Do you prefer "free-will suffering"or "robots

[Jagella]

As we all should know, apologists often employ the "free-will" defense against any argument from suffering or evil that serves to cast doubt on the existence of the Christian god. Doubters might maintain that no good god would allow suffering. Since suffering exists, God probably doesn't exist. Apologists often counter telling us that God needs to allow suffering so that we may have free will to do evil as well as good.

Needless to say, there are several objections that might be raised to this apologetic, but I'd like to start out by pointing out that it makes an assumption that may not hold for all people. That assumption is that suffering and evil is universally preferred over our being robots programmed to do only good. Personally, I'd take the robots! My being programmed to do good is fine with me, and giving up my choice to do evil is a small price to pay to attain safety, security, and happiness. Besides, I have no desire to do evil. So my being programmed to do only good would make little difference for me.

Question for Debate: Do you prefer suffering or people being "robots"?

[William]

[Replying to post 37 by Divine Insight]

So these robots will have emotions?

Sure why not?

Because having emotions is what allows for joy and suffering.

But they would have plenty of suffering to compare this with.

But they would not have the ability to feel anything which might cause them suffering. Thus they could observe the world of - how did you put it...'nasty stuff' and how would you suppose that they be able to not suffer recognizing that nasty stuff, and if they were "good, kind, loving" how would you suppose they would be able to rectify their existence as "good, kind, loving" in a world which is full of 'nasty stuff'? Would they have the ability to do something about it, and if so, how would you argue they would accomplish that?

Moreover, there is no need to have humans be able to make evil choices to teach them about suffering. Just living on earth alone is more than sufficient for that, even if not a single solitary human ever does so much as one evil act.

So we have robot humans who do not make evil choices, but can learn about suffering through observing other things suffering, and they also suffering simply by observing the suffering?

Re the OP, why not have everything on the earth be robot, thus doing away with even to have any concept of the notion of suffering, which can itself cause suffering, especially with "good, kind, loving" emotional beings?

Without the total removal of suffering, those who do no evil are still likely to experience suffering - even if only through observing it.

Why would robots need to be programmed to regard suffering as 'evil' anyway?

(See my Post#6 for more on that argument)

There simply is no need to provide humans with the ability to make evil choices. It's a totally unnecessary thing. Especially in a religion that claims that humans aren't capable of not choosing evil anyway. That's a theological oxymoron that exposes the fallacy of the theology that makes the claim.

Perhaps the whole human experience is to advance our self by having the ability/potential to not behave evilly even that we each have the ability to choose to do so if we wanted?

Perhaps too, we need to reevaluate what 'evil' is, if that is really possible. I think your evaluation of the world as being 'imperfect' because of what you regard of as being 'evil' - because 'suffering' in relation to one particular theology, does not in itself make GOD evil. It might make that particular idea of GOD look evil, but unless you are also arguing that GOD must be evil, regardless of any of the many theological ideas about GOD go...that your argument is along the lines of "If there is a GOD at all, then the GOD must be evil" in relation to my own understand of GOD, that would have to mean that you would consider the Earth Entity to be 'evil'.

Would that be a correct understanding of your position on the subject?

[Divine Insight]

Here in the real world, the question is moot; we have some freedom of choice and that's all there is to it. Moving off into the theoretical but still somewhat feasible possibilities of what we might do with our societies, I find this ideal of limitation and control quite horrifying. But venturing even further into the wilderness of philosophical abstraction of how God might limit our choices, I'm not even sure that what you're describing really forms a coherent concept at all... let alone one which I'd like. Robots yes, I can understand that, and free will I can understand; but being unable to do 'evil' while still having morally-significant free will? On face value that seems to be a contradiction in terms, and I'm not sure how coherent such limitations could be even we ignored the moral significance aspect of it.

By the way, your argument in the quote above would necessarily also need to apply to the Christian Heaven or "God's Kingdom".

If there is no evil in heaven, then by your own argument everyone who goes to heaven would need to be converted into a "robot" that never chooses evil.

But you have just claimed that this would constitute a "Contradiction".

Therefore you have just effectively argued that the very concept of the Christian Heaven is a contradictory concept.

If God can program humans to never choose evil in heaven, then there's no reason why he couldn't have also programmed humans to never choose evil on earth.

[wiploc]

I rather like my free will. Not wanting to give it up.

If a gang of thugs was ready to rape your mother, would you still want a "free-will world" in which men can freely will to rape women?

