Is your gods punishment fair?

[Confused]

I am new to this site, so please bare with me if I seem a little of center. I will try to stick to the rules. After reading these threads for many years, I am just now getting the courage to start to ask questions of my own. feel free to correct me if I mess up.

Ok, lets for the sake of this thread say that the god of christianity is all knowing. Lets say the he knew what you were going to do before you were born, but loved you so much he still allowed your birth to occur. Let us even go far out into the left field and say that he knew what choices you would make in all decisions although he didn't force you to make them. I am not arguing free-will vs determinism. I am only wondering how it is that this god who knew what you would do, loved you so much he allowed your birth to do what you were going to do, and then punished you for doing what he knew you were going to do. If he already knew what would happen, and then allowed it to happen, how can he then turn around and sentence you to eternity in hell for what he knew you would do and allowed you to do?

Maybe I am missing some logical link here, but it seems to me that if this god knew the birth of an individual would result in the torture and death of even one person, isn't this god the actual guilty party for setting into motion an inevitable event? Is this the god that so many people would like for me to follow?

So does anyone know:
1) Does god love you so much that knowing what you would do and what you would become, he still allowed your birth so that you might know his love?

2) Is god some sadistic being who knows what you are going to do, allows you to be born, gets a cheap thrill watching you carry out some of the most sadistic crimes against humanity before sending you to the eternal fires of hell?

3) There is no god.

Personally, I have to say that there isn't enough available information to make an informed decision, but logic tells me its 3. If there is a god-fearing individual who can logically tell me otherwise, I would love to hear it.

[joer]

Cmass Wrote:

OK, enough with the hugs and kisses - kick my ass for that last post I made.

Anyone?

He didn't create sin. Sin is simply man's failure to obey God via free will. So man is responsible for his own sins, and not God.

I thought God created everything? Or is it just that humans create only the bad stuff. Surely god knew what would happened when he created people. Or perhaps we surprised the hell out of him. (Literally and figuratively)

Christians often present information in a way that leads me to believe they have absolutely no knowledge of, or refuse acknowledge the role of brain chemistry and environmental factors in determining behavior. It is almost as if everyone has had the same basic experience as they have had, and if given a clear set of choices set forth by the church, everyone would make the same choices they made. Black and white, good people bad people. It is a profoundly simplistic, self-centered and limited world view.

And people who like to categorize individuals based on their perceptions of what an individuals belief may be usually end up eating their own words. You make claims that Christians present information in a way that leads you to believe X, Y, and Z. Well, I may request why it is you think you hold the right view on X, Y, and Z? Brain chemistry, AKA neurochemistry, isn't an exact science. As neurotransmitters vary in levels in all humans, we can't stay what level is a healthy level universally. Some individuals function better with more dopamine than serotonin. Some function better with more norepinephrine than oxytocin. While we can label hormones, etc... and even measure them, we can't assert a certain value to them that is universal for each individual. Neurochemistry and religion don't even comingle IMO. I think you may be better off sticking with your soft sciences argument, though I think that if I can present even one exception to those, they fail as well, and we both know, this has already been done.

The claim that by interfering, god somehow negates free will is contradicted by the whole notion of praying for someone with mental illness to be healed. Where does free will begin and end in this process? If I did just a teeny bit of adjusting to your noggin with a scalpel I could render you a rather nasty, violent person. Would god throw you in hell-jail for being violent, killing people and rejecting him? What if it was not my scalpel but the scalpel of the almighty god creature itself that performed the incision at conception? After all, god creates the brain chemistry to begin with and "places" the fetus in the womb of a mother in downtown Baghdad. No? (Or perhaps he has no part in this process and it is random?)
Consider this:
If a depressed person curses god and blames his misery on god, what happens if he receives anti-depressants and counseling such that in a year he returns to church a happy camper and "submits" to god? Consider the same scenario 100 years ago without the availability of anti-depressants. Does the modern guy live for eternity in bliss while the other goes to hell? What if the modern guy never finds out about the meds? Or what if he does know about the meds and chooses not to take them? If he rejects his meds he will not recover and if he does not recover then he won't return to church and make nice with the god-creature again. By rejecting meds he is rejecting god.

