Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh, don't mind me. It surprises me that anybody could be quite that cold about the holocaust, but what can I say; we are all different, aren't we? I have rarely come across that clinically cold a dismissal of the grief, pain, horror and deaths of millions but you know, life is always providing new experiences, so I guess this was one for me.
I'm not cold or clinical about that. Sorry that it came off that way. I'm focused on asking some hypothetical questions about "god". Forgive me for any insensitivity. But it was used in the conversation (not by me) to try to make a point. Would that also be considered insensitive?
Quote:
I don't know. He's God - shouldn't he be better at this than I am? I mean good grief, let's hope. But I guess not...oh well?
With that said, as a parent, in my (human and supposedly far inferior) parameters I easily include "no, I'm not going to literally turn the other way and get my child killed rather than block him from doing Stupid Thing X" as one example. So no, I didn't give my toddler the "free will" to cross the street.
I also limit, as my children get older, just how dangerous a position they wish to be in. So for example, I likely would not give my child permission to ride his bike to Watts for that totally awesome party. Believe it or not, he could still have PLENTY of other choices on what to do with his night. Probably in the dozens at the very least.
Just two quick examples. Should be common sense but I guess nobody told the God of the Bible that you can give PLENTY of choice without allowing things like rape, murder or horrific accidents beyond someone's control.
I'm not talking about the god of the bible, JerZ.
I'm not talking about any particular god. I'm simply asking some questions about people's opinions about how/if a benevolent god could in any way be compatible with our experience of free will. That's all. I ask questions a lot. That's how I process things in my own mind.
I, personally, cannot figure out how it would be possible to limit free will and it still be free will. So far, as a species, we're earth-bound, so at least we're contained from the rest of the universe to an extent. It seems we'd have to be isolated from each other in order to not be able to do harm to each other, though.
I find reconciling a benevolent god with the suffering of this world as confounding as the next person. But that doesn't mean I consider the case closed.
I, personally, cannot figure out how it would be possible to limit free will and it still be free will. So far, as a species, we're earth-bound, so at least we're contained from the rest of the universe to an extent. It seems we'd have to be isolated from each other in order to not be able to do harm to each other, though.
But as you've just shown in this paragraph, our free will IS limited. Right now. (And yet we're not robots...hmmm.)
We can't fly (without making machines to sit in to fly us around in, I mean). We can't live forever. We can't have 100 babies if that's what we want to do. We can't blink and change our eye color. We can't shoot lightning from our fingers. Sometimes, when someone is sick, we can't save the person. If our free will is to get ahead of another car in traffic, but that car keeps swerving to block us, we don't have free will to do so. If it is our free will to "choose" to eat steak but we only have chicken in the house and we're out of money and nobody is randomly dropping by to hand us a free steak, our free will is impeded right there.
Our free will already is limited in literally thousands upon thousands of ways, making "God doesn't block the worst things because that would impede our free will" literally non-nonsensical.
So evidently, it IS possible to limit free will and have it be free will, if you believe we have free will now per the Bible's parameters, though you're saying you're not speaking of the god of the Bible so given that, literally anything could be possible - including my examples of limits on how hurt a person could get, while still providing plenty of choice. I wouldn't technically call it "free will" since it's not entirely free but per my second paragraph above, even what we have now isn't entirely free will so I feel the whole idea is kind of useless. It's a stop-gap so people don't have to be afraid of their God or realize He could do things differently and still have us learn but instead, has us suffer immeasurably. It's apologetics, basically.
p.s. I don't follow you on thinking we'd have to be isolated from one another in order to not harm one another if we had been created not to want to seriously harm one another. Again, for those ready to cry about how that would "make us robots," again, refer to the literally thousands upon thousands of other things we can't do, as well as things we don't even know about that we have never had the choice to do, as human beings. Also refer to the basic desire in most non-abused, mentally healthy people to make connections, not isolate or harm. That is instilled in us as a biologically social species. That isn't an impediment of our "free will" or making us robots, correct? If not, then not wanting to rape or murder one another would actually be no different, and there being no such thing as rape or murder would be no different.
