Questioning the Problem of Evil once again

[instantc]

Here is what I find slightly baffling about the Problem of Evil.

The argument essentially says that the present world is not what the universe would look like if it were ruled by a loving and powerful ruler. I.e, there is too much evil in the world.

There is too much evil in the world, that strikes me as an odd thing to say. What would be an appropriate amount of evil for an almighty ruler to allow? Is it logically possible to know happiness without knowing any suffering? Some variants of the PoE say that it is the unnecessary suffering that disproves God, but is any suffering completely unnecessary or gratuitous? I don't think so. Some instances of suffering may be highly disproportionate to the potential positive consequences, but every instance of suffering has at least some conceivable positive consequences.

I think that one who wants to endorse PoE also has to define where he draws the line with regard to the acceptable amount of suffering, i.e he should define what amount/type of suffering would be consistent with the God hypothesis. He would then have to show that a world with those conditions would be (1) conceivable and (2) desirable.

To make it short, if you are to claim that this is not how a loving God should act, then you should be able to explain how it is that a loving God should act. If you say that this is not what a universe ruled by a loving ruler looks like, then you should, according to the rules of inference, first have a vision of what a universe ruled by a loving ruler does look like.

What do you think?

[tariki]

Love and holiness must come from a true free will choice because they can't be true love or true holiness if forced.

No, true love must come from God as pure gift (by grace) and as Thomas Merton has said, God is "his" own gift.

If by OUR "free choice" then the casual basis of our salvation is "works".

But then, one must refer to the early Church Fathers to meet such thoughts, those who believed in and taught Universalism.

All the best

The love and holiness I speak about is the love and holiness before the fall which came to be actualized in the elect except for those elect who sinned which diverted the direct line of growth into true love and true holiness into a detour onto earth to be cleansed and redeemed by grace alone, no works, until they are cleansed enough to start to learn how to love and be holy as they should have done eons ago.

Great sound bite but essentially neaningless: "true love must come from God as pure gift (by grace)" I know God loves within the Trinity but loving himself within a created person seems weird...is this a bit of Merton's fake Christianity?

Peace, Ted

Hi Ted, we speak of the very same love and notwithstanding your attempt to defend your own Reform Theology (with a great dash of Calvinism) it remains to be said that Merton is grounded in the very deepest traditions of the whole Christian Faith, and NOT in just one tradition that began just a few centuries ago with Luther.

What is "sound bite" to one is the Living Word of grace to another, which no doubt to you is merely another sound bite. Maybe something to do with the natural man........?

All the best

[ttruscott]

...

Merton is grounded in the very deepest traditions of the whole Christian Faith, and NOT in just one tradition that began just a few centuries ago with Luther.

...

Since I believe all theologies and other definitions of reality started before the creation of the physical universe, age of a theory on earth does not mean too much to me,

Peace, Ted

[tariki]

...

Merton is grounded in the very deepest traditions of the whole Christian Faith, and NOT in just one tradition that began just a few centuries ago with Luther.

...

Since I believe all theologies and other definitions of reality started before the creation of the physical universe, age of a theory on earth does not mean too much to me,

Peace, Ted

Now that's what I call a soundbite!




All the best

[Bust Nak]

Love and holiness must come from a true free will choice because they can't be true love or true holiness if forced.

And this use of omnipotent in this way is wrong - it was never a question of power but of moral superiority and true free will decisions.

Free will has with it the ultimate responsibility of wearing the clothes one has made, and rejecting this due to bad feelings about that (called sympathy for the devil sometimes) has no bearing upon it.

Are you suggesting the intermediate step I mention ARE a logical necessity? If so then make your case. I am willing to accept the premise that Love and holiness must come from a true free will choice; the premise that God needs to be morally superior and allow free will to qualify for benevolent.

As for wasting my time, I do not write for those who have taken a solid stance against me for over a year over and over again, but for those who may be influenced by such opposition and not know how to answer.

Ok, it may not be a waste of time, but it is a red herring that does not address my point.

[ttruscott]

...

Are you suggesting the intermediate step I mention ARE a logical necessity? If so then make your case. I am willing to accept the premise that Love and holiness must come from a true free will choice; the premise that God needs to be morally superior and allow free will to qualify for benevolent.

...

I'm not at all sure what all intermediate steps you envision but yes, there are two, which are a logical necessity for HIM to fulfill HIS purpose, not HIS moral superiority...1. the creation of HIS all spirits in HIS image with the ability to make true free will decisions and then 2. having them do so on the issue of whether they wanted what HE had to offer (HIS goal, HIS purpose for their creation) enough to accept HIM as their GOD without proof but on faith.

GOD wanted to create a Church, a congregation of people in full loving, holy communion with HIM in heaven BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO BE THERE WITH HIM IN THAT REALITY! They must have truly wanted love, holiness and heaven as HE defines it.

[The logical necessity of love and holiness being only produced by free will is a given. If not, arguments must be made that the love GOD shares can come about by force...]

How did HE find all the people in HIS creation who would like to live that way, after HE taught them all about it and all about the alternatives? HE asked them to make a true free will decision to accept HIM as their GOD and to accept HIS purpose for their creation.

Peace, Ted

[tariki]

[The logical necessity of love and holiness being only produced by free will is a given. If not, arguments must be made that the love GOD shares can come about by force...]