And what happens if he takes those antidepressants and commits suicide? Perhaps you should look at the side effects and warnings of the medications you are suggesting before you use them as an example.
I would suggest that if a depressed person curses God for their being depressed, then perhaps your favored soft science field should look for some other pathology aside from simple depression.

On the whole, most of Western society does a far better job metering out justice than biblegod. We take into account brain chemistry, background and mitigating circumstances when trying violent offenders. They are rarely killed for their actions and we even more rarely torture them. (Except for right wing religious administrations) We take into account the gray areas.

Yup. And child molesters are set free every day because of such circumstances. Sociopathic children (AKA ODD) are returned to society at the age of 18 suddenly cured. Rapists.......... well, you get the idea. On the whole, I would say these are parasites to humanity. I care not for the cause of their affliction. I care that they CHOSE to carry out their actions against innocent people. I don't ascribe much to the nature vs nurture issue as you well know. To say a combination plays a role in behavior is to say as much gray area is justified as one wants to allow. Gray areas aren't always good.

It appears biblegod does not have nearly the capacity for love and forgiveness of his children than I have for mine. I could not envision any scenario in which I would allow my son to be tortured forever - certainly not for rejecting me or hating me or even committing violence against me. I would use any tool at my disposal to help improve his situations whether it be cognitive therapy or anti-psychotic drugs or whatever.

That is you. Personally, I think most antipsychotic side effects would be the equivalent of hell anyways.

My mother was a special education teacher and could predict with a fair amount of accuracy which children would make it and which ones would grow up with serious problems. Social scientists have become quite good at this as well - having it down, literally, to a science. This is why the early childhood intervention programs came about. I would expect an all-loving, all-knowing god to be even more kind and understanding of his creations and at least as proficient as we are at predicting how "free will" creatures will perform.

Social scientists have this area nailed huh? Of course, because every single human being qualifies for a disorder in the DSM IV. Naturally, they are going to be able to predict anything when they can turn to a book that has everything in it. That makes the bible no more or less reliable than the DSM IV IMO as there are exceptions for every rule and contradictions for every diagnosis. Early childhood prevention programs..... what are the stats on how well these improve the individual child as compared to what the individual child would have become without them???? You won't find them. You know why? Because you cannot conclusively state that the program and not some extraneous variable, such as a friend or genetics, didn't play the major role rather than the "Early childhood whatever".

We have rehabilitation centers for even the worst offenders of society. I wonder why god doesn't fly down to hell and simply make it into a rehabilitation center? Why not simply teach people who reject him (or who simply find no reason to believe he exists) to love, accept and bow to his will? You know, slap some sense into them? It would not be negating free will any more than we negate free will by rehabilitating criminals. By most Christians definitions, god appears to be a seriously limited being with nothing approaching the "humanity", kindness, intelligence, foresight, teaching capability, forgiveness or creative capacity of current advanced human societies.

Good question. One I have been asking for a while with no answers yet. But don't sit back and try to make it seem like we humans are doing such a great job either. Rehab centers for the worst offenders???? I can't think of a worst offender than a rapist or pedophile. What is the successful rehabilitation rate for them? Sociopaths?

Ya know why I think that is? Because the bible was written by humans and it reflects the mindset of bronze-age tribal story tellers who were not very sophisticated. Your bible is a couple thousand years overdue for updating my friend.

You may be right. But it seems to me that society isn't that much more sophisticated in dealing with crimes either. The same ones exist now as did then and the reform rate isn't so great now. Of course then, you were just put to death. I wonder which is the more humane thing? Death vs. 10x10 cell for life.

Ask and you shall recieve.

[Cmass]

Cmass Wrote:

OK, enough with the hugs and kisses - kick my ass for that last post I made.

Anyone?

He didn't create sin. Sin is simply man's failure to obey God via free will. So man is responsible for his own sins, and not God.

I thought God created everything? Or is it just that humans create only the bad stuff. Surely god knew what would happened when he created people. Or perhaps we surprised the hell out of him. (Literally and figuratively)

Christians often present information in a way that leads me to believe they have absolutely no knowledge of, or refuse acknowledge the role of brain chemistry and environmental factors in determining behavior. It is almost as if everyone has had the same basic experience as they have had, and if given a clear set of choices set forth by the church, everyone would make the same choices they made. Black and white, good people bad people. It is a profoundly simplistic, self-centered and limited world view.