"Free will" is a silly myth created and perpetuated by those who can't reconcile (and rightly that they can't) a benevolent God who would allow such horrors as we have all seen or at least heard about. It doesn't work, but people cling to it anyway because what's the alternative? You die and maybe you DON'T get a reward and the person who harmed you DOESN'T suffer, much to your secret delicious delight? That's unbearable to many, hence, the silly inconsistency and illogic of "free will."
But as you've just shown in this paragraph, our free will IS limited. Right now.
We can't fly (without making machines to sit in to fly us around in, I mean). We can't live forever. We can't have 100 babies if that's what we want to do. We can't blink and change our eye color. We can't shoot lightning from our fingers. Sometimes, when someone is sick, we can't save the person. If our free will is to get ahead of another car in traffic, but that car keeps swerving to block us, we don't have free will to do so. If it is our free will to "choose" to eat steak but we only have chicken in the house and we're out of money and nobody is randomly dropping by to hand us a free steak, our free will is impeded right there.
Our free will already is limited in literally thousands upon thousands of ways, making "God doesn't block the worst things because that would impede our free will" literally non-nonsensical.
So evidently, it IS possible to limit free will and have it be free will, if you believe we have free will now per the Bible's parameters, though you're saying you're not speaking of the god of the Bible so given that, literally anything could be possible - including my examples of limits on how hurt a person could get, while still providing plenty of choice. I wouldn't technically call it "free will" since it's not entirely free but per my second paragraph above, even what we have now isn't entirely free will so I feel the whole idea is kind of useless. It's a stop-gap so people don't have to be afraid of their God or realize He could do things differently and still have us learn but instead, has us suffer immeasurably. It's apologetics, basically.
Yes, we have gotten away from my original post, which assumed a god that was NOT omnipotent.
Since you've engaged thus far, perhaps you'd be willing to travel down that path with me:
Is it possible, as you see it, that a god that is benevolent could be responsible for [not necessarily have created] our existence? Or does the suffering that comes along with our existence here preclude that possibility, in your mind?
Yes, we have gotten away from my original post, which assumed a god that was NOT omnipotent.
Since you've engaged thus far, perhaps you'd be willing to travel down that path with me:
Is it possible, as you see it, that a god that is benevolent could be responsible for [not necessarily have created] our existence? Or does the suffering that comes along with our existence here preclude that possibility, in your mind?
I believe a God that is benevolent but not fully omnipotent could have created us not realizing how awry things could go, yes, and I believe that a God that was benevolent but not omnipotent might have made his creation, realized things were going badly but not be able to fix them, or else not know how to fix them.
I realize some here don't like when people are compared to a god figure, but I can't think of what other example to use: human beings have children all the time. We THINK we know just what to do but our "creation" might have issues we never actually foresaw, or s/he might turn out to have stubbornness that bucks every single safety measure we try to instill for her, or there could be many reasons we can't actually "control" her, even though technically we "made" her.
Or for more literally having "made" something, as really it's our genetics, not conscious feature-by-feature choice, that "creates" a baby: humans make new inventions all the time that then turn out to either not work well, or actually be dangerous. This would have been unforeseen and definitely the inventors did not have evil intent. They had benevolent intent. Thalidomide comes to mind but is one of only thousands and thousands of examples. Thalidomide was supposed to deliver happiness - it was supposed to keep potential miscarriages inside of the womb instead of expelled, and deliver a happy family to women with issues carrying to term. I can't imagine there was ANY negative intent there.
Now...do I believe deep down that there's a god and it created us? A god as in, Bible-esque, thinking, human-ish? I don't. So this is definitely all hypothetical but I believe it's also all quite reasonable.
I believe a God that is benevolent but not fully omnipotent could have created us not realizing how awry things could go, yes, and I believe that a God that was benevolent but not omnipotent might have made his creation, realized things were going badly but not be able to fix them, or else not know how to fix them.
Is it further possible that God may have had a very good idea (I'm thinking of the "middle knowledge" thing) that our path would inevitably include a hell of a lot of suffering for many (most/all?), but also know that the driving force of it's "benevolence" would eventually lead us toward a favorable and desirable end product for all? Would you consider that benevolent -- or would the intervening suffering be unacceptable, in your mind. In other words, would it have been kinder for us to have never existed?