I take offense.

If we were robots, there would be no good in the world.

Actually, robots do good all the time. They build cars, assist in surgery, fight fires, and assist the police saving innocent lives. If mechanical robots are good because they are programmed to be good, then why wouldn't programmed people be good as well?

Not if you didn't leave anybody to appreciate the goodness.

Should we build robots that can freely choose to murder people? Would the world be a better place if robots kill innocent people?

I'm against that.

No evil either, but nothing to make life worth living.

People could be programmed to do good, and I see that good as something to live for.

It wouldn't be good if there was nobody left to appreciate it. If something isn't good to someone or for someone, then it isn't good at all.

In the real world, sans gods, we can work toward less evil without giving up free will.

Most of us might work toward less evil, but there's always that minority that murder, rob, and rape. I say we should have the ability to freely choose good but not evil. I sure wouldn't miss the will to do evil. I don't want it. Do you want to be able to freely choose to do evil?

I like free will. It isn't the doing evil that I'm after, but the freedom to choose.

But if there were gods, and if they were torturing people for eternity in Hellfire, then this world would be, on balance, an evil place. So, as Azrael pointed out in the movie Dogma, we would be better off not existing, or as robots.

I agree with Azrael!

I find it very hard to believe that anybody would really choose a world of evil and suffering over good, kind, loving robots. I think the members here voting for the "free-will suffering" are doing so because it is their theology and their way of defending their beliefs.

I don't have a theology. On the other hand, I didn't vote.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 37 by Divine Insight]
Would that be a correct understanding of your position on the subject?

No, not even close. You have jumped to totally incorrect ideas and conclusions that I have neither suggested, nor support.

So these robots will have emotions?

Sure why not?

Because having emotions is what allows for joy and suffering.

So? I've already pointed out that there would still be joy and suffering in the world even if humans could not make evil choices. So any arguments about emotions doesn't even apply at all. So I have no clue why you are ever bringing that up.

But they would have plenty of suffering to compare this with.

But they would not have the ability to feel anything which might cause them suffering.

I disagree and this is not my position. So apparently you are debating with yourself.

Thus they could observe the world of - how did you put it...'nasty stuff' and how would you suppose that they be able to not suffer recognizing that nasty stuff, and if they were "good, kind, loving" how would you suppose they would be able to rectify their existence as "good, kind, loving" in a world which is full of 'nasty stuff'? Would they have the ability to do something about it, and if so, how would you argue they would accomplish that?

This thread is about humans simply being "programmed" to not be able to make evil choices.

The concerns you've created in your above quote has nothing at all to do with the topic being discussed in this thread. Not does it reflect my position on anything.

So we have robot humans who do not make evil choices, but can learn about suffering through observing other things suffering, and they also suffering simply by observing the suffering?

They wouldn't just be observing the suffering, they would suffer the nasty things in the world as well.

If you get burnt by hot lava from a volcano you suffer. The fact, that you cannot yourself choose to do an evil act doesn't prevent you from experience suffering.

So once again, you are addressing topics that don't apply to the discussion of this thread. And topics that I most certainly didn't not take a position on.

Re the OP, why not have everything on the earth be robot, thus doing away with even to have any concept of the notion of suffering, which can itself cause suffering, especially with "good, kind, loving" emotional beings?

That's a good question. If there is a creator God that's the entity you would need to ask. No human can answer this question for you. Nobody knows why the creator of the universe (if there is one) has chosen to create nasty things that cause suffering.

Without the total removal of suffering, those who do no evil are still likely to experience suffering - even if only through observing it.

If you live in a nasty world you are going to do more than just observe suffering.

You don't need to chose to do evil in order to suffer.

Where did you ever come up with that idea?

Why would robots need to be programmed to regard suffering as 'evil' anyway?

That's another question you would need to ask the creator God, if there is one. In theory an omnipotent God could have designed humans with a total inability to experience any kind of pain or suffering at all.

There simply is no need to provide humans with the ability to make evil choices. It's a totally unnecessary thing. Especially in a religion that claims that humans aren't capable of not choosing evil anyway. That's a theological oxymoron that exposes the fallacy of the theology that makes the claim.

Perhaps the whole human experience is to advance our self by having the ability/potential to not behave evilly even that we each have the ability to choose to do so if we wanted?

If so, then this would rule out out Biblical theology. That ideal isn't compatible with Biblical theology.