And people who like to categorize individuals based on their perceptions of what an individuals belief may be usually end up eating their own words. You make claims that Christians present information in a way that leads you to believe X, Y, and Z. Well, I may request why it is you think you hold the right view on X, Y, and Z? Brain chemistry, AKA neurochemistry, isn't an exact science. As neurotransmitters vary in levels in all humans, we can't stay what level is a healthy level universally. Some individuals function better with more dopamine than serotonin. Some function better with more norepinephrine than oxytocin. While we can label hormones, etc... and even measure them, we can't assert a certain value to them that is universal for each individual. Neurochemistry and religion don't even comingle IMO. I think you may be better off sticking with your soft sciences argument, though I think that if I can present even one exception to those, they fail as well, and we both know, this has already been done.

The claim that by interfering, god somehow negates free will is contradicted by the whole notion of praying for someone with mental illness to be healed. Where does free will begin and end in this process? If I did just a teeny bit of adjusting to your noggin with a scalpel I could render you a rather nasty, violent person. Would god throw you in hell-jail for being violent, killing people and rejecting him? What if it was not my scalpel but the scalpel of the almighty god creature itself that performed the incision at conception? After all, god creates the brain chemistry to begin with and "places" the fetus in the womb of a mother in downtown Baghdad. No? (Or perhaps he has no part in this process and it is random?)
Consider this:
If a depressed person curses god and blames his misery on god, what happens if he receives anti-depressants and counseling such that in a year he returns to church a happy camper and "submits" to god? Consider the same scenario 100 years ago without the availability of anti-depressants. Does the modern guy live for eternity in bliss while the other goes to hell? What if the modern guy never finds out about the meds? Or what if he does know about the meds and chooses not to take them? If he rejects his meds he will not recover and if he does not recover then he won't return to church and make nice with the god-creature again. By rejecting meds he is rejecting god.

And what happens if he takes those antidepressants and commits suicide? Perhaps you should look at the side effects and warnings of the medications you are suggesting before you use them as an example.
I would suggest that if a depressed person curses God for their being depressed, then perhaps your favored soft science field should look for some other pathology aside from simple depression.

On the whole, most of Western society does a far better job metering out justice than biblegod. We take into account brain chemistry, background and mitigating circumstances when trying violent offenders. They are rarely killed for their actions and we even more rarely torture them. (Except for right wing religious administrations) We take into account the gray areas.

Yup. And child molesters are set free every day because of such circumstances. Sociopathic children (AKA ODD) are returned to society at the age of 18 suddenly cured. Rapists.......... well, you get the idea. On the whole, I would say these are parasites to humanity. I care not for the cause of their affliction. I care that they CHOSE to carry out their actions against innocent people. I don't ascribe much to the nature vs nurture issue as you well know. To say a combination plays a role in behavior is to say as much gray area is justified as one wants to allow. Gray areas aren't always good.

It appears biblegod does not have nearly the capacity for love and forgiveness of his children than I have for mine. I could not envision any scenario in which I would allow my son to be tortured forever - certainly not for rejecting me or hating me or even committing violence against me. I would use any tool at my disposal to help improve his situations whether it be cognitive therapy or anti-psychotic drugs or whatever.

That is you. Personally, I think most antipsychotic side effects would be the equivalent of hell anyways.

My mother was a special education teacher and could predict with a fair amount of accuracy which children would make it and which ones would grow up with serious problems. Social scientists have become quite good at this as well - having it down, literally, to a science. This is why the early childhood intervention programs came about. I would expect an all-loving, all-knowing god to be even more kind and understanding of his creations and at least as proficient as we are at predicting how "free will" creatures will perform.

Social scientists have this area nailed huh? Of course, because every single human being qualifies for a disorder in the DSM IV. Naturally, they are going to be able to predict anything when they can turn to a book that has everything in it. That makes the bible no more or less reliable than the DSM IV IMO as there are exceptions for every rule and contradictions for every diagnosis. Early childhood prevention programs..... what are the stats on how well these improve the individual child as compared to what the individual child would have become without them???? You won't find them. You know why? Because you cannot conclusively state that the program and not some extraneous variable, such as a friend or genetics, didn't play the major role rather than the "Early childhood whatever".

