The Problem of Evil, Christians, and Inconsistency

[Mudhammam]

I'm sure everyone here is familiar with the standard problem of evil argument and the typical conception of the Christian God as the omnipotent and omnibenevolent Absolute of all things...well almost all things, as his will is apparently unable to oversee the abolition of grotesque evil in the world. Christians regularly tout free will as the impediment to his omnipotence; they like to say, "Well, this is the best of all possible worlds because a world without any grotesque evil would also be a world with severely limited wills" (as if our wills aren't already severely limited by physical determinants). Anyway, putting aside the issue of free will and accepting the intelligibility of the concept as Christians would have us do (for the sake of my argument, not because I think it's intelligible), I would like to press this issue more to the point as I think it will demonstrate the vicious and utter vacuousness rampant in their philosophical outlook.

It appears obvious that here we see a problem with the "best-of-all-possible-worlds" scenario arise. If this is truly the best possible world God could create, then what's all the fuss about heaven? If heaven is an even better domain to live in than earth (and I would sure like to think so), then Christians would seem obliged to revoke any notion of their sacred free will in heaven.

"But, ah!" the Christian is likely to retort, "in heaven, we choose to be good all the time! Our freedom is not impugned because we have made our choice on earth, since that is the purpose of our free will here, that it allows us to choose God, and that makes heaven an even better possible domain to dwell in! Therefore, no one in heaven will want to do evil!"

So, we're free in heaven, and it's even better than earth. If that seems consistent to you, just wait, because it gets worse. You see, from what I have gathered, Christians like to think that the aforementioned retort negates any objection that God could have just foregone this creation altogether and transported his children to this even better existence called heaven. Apparently, that we "choose" God is very important.

And this brings us to the rampant vacuousness and inconsistency in their logic. Anyone with a cursory interest in history will easily observe that for the past 100-200 thousand years, the vast majority of humans who have been conceived (which is apparently when the soul gets miraculously created) have either died in the womb, at birth, or before the age of moral accountability, which for our purposes, we'll say is no less than ten years of age. So, granted the position Christians commonly take, there are BILLIONS of people in heaven (kids do go to heaven, right?), perhaps far more than are in hell, and none because of their "free will."

If this isn't inconsistency, I don't know what is.

[Dolorian]

I never found the free will defence persuasive, even as a Catholic. I always argued along the lines that our choosing to do evil was not an integral part of our free will but an abuse of it, indeed, our will does not becomes more limited in Heaven but rather, it is truly freed as we are no longer under concupiscence, sin and the limitations of this material world and can truly appreciate and embrace the good. While God indeed could have created a better world, this was the world he saw fit to create for the unfolding of his will, the plan he has for us (this lack of context is something I think the possible worlds talk seems to miss). He could certainly stop any sort of evil that occurs today but he permits it for the sake of a greater good which would not come about otherwise. This last bit is, of course, something that is taken on faith by believers.

[Mudhammam]

The key word here, as you put it, seems to be "faith;" "faith in the future greater good that requires unfathomable amounts of senseless evil." Or, if evil is really required, one might wonder if it's actually senseless, and in that case, truly evil. At any rate, Christians, as with most theists, often remind me of a great line from Geothe's Faust:

"Where concepts fail, a word conveniently puts itself in their place at just the right time."

[Baqal]

It always seemed weird to me that the Christian god gave us free will, then lets us choose between what is good and what isn't (by His rules, of course) and if we choose to pick what isn't, He would punish us for eternity. How is that free will? If He really loves us, wouldn't it make more sense to let us choose between "good" and "bad" without any positive or negative consequences? If you want to see how the concept of free will is corrupted in the Christian view, watch the film "God's not Dead". The main character, who is a Christian, also answered the famous Epicurean paradox and... it was genuinely laughable. His argument was, simply put, "God is both willing and knowing, and He will vanquish the problem of evil on Earth... but just not yet".

"But, ah!" the Christian is likely to retort, "in heaven, we choose to be good all the time! Our freedom is not impugned because we have made our choice on earth, since that is the purpose of our free will here, that it allows us to choose God, and that makes heaven an even better possible domain to dwell in! Therefore, no one in heaven will want to do evil!"

So... there is free will in heaven? And everyone is good in there? How can we recognize the presence of free will in heaven if there are no contrasts to compare to the majority? It makes absolutely no sense.

[CapnAwesome]

A Theist could just say that God isn't omni-benevolent and the problem of evil becomes rather irrelevant. Arguing against the Christian God with the problem of evil seems like a waste of time considering all the other ridiculous aspects attributed to him.

[Tonus]

Yeah, I think the math for "free will" doesn't work with the idea of a future world with no wickedness. As I understand it, free will means that we will always have the option to do what is wrong in the eyes of god. So far in human history, not a single human being has avoided using his/her free will to do what is wrong in the eyes of god. God once put on a human costume and managed to go ~33 years without offending himself, before arranging to be murdered by ...wait for it... free-willed humans who did what was wrong in his eyes in order to further his plans for humanity.