Quote:
I realize some here don't like when people are compared to a god figure, but I can't think of what other example to use: human beings have children all the time. We THINK we know just what to do but our "creation" might have issues we never actually foresaw, or s/he might turn out to have stubbornness that bucks every single safety measure we try to instill for her, or there could be many reasons we can't actually "control" her, even though technically we "made" her.
Or for more literally having "made" something, as really it's our genetics, not conscious feature-by-feature choice, that "creates" a baby: humans make new inventions all the time that then turn out to either not work well, or actually be dangerous. This would have been unforeseen and definitely the inventors did not have evil intent. They had benevolent intent. Thalidomide comes to mind but is one of only thousands and thousands of examples. Thalidomide was supposed to deliver happiness - it was supposed to keep potential miscarriages inside of the womb instead of expelled, and deliver a happy family to women with issues carrying to term. I can't imagine there was ANY negative intent there.
Now...do I believe deep down that there's a god and it created us? A god as in, Bible-esque, thinking, human-ish? I don't. So this is definitely all hypothetical but I believe it's also all quite reasonable.
Is it further possible that God may have had a very good idea (I'm thinking of the "middle knowledge" thing) that our path would inevitably include a hell of a lot of suffering for many (most/all?), but also know that the driving force of it's "benevolence" would eventually lead us toward a favorable and desirable end product for all? Would you consider that benevolent -- or would the intervening suffering be unacceptable, in your mind. In other words, would it have been kinder for us to have never existed?
Understanding that everything we individually experience is entirely interpreted in our mind, it is possible (not necessarily probable) that we are each experiencing a unique reality. The concept of suffering is a self-reflective interpretation of pain entirely dependent on conscious awareness. A bird can die frozen to a wire without ever having felt sorry for itself. The appearance of consensus may be just that, an interpreted appearance. In fact, this reality could be a dream (or nightmare) existence having no real substance at all. It could be entirely spiritual (cognitive) in God's imagination created as a crucible to form our embryonic spiritual characters, solipsism notwithstanding. Just saying.
Understanding that everything we individually experience is entirely interpreted in our mind, it is possible (not necessarily probable) that we are each experiencing a unique reality. The concept of suffering is a self-reflective interpretation of pain entirely dependent on conscious awareness. A bird can die frozen to a wire without ever having felt sorry for itself. The appearance of consensus may be just that, an interpreted appearance. In fact, this reality could be a dream (or nightmare) existence having no real substance at all. It could be entirely spiritual (cognitive) in God's imagination created as a crucible to form our embryonic spiritual characters, solipsism notwithstanding. Just saying.
Sure. I know it's all conjecture on my part. Working my way through the thoughts in my own mind, sucking unwary people in as I go along.
Is it further possible that God may have had a very good idea (I'm thinking of the "middle knowledge" thing) that our path would inevitably include a hell of a lot of suffering for many (most/all?), but also know that the driving force of it's "benevolence" would eventually lead us toward a favorable and desirable end product for all? Would you consider that benevolent -- or would the intervening suffering be unacceptable, in your mind. In other words, would it have been kinder for us to have never existed?
Yes, I would think it kinder NOT to bring into being something that would suffer immeasurably, just as I feel it would be kinder for a person who doesn't want a child and knows she would be an abusive, neglectful parent no matter how hard she tried (given adoption not being an option for whatever reason) to have an abortion.
I can't see that it's responsible for an inadequate being to bring, on its own whim, into existence creatures that would suffer terribly without it (the inadequate being) able to do anything about that. That seems more like the creepy kid that liked to keep insects in a jar and then one morning, whoops, the bug was dead but that's okay, there's always another bug to catch and anyway, bugs are inferior and kinda/maybe can't feel anything for all the kid knows (because the kid has never BEEN a bug and will never be, and will always be the thing in a position of power, even in the absence of actual malicious intent).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Praying For Those Who Are Not Saved