We have rehabilitation centers for even the worst offenders of society. I wonder why god doesn't fly down to hell and simply make it into a rehabilitation center? Why not simply teach people who reject him (or who simply find no reason to believe he exists) to love, accept and bow to his will? You know, slap some sense into them? It would not be negating free will any more than we negate free will by rehabilitating criminals. By most Christians definitions, god appears to be a seriously limited being with nothing approaching the "humanity", kindness, intelligence, foresight, teaching capability, forgiveness or creative capacity of current advanced human societies.

Good question. One I have been asking for a while with no answers yet. But don't sit back and try to make it seem like we humans are doing such a great job either. Rehab centers for the worst offenders???? I can't think of a worst offender than a rapist or pedophile. What is the successful rehabilitation rate for them? Sociopaths?

Ya know why I think that is? Because the bible was written by humans and it reflects the mindset of bronze-age tribal story tellers who were not very sophisticated. Your bible is a couple thousand years overdue for updating my friend.

You may be right. But it seems to me that society isn't that much more sophisticated in dealing with crimes either. The same ones exist now as did then and the reform rate isn't so great now. Of course then, you were just put to death. I wonder which is the more humane thing? Death vs. 10x10 cell for life.

Ask and you shall recieve.

Not bad, not bad.
But the answers are nearly impossible to see through all the straw flying everywhere.
Too many assumptions made about me by the poster and and too many statements taken completely out of context.

[Confused]

Not bad, not bad.
But the answers are nearly impossible to see through all the straw flying everywhere.
Too many assumptions made about me by the poster and and too many statements taken completely out of context.

My apologies for my assumptions or for taking statements out of context. I thought I addressed them head on. My assumptions about you are made based on the comments you have provided on this thread. However, I did allude to a few private things you may know about me or vice versa without actually stating them, for that, I apologize.

However, I don't see the straw flying. Despite my errors, my argument was sound when taken out of personal context.

That being said, it is off topic, so if you wish to explore it, I wouldn't object to a new thread or you might try the Christianity vs. Psychology thread. Granted, I haven't been on much lately, a lot going on. But I will try to keep up.

[Confused]

He didn't create sin. Sin is simply man's failure to obey God via free will. So man is responsible for his own sins, and not God.

I thought God created everything? Or is it just that humans create only the bad stuff. Surely god knew what would happened when he created people. Or perhaps we surprised the hell out of him. (Literally and figuratively)

Okay, let me try this without all the psychological mumble jumble.

Got created everything, yes. Good and bad. However, just because he created something doesn't mean we have to fall for it. Sin is a byproduct of free will, in the most liberal sense of the word. God created free will, God created sin. That doesn't mean we have to sin just because it is present.

Then again, if I sin and God knew I was going to sin but did nothing to stop it, why am I the only one held accountable? Parents love their children enough to guide them through lifes lessons as best they can (or at least that is the ideal way). As I am still considered a "child" and He is still my "parent", does He not have a responsibility to intervene and prevent me from sinning until I am capable of doing it on my own?

My hang up is why bother creating us knowing we would sin and condemn us for it. Mind you, until the death of Christ, there was no "redemption" per se. There was no forgiveness without serious penance... usually involving death of either sinner or livestock. Then comes Christ and through the violent spilling of His blood, we are offered redemption. Why did He continue allowing procreation, precious life being born knowing they would sin, turn against Him, never find Him, etc....

Let's take McCulloch for example.
He rejects the existence of a God. God knew this would happen. He knew McCulloch would fail to find Him, yet He loved Him so much, He allowed Him to be born knowing He would have to condemn Him at some point.

What is wrong with that picture.

I am not sure I have not just completely confused myself (shocker, I know), but hopefully, I got my point across.

[Cmass]

He didn't create sin. Sin is simply man's failure to obey God via free will. So man is responsible for his own sins, and not God.

I thought God created everything? Or is it just that humans create only the bad stuff. Surely god knew what would happened when he created people. Or perhaps we surprised the hell out of him. (Literally and figuratively)

Okay, let me try this without all the psychological mumble jumble.

Got created everything, yes. Good and bad. However, just because he created something doesn't mean we have to fall for it. Sin is a byproduct of free will, in the most liberal sense of the word. God created free will, God created sin. That doesn't mean we have to sin just because it is present.

