The Problem of Evil combined with the problem of Free Will

[Little Rik]

I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid

I am not anti-atheists.
I am anti-stupid.  

How you like that?  

No, I am not serious MA.
I like atheists.
It is fun to deal with them.  

[Whateverist]

Gentlemen, we have a containment breach on page eight. The threat to the integrity of this thread is very real.

[Aroura]

How do theists justify the fact that people have different experiences, not under their own control in anyone's definition of free-will, and maintain that God is Just.

Let's play pretend.  

Little Bobby is born in a nice western country.  He is never hungry, goes to nice schools, and is taught about the glory of God and Jesus.  He marries and has a wonderful, healthy family.  12 grandkids, all joyful.
He has some minor illnesses, but nothing major until whatever ends his wonderfully full life at age 89.

Little Jamal is born in a developing nation to a poor family, he is born with a major disability.  He is often hungry, but his family scrapes by.  His only education is in a hut by a foreign priest.  He's lucky to have it at all.
He also is taught about the glory of Jesus and God his entire life.  He goes to church, and is model. He volunteers in his community, shares what little food he has, etc.  He maries, has kids, and then his wife is raped and murdered and his children die of starvation in a war dropped on his country that he aboslutely nothing to do with, when he was just trying to live well and get by.
He loses his faith, and dies in a ditch at age 45.

Now, let's even pretend that all of life is a test, and God will give every person a chance, after death, to recognize his glory and accept him.  So even nonbelievers, fallen away believers, people of other faiths, etc, all get this sort of second chance to make this supposed choice.

If Jamal is so angry and upset by the fact that God allowed his family to suffer that he disavows God even after meeting him after death, but Bobby gets a straight ticket to heaven because he never had a reason to doubt OR to be upset at God, how is that anything remotely JUST?

If you only would exit the corral of mental dogmas and consider more options then you wouldn't stick to that only option.
Suppose there is God and reincarnation and the karma law and that poor child in the past life kill and rape.
Wouldn't be normal for that child to experience the same terrible feeling that he caused to other people?

Now don't come to quick conclusion once again thinking that I think that that child deserve the punishment.
That is not my job to give punishment nor to think that that child should suffer.
My job is to help that poor child to survive and do well.
At the same time if God exist and the karma exist then is in his hands to run the business to keep
justice in the universe so the people learn and the universe exist.
One more option to consider Aro would be to think that nobody really die.
Energy and consciousness are indestructible so that child will live on for ever after this terrible experience.

I have been a Christian for 28 or so years (a good portion of which I was quite dedicated, church regularly, even dreamed of being a nun).
I have been a Taoist.
I have been an atheist.
I have looked into and adopted ideas from numerous religions, such as Buddhism.
I have been a compatibilist, a dualist, a determinist, and a naturalist. 
Some of these I have discarded, some I may yet discard.

I have considered many ideas and options in my life, and even changed my points of view on more than one occasion. 
I am still open to changing my points of view.  
It seems to me that I'm not the dogmatic one. Perhaps you are projecting?

[Edwardo Piet]

28 years? Holy crap! A Christian as long as I've been alive!



Hehe I used to believe Bible stories as a child... I used to believe them as stories. I literally thought they were meant to be like Aesop's Fables that my dad used to read to me...

...it was years later when I was like 10 or something that I realized that many adults believe it literally.

I found that hilarious and me and my brother wrote a short parody of Genesis called "The Holy Cobblers"... the start of which involved God moving over the face of the waters as normal... except on a micro scooter.

... and later on he accidentally caused a volcano to erupt so he decided to solve the problem by getting sexually aroused looking at Eve so as to block the volcano with his giant God boner.

...yeah we were immature kids. That was the extent of our humor, lol.

[Aroura]

Christians can't claim that any other religious believer can't have an authentic experience.  You're all on the same sandy footing.

I am still not sure the precise nature of other religion's claims to a personal relationship with God. As I mentioned, if all a religion is describing is a personal awareness of God, I will grant that is not only possible, I would say it is true (as the Romans verses mention). So if that is the case, what's left is to examined the religions for evidence, internal consistency, predictive power, and answers to life's basic questions (including foundations for morality, purpose, value, and the future).