Perhaps too, we need to reevaluate what 'evil' is, if that is really possible. I think your evaluation of the world as being 'imperfect' because of what you regard of as being 'evil' - because 'suffering' in relation to one particular theology, does not in itself make GOD evil. It might make that particular idea of GOD look evil, but unless you are also arguing that GOD must be evil, regardless of any of the many theological ideas about GOD go...that your argument is along the lines of "If there is a GOD at all, then the GOD must be evil" in relation to my own understand of GOD, that would have to mean that you would consider the Earth Entity to be 'evil'.

Most humans don't like to suffer. Especially not from sever physical pain and bodily damage. Emotional suffering is another story. Different people inflict different amounts of emotional pain on themselves depending on how horrible they perceive something to be.

I don't think I need to define what constitutes suffering or evil. Most people will agree that physical pain and physically harming other people causes suffering, and if done intentionally by another person it constitutes 'evil'. Ironically they tend to give their favorite God a pass on being 'evil' even when that God inflicts suffering and pain on others.

Again, these ideas are theological contradictions that have nothing to do with me or my views on anything.

If we allow that suffering and purposefully harming people is 'evil' then a God who casts poor helpless human souls into an eternal damnation of hell fire is an 'evil' God.

So any theology that has a God who behaves in this way is necessarily an evil God.

Leave me out of it. This theological contradiction would exist even if I had never been born. My personal opinion on this is totally irrelevant.

[Jagella]

For my part I find it very hard to believe that anybody would really choose a dead world of mindless automatons over a world of freely chosen good, joy and love. I think the members here voting to be robots are doing so because they're already not thinking for themselves and merely defining their views in opposition to some religion or other.

What a fun way to have a 'debate' that is

If I ever teach logic, I'll need to reference your posts to show my class some great examples of logical fallacies.

It doesn't logically follow at all that if we are not allowed to be evil, then we will be "a dead world of mindless automatons." There's nothing mindless about pure and virtuous thought, and there's nothing smart about having evil intentions.

And what I'm posting here is what I'd argue in any context and not just as a great way to demonstrate the moral cesspool that religion is. I've always believed that people should be taught and inspired to do good and avoid evil. That's why I argue against religion, after all.

But if you'd like to argue for evil, then by all means make your case.

[Divine Insight]

It doesn't logically follow at all that if we are not allowed to be evil, then we will be "a dead world of mindless automatons." There's nothing mindless about pure and virtuous thought, and there's nothing smart about having evil intentions.

Exactly.

Moreover, this is not an argument that any Christian could make whilst still maintaining the idea that a heaven could exist where the inhabitants would not need to be mindless automatons in order to not be able to chose to do evil.

[wiploc]

You don't need to chose to do evil in order to suffer.

Where did you ever come up with that idea?

That's the free will defense, a standard theodicy.

Evil (suffering) is the punishment for sin (doubting or disobeying god). Until Eve entertained the serpent's argument (thus doubting that god had her best interest in mind when he forbade eating the apple) there was no unhappiness.

It's not a good argument, but it is certainly common.

[William]

[Replying to post 44 by Divine Insight]

Because having emotions is what allows for joy and suffering.

So?

So you are wandering from the OPQ "Do you prefer suffering or people being "robots"?"

If the robots have emotions, then this allows for suffering.

[Divine Insight]

You don't need to chose to do evil in order to suffer.

Where did you ever come up with that idea?

That's the free will defense, a standard theodicy.

Evil (suffering) is the punishment for sin (doubting or disobeying god). Until Eve entertained the serpent's argument (thus doubting that god had her best interest in mind when he forbade eating the apple) there was no unhappiness.

It's not a good argument, but it is certainly common.

Exactly. It's common, but not good.

I think that says it all.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 44 by Divine Insight]

Because having emotions is what allows for joy and suffering.

So?

So you are wandering from the OPQ "Do you prefer suffering or people being "robots"?"

If the robots have emotions, then this allows for suffering.

The OP said, "That assumption is that suffering and evil is universally preferred over our being robots programmed to do only good."

It was even placed in bold print.

So you are trying to change the context of the question.

Keep in mind also that from the Christian Theological perspective all human suffering is caused by the fall of man via his own free will choice to do evil.

So you are taking things far beyond the obvious context of the OP.

The OP was addressing Christian Apologetics. It wasn't addressing your random personal ideas about what a robot might be that have nothing to do with Christian Apologetics. .