Since humanity is, so far, batting 1.000 when it comes to using free will to do what is wrong, I don't think it will go very well in a future paradise or heaven unless we have our free will removed. You can't say that "we'll be perfected" because Adam and Eve were perfect and they're batting... 1.000. You can't say that witnessing the glory of god would have any effect, since the humans who have seen the glory of god are batting... 1.000. Even the angels in heaven appear to be batting around .333 when it comes to pissing off god!

So after the end of the world (or whatever it is that is supposed to follow once god fixes everything) the best we can hope for is that over time, every single human will find a way to anger god and wind up in hell, along with about a third of the angels. Or all of them, if god doesn't have a program for replenishing them when they screw up. Alternatively, god realizes that we're a pretty bad design and removes the "free will" module from everyone's programming and we get to spend eternity trying to put a little ball in a cup while drooling all over ourselves. Or something like that.

[Drich]

I'm sure everyone here is familiar with the standard problem of evil argument and the typical conception of the Christian God.. as the omnipotent and omnibenevolent

If you are speaking of the typical Omni max God know that is a catholic based version of the God, not of the bible. The bible does not say God is omni benevolent. Rather the oppsite. There are those in whom God of the bible hates.

Absolute of all things...

God is the alpha and omega, meaning He chooses who what and how He displays his attributes.

well almost all things, as his will is apparently unable to oversee the abolition of grotesque evil in the world.

Do you even understand the basics of biblical Christianity? God sent His son to die so all 'evil' would not have to be dealt with on the spot. Fore God sees all sin on the same level. it is our collective 'morality' that puts in on a sliding scale.

(Meaning if not for Christ's planned sacrifice we wouls all have to be dealt with eg the great flood.

Christians regularly tout free will as the impediment to his omnipotence; they like to say, "Well, this is the best of all possible worlds because a world without any grotesque evil would also be a world with severely limited wills" (as if our wills aren't already severely limited by physical determinants).

Again a catholic construct based in greek philosphy. We are not free willed, rather the bible tells us we are slaves to sin with only one choice. That choice is to accept redemption.

Anyway, putting aside the issue of free will and accepting the intelligibility of the concept as Christians would have us do (for the sake of my argument, not because I think it's intelligible), I would like to press this issue more to the point as I think it will demonstrate the vicious and utter vacuousness rampant in their philosophical outlook.

Sounds like fun

It appears obvious that here we see a problem with the "best-of-all-possible-worlds" scenario arise. If this is truly the best possible world God could create, then what's all the fuss about heaven?

What makes you think this is meant to be anything besides a prooving ground?

If heaven is an even better domain to live in than earth (and I would sure like to think so), then Christians would seem obliged to revoke any notion of their sacred free will in heaven.

Heaven is simply the place where God's known glory is not hidden from us. it is His home. It is not our dewelling place.

"But, ah!" the Christian is likely to retort, "in heaven, we choose to be good all the time! Our freedom is not impugned because we have made our choice on earth, since that is the purpose of our free will here, that it allows us to choose God, and that makes heaven an even better possible domain to dwell in! Therefore, no one in heaven will want to do evil!"

So, we're free in heaven, and it's even better than earth. If that seems consistent to you, just wait, because it gets worse. You see, from what I have gathered, Christians like to think that the aforementioned retort negates any objection that God could have just foregone this creation altogether and transported his children to this even better existence called heaven. Apparently, that we "choose" God is very important.

So?

And this brings us to the rampant vacuousness and inconsistency in their logic. Anyone with a cursory interest in history will easily observe that for the past 100-200 thousand years, the vast majority of humans who have been conceived (which is apparently when the soul gets miraculously created) have either died in the womb, at birth, or before the age of moral accountability, which for our purposes, we'll say is no less than ten years of age. So, granted the position Christians commonly take, there are BILLIONS of people in heaven (kids do go to heaven, right?), perhaps far more than are in hell, and none because of their "free will."

If this world is not meant to be anything more than a prooving ground, then wouldn't it make sense to send a kid who did not 'proove' himself back through the mill?

"We are appointed once to live..." If we did not have a chance at life then why not give the one in question another appointment?

[Minimalist]

There are those in whom God of the bible hates.

For once in your life, drippy, you are right. The god of the bible is a cocksucker.

[Neo-Scholastic]

My $.02...Free will is necessary is someone is to freely love another. How you think about this thought problem indicates how persuasive you find the free will arguement. You can pick one of two generally comparable female lovers. The first loves you because they recognize traits in you that they find attractive and want to be with you of their own volition. THe second, has been enchanted by a love potion and adores you for no particular reason. With whom do you want to spend the rest of your life?


(answer: The one with the biggest tits)

[ShaMan]

An Exercise In The Free-Will Offered In The Bible...

There once was this Mob Boss, we'll call him Guido. Now Guido is a loving Mob Boss, in fact he's so loving that he'd never impose his own will on others. Guido likes to have his own way, and when he realized that other people were using their free will to choose apart from Guido and his ideals, he decided to cash-in on this 'free-will' BS to his advantage.

Guido now says that you still have free will, but if you exercise it an any manner that disagrees with Guido and his dictates that he'll have you killed. Of course, you'd be using your free will to choose to die. After all, it's a choice, right?