Christianity scored:
Internal consistency - Complete failure.  Christianity contains multitude inconsistencies
Evidence, Complete failure
Predictive power - Complete Failure
Answers to life's basic questions:
 a)foundation for morality - Complete Failure (atheists and people of other religions are of equal or greater morality)
 b) purpose - not a complete failure, I'll grant it this.  We all have to invent some purpose, though none of you seem to agree on what that purpose is, because you too are inventing it, just with different ideas from this widely inconsistent religion.
 c)value - complete failure.  
 d)The...future?  Wha??  The future predicted by your religion includes an apocalypse in which most people die, making followers take a real devil-may-care attitude about taking care of things like wildlife and clean air for future generations.  So I mark this as the absolute WORST failure of your religion.

Wow, it didn't fail in one of the 7 things you listed. 

/facealm

[SteveII]

I am still not sure the precise nature of other religion's claims to a personal relationship with God. As I mentioned, if all a religion is describing is a personal awareness of God, I will grant that is not only possible, I would say it is true (as the Romans verses mention). So if that is the case, what's left is to examined the religions for evidence, internal consistency, predictive power, and answers to life's basic questions (including foundations for morality, purpose, value, and the future).

Christianity scored:
Internal consistency - Complete failure.  Christianity contains multitude inconsistencies
Evidence, Complete failure
Predictive power - Complete Failure
Answers to life's basic questions:
 a)foundation for morality - Complete Failure (atheists and people of other religions are of equal or greater morality)
 b) purpose - not a complete failure, I'll grant it this.  We all have to invent some purpose, though none of you seem to agree on what that purpose is, because you too are inventing it, just with different ideas from this widely inconsistent religion.
 c)value - complete failure.  
 d)The...future?  Wha??  The future predicted by your religion includes an apocalypse in which most people die, making followers take a real devil-may-care attitude about taking care of things like wildlife and clean air for future generations.  So I mark this as the absolute WORST failure of your religion.

Wow, it didn't fail in one of the 7 things you listed. 

/facealm

Well, I don't think you got any of that correct, but that is not the topic, so I will not attempt to answer. Thanks for the discussion overall though.

[Whateverist]

How do theists justify the fact that people have different experiences, not under their own control in anyone's definition of free-will, and maintain that God is Just.

I haven't responded up until now because the "problem of evil" isn't of much interest to me as a settled atheist.  Granted though, it is probably a very popular pathway out of belief for lots of former Christians. But I think the short answer to your question is they don't over think it.  I doubt if many dwell on any inconsistencies enough to experience much cognitive dissonance.  Many actually describe their relationship as one of an infant to its loving parent.  Others think of themselves as sheep in relation to their shepherd.  So I wouldn't hold out much hope of critical thought from that bunch.  Once you're out you can see how xtianity infantilizes its followers.  But when you're in those who examen the idols too closely are looked at as ingrates.

I've got a few thoughts about the free will end of things too but nothing remarkably new.

[Valyza1]

How do theists justify the fact that people have different experiences, not under their own control in anyone's definition of free-will, and maintain that God is Just.

Let's play pretend.  

Little Bobby is born in a nice western country.  He is never hungry, goes to nice schools, and is taught about the glory of God and Jesus.  He marries and has a wonderful, healthy family.  12 grandkids, all joyful.
He has some minor illnesses, but nothing major until whatever ends his wonderfully full life at age 89.

Little Jamal is born in a developing nation to a poor family, he is born with a major disability.  He is often hungry, but his family scrapes by.  His only education is in a hut by a foreign priest.  He's lucky to have it at all.
He also is taught about the glory of Jesus and God his entire life.  He goes to church, and is model. He volunteers in his community, shares what little food he has, etc.  He maries, has kids, and then his wife is raped and murdered and his children die of starvation in a war dropped on his country that he aboslutely nothing to do with, when he was just trying to live well and get by.
He loses his faith, and dies in a ditch at age 45.

Now, let's even pretend that all of life is a test, and God will give every person a chance, after death, to recognize his glory and accept him.  So even nonbelievers, fallen away believers, people of other faiths, etc, all get this sort of second chance to make this supposed choice.

If Jamal is so angry and upset by the fact that God allowed his family to suffer that he disavows God even after meeting him after death, but Bobby gets a straight ticket to heaven because he never had a reason to doubt OR to be upset at God, how is that anything remotely JUST?