Then again, if I sin and God knew I was going to sin but did nothing to stop it, why am I the only one held accountable? Parents love their children enough to guide them through lifes lessons as best they can (or at least that is the ideal way). As I am still considered a "child" and He is still my "parent", does He not have a responsibility to intervene and prevent me from sinning until I am capable of doing it on my own?

My hang up is why bother creating us knowing we would sin and condemn us for it. Mind you, until the death of Christ, there was no "redemption" per se. There was no forgiveness without serious penance... usually involving death of either sinner or livestock. Then comes Christ and through the violent spilling of His blood, we are offered redemption. Why did He continue allowing procreation, precious life being born knowing they would sin, turn against Him, never find Him, etc....

Let's take McCulloch for example.
He rejects the existence of a God. God knew this would happen. He knew McCulloch would fail to find Him, yet He loved Him so much, He allowed Him to be born knowing He would have to condemn Him at some point.

What is wrong with that picture.

I am not sure I have not just completely confused myself (shocker, I know), but hopefully, I got my point across.

Not that you aren't original (because I think you are) but this one of the most often repeated arguments by non-theists in here.
- It is completely valid.
- You will never get a straight answer. 100% money back guaranteed you won't.

Last year I recall reading a very long running thread that discussed the concept of god's complicity in sin and as theists began to get hemmed in, the answers began to get what can only be described as utterly bizarre. Once you start going down the freewill debate highway, you better have a full tank and some extra water. (And a good sense of humor when you see some of the "reasoning") But the truth is, the whole concept of freewill is central to many questions including your OP.

God either created everything including the chemistry that runs your brain, or he did not. He either knows what you are going to do or he does not. If he does not, then he is not a god. If god "created" free will then he "created" randomness in which he himself cannot predict the outcome. If he cannot predict the outcome, he is not a god. If he does know what is going to happen, if he knows your brain chemistry, culture, home life and does nothing to interfere with your actions (yes, as a parent would) then you are nothing more than cosmic entertainment to a callous creature. The logic for this is basic enough for an elementary school child to understand.....and yet.....

[McCulloch]

Okay, let me try this without all the theological mumble jumble.

Let's take McCulloch for example.
He rejects the existence of a God. God knew this would happen. He knew McCulloch would fail to find Him, yet He loved Him so much, He allowed Him to be born knowing He would have to condemn Him at some point.

What is wrong with that picture?

Please, somebody explain to me how this can be called love?

[Jester]

Not that you aren't original (because I think you are) but this one of the most often repeated arguments by non-theists in here.
- It is completely valid.
- You will never get a straight answer. 100% money back guaranteed you won't.

Ah well, curved answers are more fun anyway.
So, my meandering line of reasoning:

God either created everything including the chemistry that runs your brain, or he did not. He either knows what you are going to do or he does not. If he does not, then he is not a god. If god "created" free will then he "created" randomness in which he himself cannot predict the outcome.

It's my position that this is a false dichotomy. One can, after all, predict that I'll prefer going out to a movie to shopping for groceries without forcing me through the door of the movie theater. While many take the philosophy that the nature of our brain-chemistry creates only the illusion of free will, I've yet to be convinced that this is an undeniable conclusion so much as a philosophical assumption.

Of course, there is this issue:

If he does know what is going to happen, if he knows your brain chemistry, culture, home life and does nothing to interfere with your actions (yes, as a parent would) then you are nothing more than cosmic entertainment to a callous creature.

Before we take this to extreme examples, I'm going to insist that in most any situation we should be able to agree that this is not necessarily the case. Good parents often allow their children to make their own mistakes, so that they might learn. Only the most overbearing parent would refuse to allow their child any freedom of choice that might end up in pain.
Of course, the natural reaction to this is to point out the severity of the pain adults are allowed to cause. I have basically two responses to this.
First, that it is merely a quantitative difference, not a qualitative one. Given that God has different goals than we do, and knows a great deal more, there will always be places where his actions seem inexplicable. If suffering even the most horrible tragedy on earth ultimately benefits you for eternity, it would be worth it. (Though, in response, keep in mind my previous comments about eternity).
Second, that whatever amount of pain exists in the world, the "higher end" of the spectrum will seem vast to us, regardless of what it may actually be. If God had created a world in which paper-cuts were the worst anyone suffered, then paper-cuts would be heralded as a great evil, and children would get queasy hearing about them in school (but not reading, they wouldn't dare give them paper books). So, goofy example, but I think it makes my point: What is our basis for comparison when evaluating the universe?

