating the idea by nearly 2000 years?

[Neo-Scholastic]

...Ephesians 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of Him WHO WORKETH ALL THINGS AFTER THE COUNCEL OF HIS OWN WILL: This verse crushes the "free will" doctrine

That interpretation makes a mockery of all other scripture. Why would God give people commandments, admonish them to obey them, and threaten them with punishment for disobedience IF He did not also give people the ability to chose and follow those commandments. Everyone is predestined for heaven, i.e. you have been created to recieve God (the 'pre' part) so that you can reach your destination (destiny). Fate is inevitable, but destiny must be chosen.

[Ryantology]

...Ephesians 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of Him WHO WORKETH ALL THINGS AFTER THE COUNCEL OF HIS OWN WILL: This verse crushes the "free will" doctrine

That interpretation makes a mockery of all other scripture. Why would God give people commandments, admonish them to obey them, and threaten them with punishment for disobedience IF He did not also give people the ability to chose and follow those commandments. Everyone is predestined for heaven, i.e. you have been created to recieve God (the 'pre' part) so that you can reach your destination (destiny). Fate is inevitable, but destiny must be chosen.

Why did God give people a set of laws, AND remind everybody when he's Jesus that they must be followed to the letter until "everything is accomplished", yet Christians believe that this does not actually apply anymore, even though all of Revelation has yet to take place? At no point in the Bible does God or Jesus ever redact a single one of his rules, nor does he ever suggest that one day, it'll be cool if you just pick and choose which commandments you want to follow and which you want to ignore, yet that is precisely the interpretation all modern Christians take.

The mainstream Christian interpretation of this section of Matthew 5 makes a mockery of all other scripture. Either all of it applies forever, or none of it applies, ever. Nothing in the Bible suggests that there is ambiguity, or that you get to choose which rules you want to follow.

The idea of Christians going to hell because they do not repent for the sins of ignoring Mosaic law would be kind of hilarious if the whole religion wasn't so asinine.

[Godscreated]

God is responsible but he is not to blame, there is a differance, Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil : I the LORD do all these things. God uses evil, thats why he created Satan or better called our adversary, You see God is still creating us, thats why He put the Tree of Knowledge which held both knowledge of { good and evil } in Eden, We carnal mankind are sinning machines, God had planned for us to sin, how else are we to know what is good if we have no idea what is evil ?? Would you know what is up if you did not know what is down etc: We choose to sin all of us do , we are to blame for our choices, but not responsible, God has it all planned out, think about it, Why else would He send us a Saveior, who by the way Jesus has saved us all not just a few lucky Christians who hold the true doctrins, thats another of there un-scriptual blasphemys.

Where did you get your Calvinist view from.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

...Ephesians 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of Him WHO WORKETH ALL THINGS AFTER THE COUNCEL OF HIS OWN WILL: This verse crushes the "free will" doctrine

That interpretation makes a mockery of all other scripture.

That is why they are called contradictions.

Why would God give people commandments, admonish them to obey them, and threaten them with punishment for disobedience IF He did not also give people the ability to chose and follow those commandments.

That is a damned good question. On the (vain) assumption you are not begging the conclusion how do you explain it? Please answer in light of the acknowledged fact that Moses is a myth and therefore so also are the commandments.

It is amazing that people will agree to one premise such as the Moses myth and then still cling to things which are contingent upon the thing not being a myth.

Everyone is predestined for heaven, i.e. you have been created to recieve God (the 'pre' part) so that you can reach your destination (destiny). Fate is inevitable, but destiny must be chosen.

Please define the difference between fate and destiny in a manner which makes sense in this context.

Rotsa Ruck.

[goodnews]

Romans 2:4 is quiet clear it is the goodness of God that leads men to repentance / John 6:44 tells us that no man has faith in Jesus unless The Father draw him first / Ephesians 2:8-10 is very clear that ones faith in Christ is by the grace of God and not of ourselfs and affirms Ephesians 1:11 that God is in complete controll, as He has predestinated/foreordained all His workmanship . "christiandom" chooses to believe their own "free will" has made them repent and believe in Christ, but this assetion is not scriptual but blasphemous ???