The way I understand it, someone's motivation for rejecting God is irrelevant to the rejection itself. From what I understand of the Christian view, the judgement of God and God's love play two different roles in the human drama. It is, for all intents and purposes, two opposing forces, despite their emergence from the same source. The judgement aspect of God only wants people to get what they deserve and cares nothing for what they experience. It only wants justice, and the Christian view of justice is that everyone deserves far worse than what Jamal gets in this hypothetical situation. The opposing aspect of God to this is Love, which wants only happiness, beauty, and all the rest for everyone, no matter how unjust they've been. The only way to reconcile these two desires is the offering of a human model of perfection, a just human, as it were, for humans to believe in and in who's emulation to direct as much desire, ambition, and judgement as is humanly possible. It isn't so much, with Christianity, that God pronounces judgement on this or that person, but that God offers a way to rise above that judgement. Salvation comes from having faith in the Just embodiment of God (Jesus), not from oneself being just. We all suck, according to Christianity. So to reject the one way of rising above your own personal justice is, of course, to submit yourself to your own person justice, which, according to Christianity, is Hell.

[TheoneandonlytrueGod]

So, in your scenario - you've died and are face to face with god, and given a choice between eternal happiness or eternal suffering - you'd choose suffering because god hasn't fully explained all his judgment to you, and from what you do know you don't think god's being fair.

That would be a tough choice especially since, as I see it, there is a choice between eternal psychological and physical torture. Without trying to sense what it would be like existing forever in a state of bliss what would that existence be like for eternity? I for one, would find it torture regardless of whatever heaven provided, certainly not 23 virgins, what would a body-less sole due with them? Heaven would be as torturous as hell.

I think I'll just be a godless atheist without a sole and just stop being at the end, no heaven or hell to have to endure.

---

So the answers I'm getting are:

God is not just.  We are all sinners, so if he saves anyone, then hurray.  He's not saving anyone on merit, either, but apparently picking them for reasons unknown to humans, as apparently even denying him isn't enough to send you to hell.  ?  Is this all correct? [1]

So basically, God works in mysterious ways, he'll save those he chooses to save for his own reasons that we can't possibly understand.  Also, life isn't a test, yet it isn't Gods fault we suffer, even though he made us able to suffer in an unjust and uncaring universe? [2]

None of this makes ANY sense to me.  How can you believe all these contradictory things, like that God is omni-everything, yet isn't responsible for our suffering?  Not all suffering (nor even most) is a result of human behaviors.  Drought, flood, earthquakes, disease, hunger, are most often the outcome of things humans have zero control over.  

If Life isn't a test, why are we put here to suffer, instead of just going directly to heaven, as some other beings supposedly got to do?[3]

1. God is just and I don't know how you got that from anyone's answer. Why do you say "picking them"? In your scenario, you said Jamal rejected God because of his experiences. 
2. Why "for his own reasons" again? God could easily have created a universe without suffer. Obviously that was not his goal. Free will and the ability for people to love each other and love him seems to take precedence. 
3. There is no logical problem with the concept--let's call that the intellectual Problem of Evil (PoE) (which has largely been abandoned by professional philosophers). You objection is based on empathy/emotions or the emotional PoE. I fully agree and understand that this is one of or the biggest obstacle for an open-minded person to have when considering the God of Christianity. However, I do have a couple of points about a Christian perspective on this issue (adapted from a podcast I listened to):

a. The chief purpose of life is knowledge of God, not happiness. 
b. We are in a state of separation/rebellion against God and his purpose-spiritual evil can prevail for a time. 
c. This life is but a blip when considering eternity and God has that perspective that we often don't see/remember.
d. The knowledge of God is of immeasurable importance--and far outweighs finite suffering.

a. No, bullshit
b. No, bullshit
c. No, bullshit
d. No, bullshit
e, f, g h. No, bulllshit

[Succubus]

...God only wants people to get what they deserve and cares nothing for what they experience....

How does this heaven thing work then?
Between the years 1978 1991 Jeffrey Dahmer ate seventeen blokes. Shirley, that's him well fucked, as far as going to heaven that is. But no, wait, Dahmer was baptised in 1994 and became a born again Christian. This is what fuckwit Curt Booth, a member of the Crescent Church of Christ in Oklahoma had to say at the time.

“I know Jeffrey was ready. Today, all the angels in heaven are rejoicing because Jeffrey has come home.”
Well ain’t that just fuckin sweet. No mention of those young lads he killed? Could someone pleeease tell me how heaven works. It's all sooo confusing.