Please, somebody explain to me how this can be called love?

To be certain, it is not.
To throw out the generic and expected answer: I do not believe that this is actually the situation. But, I do agree with you that, were God truly indifferent toward us in this way, it would be very unloving indeed.

[Cmass]

So, god either knows what you are going to do or he does not know what you are going to do. Simple eh? Well, here is:

It's my position that this is a false dichotomy. One can, after all, predict that I'll prefer going out to a movie to shopping for groceries without forcing me through the door of the movie theater.

Huh? Force you through the door? How about just know you will go through the door?
As a god, I either know what you are going to do or I don't. If I am god and I created every atom in your brain, I hold all of it together and created the laws that govern the chemistry then I should certainly know what you are going to do.

While many take the philosophy that the nature of our brain-chemistry creates only the illusion of free will, I've yet to be convinced that this is an undeniable conclusion so much as a philosophical assumption.

If you ever were convinced, your entire world view would radically alter.....so I won't hold my breath on that one.

Good parents often allow their children to make their own mistakes, so that they might learn.

I hear this all the time and it is false. You don't need to make a mistake to learn something. God doesn't need to set you up for failure just so you learn your lesson.

Only the most overbearing parent would refuse to allow their child any freedom of choice that might end up in pain.

Another common statement that makes absolutely no sense if you are a parent. A good parent balances the amount of interference they provide depending upon the situation. In some situations you might let the kid learn completely on his own, while in other cases you carefully monitor and guide them - sometimes doing a task in front of them many times before even letting them try. A parent without the willingness or ability to balance their involvement is a lousy parent.

Of course, the natural reaction to this is to point out the severity of the pain adults are allowed to cause. I have basically two responses to this.

I'm getting lost here....and I think the fenders are starting to hit the bushes on the side of the road. Physical pain or emotional pain? They are radically different.

First, that it is merely a quantitative difference, not a qualitative one.

So differences in pain are not qualitative but quantitative?? Uhmm...hmm. Not sure where we are going with this one...
Thwap! A big branch just hit the quarter panel - be careful Jester.

Given that God has different goals than we do, and knows a great deal more, there will always be places where his actions seem inexplicable.

This is the corollary to Godditit or the God Of Gaps: In this case, if something the god character does makes no sense or seems cruel, well, that is just because god is smarter than we are.

If suffering even the most horrible tragedy on earth ultimately benefits you for eternity, it would be worth it. (Though, in response, keep in mind my previous comments about eternity).

Sure. Sounds good.

Second, that whatever amount of pain exists in the world, the "higher end" of the spectrum will seem vast to us, regardless of what it may actually be. If God had created a world in which paper-cuts were the worst anyone suffered, then paper-cuts would be heralded as a great evil, and children would get queasy hearing about them in school (but not reading, they wouldn't dare give them paper books). So, goofy example, but I think it makes my point: What is our basis for comparison when evaluating the universe?

Congratulations, you have successfully driven off into the bushes. I like the paper cuts analogy - and the whole concept of a world where people are terrified by them - but it has nothing to do with my post except to reiterate theists have no answers to the conundrum I presented.

The 100% money back guarantee is still safe.

[Jester]

It's my position that this is a false dichotomy. One can, after all, predict that I'll prefer going out to a movie to shopping for groceries without forcing me through the door of the movie theater.

Huh? Force you through the door? How about just know you will go through the door?
As a god, I either know what you are going to do or I don't. If I am god and I created every atom in your brain, I hold all of it together and created the laws that govern the chemistry then I should certainly know what you are going to do.

I agree. The "forcing me through the door" comment was directed at this:

If god "created" free will then he "created" randomness in which he himself cannot predict the outcome.

I meant to say that I don't see why creating free will necessarily means he can't predict the outcome.

While many take the philosophy that the nature of our brain-chemistry creates only the illusion of free will, I've yet to be convinced that this is an undeniable conclusion so much as a philosophical assumption.

If you ever were convinced, your entire world view would radically alter.....so I won't hold my breath on that one.