[Godscreated]

Romans 2:4 is quiet clear it is the goodness of God that leads men to repentance / John 6:44 tells us that no man has faith in Jesus unless The Father draw him first / Ephesians 2:8-10 is very clear that ones faith in Christ is by the grace of God and not of ourselfs and affirms Ephesians 1:11 that God is in complete controll, as He has predestinated/foreordained all His workmanship . "christiandom" chooses to believe their own "free will" has made them repent and believe in Christ, but this assetion is not scriptual but blasphemous ???

So you believe God created many people to be in hell, are you one of those who has no choice and will be in hell forever and ever.
If this is true then Christ is not necessary for salvation, those of use who will be in heaven do not have to do anything but sit around and wait for death and then the everlasting life in Paradise. Why would Christ ask us to go make disciples and to spread the good news if no one has a choice about their finial destination. Why any of this if God doesn't give anyone a choice, why create, why the fall, why the nation of Israel, why the miracles, why His word, why His promises and why anything. Your view is of a fatalist, so why live.

[goodnews]

Why , why, why, why, why, why, why, why,why, and why ? Well the answer is simply, because you have not a clue to what the Gospel of Good News is, and the reason for that is because you do not believe the Words of God, you say "my view" is of a fatalist ? This statement of yours is proof that you do not believe the scriptures in Ephesians and thousands of others, as for the rest of your questions, it is evident you follow the doctrins of men and preach heresy and blasphemy, I could argue your false doctrins better than you could because I know how, when and why they came to be . Here is some wisdom few know ! / Isaiah 52:7&10 How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that publish good tidings, that publish peace; that bring good tidings of good, that publish salvation; ...... The lord hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God . / So here you have it in a nut shell THE GOSPEL which means GOOD TIDINGS . You preach EVIL TIDINGS of despicable torture and infinite terror and damnation without mercy. So I ask you this which god do you worship, because its not The God found in the Bible ????

[Drich]

Seems to me a mature human does not live by vengeance and wrath and in fact such behavior is considered immature and juvenile. It is unclear why some people accept a god subject to uncontrolled behavior indistinguishable from childish trantrums.

Two things First I would like to know At what point in Human History are you referencing? (When have we ever totaly shunned any sort of retrobution?

Second, what makes you think God's actions can be considered as "uncontroled behavior?"

How in the world did I miss that bit of bullshit? The idea of a Jewish people was invented in the 19th c. Why do you think you can get away with backdating the idea by nearly 2000 years?

Proof? (actual reference material and not some anti-semite manifesto) or am I supposed to just take your word?

[ThomM]

[quote='goodnews' pid='438235' dateline='1367251937']
God is responsible but he is not to blame,

Since the god is not proven to actually exist - it cannot be blamed for anything - nor is it proven to be responsible for anything

And since most of the bible is actually FICTIONAL material - then we have NO reason to give a god CREDIT for anything either.

However - even if YOU consider the bible to be a allegory or a metaphor - the problem is that it does NOT support the claim of the benevolent god that xtians like to claim. The story of the Passover - even as an allegory - is a story of a great MURDER of people nor responsible for the actions of the pharaoh. The stories of the great flood - and Sodom and Gomorrah - are examples of the murder of the 20& of a population that would be too young to actually be responsible for their own actions - ie - babies and young children before the age of reason and responsibility.

But the biggest problem that even modified Monotheistic religions have - when they claim ONE creator - is that if the creator created everything - it had to create evil. No other being has that ability - ie - the ability to create. And worse - since the Xtian god is also claimed to be the ULTIMATE power extant - with nothing being impossible for it - then WHY claim a war against evil - because evil could NOT exist unless the god both created it and allows it to exist.

IF the god is ALL GOOD - why does it not just eliminate evil
And the correct answer is that the god is a creation of HUMANS - whose explanations of their creations are too convoluted and contradictory to actually be possible. So - the idea that a god exists is a JOKE.