I'm not holding my breath either.
I will state, however, that we can't simply boil this down to my protecting my world view just yet. I'm not claiming to be a purely objective Vulcan or anything, but let's at least offer me a reason for changing my mind before suggesting that I would refuse to listen to reason about this one.

Good parents often allow their children to make their own mistakes, so that they might learn.

I hear this all the time and it is false. You don't need to make a mistake to learn something. God doesn't need to set you up for failure just so you learn your lesson.

First, I don't believe that God sets people up for failure. This is clearly different than allowing a person to make a mistake. Second, I am aware that some things can be learned without making mistakes. To my memory, I didn't need to get 1 + 1 wrong in order to learn it.
On more personal-growth matters, it does seem that our mistakes and failures teach us a great deal. Many people maintain that they have learned things from making mistakes that they could not have learned any other way. While you need not personally agree, I don't see any reason why such a philosophy is less valid than yours. Simply, we've yet to introduce any evidence for this claim, as well as a few others. They all seem to be arguments from personal philosophies. Perfectly fine for those who hold them, but I don't yet see any reason for those for whom such claims ring false to adopt them. Even less do I see a reason why we can issue this charge against God without first establishing the assumptions here as at least evidenced, if not true.

Only the most overbearing parent would refuse to allow their child any freedom of choice that might end up in pain.

Another common statement that makes absolutely no sense if you are a parent. A good parent balances the amount of interference they provide depending upon the situation. In some situations you might let the kid learn completely on his own, while in other cases you carefully monitor and guide them - sometimes doing a task in front of them many times before even letting them try. A parent without the willingness or ability to balance their involvement is a lousy parent.

I agree completely with this last. A certain amount of risk is involved. It is a balance. Good parenting does not mean padding every wall in your house, air-sealing the windows, and refusing to allow your child to play outside or go to school until he/she is eighteen. A balance must be struck, rather than trying to create a world without any chance whatsoever for pain and mistakes.

Of course, the natural reaction to this is to point out the severity of the pain adults are allowed to cause. I have basically two responses to this.

I'm getting lost here....and I think the fenders are starting to hit the bushes on the side of the road. Physical pain or emotional pain? They are radically different.

I agree, but I would argue that my comments here apply to both of them. If it helps, every time I used the word "pain" I was referencing both types.

Given that God has different goals than we do, and knows a great deal more, there will always be places where his actions seem inexplicable.

This is the corollary to Godditit or the God Of Gaps: In this case, if something the god character does makes no sense or seems cruel, well, that is just because god is smarter than we are.

The "God of the Gaps" reasoning is fallacious because it tries to argue that we accept God's existence on the basis of what we don't know. This line of reasoning is just the opposite, in that I'm claiming that we not reject God's existence/goodness on the basis of what we don't know. In both cases, we ought to get back to what we do know.

If suffering even the most horrible tragedy on earth ultimately benefits you for eternity, it would be worth it. (Though, in response, keep in mind my previous comments about eternity).

Sure. Sounds good.

Agreement! Mini celebration:

Congratulations, you have successfully driven off into the bushes.

For some reason, I feel kind of victorious causing that much confusion. In any case, I'm going to keep off-roading for a bit here:

I like the paper cuts analogy - and the whole concept of a world where people are terrified by them - but it has nothing to do with my post except to reiterate theists have no answers to the conundrum I presented.

They may not be answers which fit your personal philosophy, they may not even turn out to be true (we'll find out when we die). They are answers, however. It seems that this conundrum stems from the idea that we know what would make the world a perfect place, and would know it if we were in it. I really don't see any reason to accept that as true. Everything I know about people has led me to believe that it is not.

The 100% money back guarantee is still safe.

Man, there's a lot of fine print about that one. I didn't use the classic "You'd understand if you had faith" argument or anything.

In any case, it's great to trade ideas with you again. I'm still chuckling about your car analogy.

[joer]

Okay, let me try this without all the theological mumble jumble.

Let's take McCulloch for example.
He rejects the existence of a God. God knew this would happen. He knew McCulloch would fail to find Him, yet He loved Him so much, He allowed Him to be born knowing He would have to condemn Him at some point.

What is wrong with that picture?

Please, somebody explain to me how this can be called love?

Think of a world without McCulloch and tell me how it couldn't be Love?

Personally I believe the world is a better place because McCulloch is in it.