Hi Ted, as you probably know, the various arguments regarding free will v determinism have been interminable and will in all probability remain so.

In the Christian context ( or at least, in YOUR Christian context, which is not quite the same thing despite your sound bites...... ) the answer comes simply from the thought that God IS love and God is Omipotent and God willls that all be saved.

It comes from the recognition that "free will" need not be restricted to this one short sharp life with all its ambiguities and inequalities, nor to the simple choice for or against a particular definition (Christian, yours, or otherwise) of "holiness".

The answer rests in the faith that a God Who IS love will never cease from being the author of mercy and grace, as He is unchanging, and thus never cease in searching for every lost sheep.

The answer comes from what the words of St Augustine suggest ( i.e that we were made for God and we shall not rest until we find our rest in Him), that we too will retain our free will and - Augustine's words being so -we shall remain "searching" and not at rest until such time as we rest in the very Freedom that those like you place so much weight on.

You once spoke of "ordinary stuff". Much of the above is also ordinary stuff to those who are familiar with many of the early Church Fathers and their teachings, the very ones who played a part in choosing the books that became part of the canon of scripture. It is also ordinary stuff to many devout Christians today, as exemplified in such books as "Patristic Universalism" by David Burnfield, which show just how Biblical Universalism is, or can be.

All the best

[tariki]

Leading on from my last post and actually answering the OP.......

I think it is possible to be witness to, and to participate in, the actual reality of this world with all its suffering and yet retain a faith in Divine Providence.

This, given the teaching of Universalism - which as I see it is the best Christianity can offer to the "problem of evil".

As I see it, the problem of evil rests with those who would envisage an eternity of quite pointless - because unending and thus purposeless - torment and suffering - when originally there would have been just the eternal freedom, love and creativity of the Divine.

[Bust Nak]

I'm not at all sure what all intermediate steps you envision but yes, there are two, which are a logical necessity for HIM to fulfill HIS purpose, not HIS moral superiority...1. the creation of HIS all spirits in HIS image with the ability to make true free will decisions and then 2. having them do so on the issue of whether they wanted what HE had to offer (HIS goal, HIS purpose for their creation) enough to accept HIM as their GOD without proof but on faith.

GOD wanted to create a Church, a congregation of people in full loving, holy communion with HIM in heaven BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO BE THERE WITH HIM IN THAT REALITY! They must have truly wanted love, holiness and heaven as HE defines it.

[The logical necessity of love and holiness being only produced by free will is a given. If not, arguments must be made that the love GOD shares can come about by force...]

How did HE find all the people in HIS creation who would like to live that way, after HE taught them all about it and all about the alternatives? HE asked them to make a true free will decision to accept HIM as their GOD and to accept HIS purpose for their creation.

Let me try and make it easier.

1) God exist.
2) God is omnipotent, able to do anything except logical contradictions.
3) God is benevolent.
4) God is moral.
5) God's goal is to have compaions who willingly love him.
6) "Willing love" must involve free will.
7) Assume nobody is going to hell.
...

1-6 are accepted premises. 7 is an assumption. Fill in the "..." to generate a logical contradiction in the form of "A & not A." That would prove that the assumption is false, and hence someone going to hell is a logical necessity. You are allowed to add in extra premises but I reserve the right to challenge them. Can you do that? This is open to anyone.

[ttruscott]

Trying to teach me the form of debate logic? we'll see....

...

1) God exist.
2) God is omnipotent, able to do anything except logical contradictions.
3) God is benevolent.
4) God is moral.
5) God's goal is to have companions who willingly love him.
6) "Willing love" must involve free will.
7) Assume nobody is going to hell

1-6 are accepted premises. 7 is an assumption. Fill in the "..." to generate a logical contradiction in the form of "A & not A." That would prove that the assumption is false, and hence someone going to hell is a logical necessity. You are allowed to add in extra premises but I reserve the right to challenge them. Can you do that? This is open to anyone.

Like this?
6a. GOD is eternal and so to create persons to share willing love as eternal beings has a higher value than mortal beings would have.
6b. The FREE of free will means not forced nor constrained by GOD in any way.
6c. Free will must be open to contradicting possibilities or the choice is not free but forced by the opposite not being available...ie only being able to only chose what is offered is not free but constrained.
6d. Having the ability to create a willing love by free will means that the possibility must be open for someone to chose 'not love', ie hate or indifference.
6e. One natural consequences of rejecting GOD through hate or indifference is to self create oneself as eternally evil in eternal enmity with GOD and HIS church, unless under the promise of salvation by GOD as the sinner cannot save himself.
6f. Hell is the other natural consequence of choosing hate or indifference to GOD and HIS promises of salvation from sin, as all sinners outside of HIS salvation must live outside of HIS created reality to save HIS Church from their eternal hate which is contrary to HIS purpose of sharing willing love in heaven.

Therefore assumption 7 is wrong and cannot exist within a plan of using true free will to find those who wanted to share divine willing love, unless every person in creation chose to accept that offer.

7) Assume nobody is going to hell is denied.

Peace, Ted

[tariki]

Trying to teach me the form of debate logic? we'll see....

...

1) God exist.
2) God is omnipotent, able to do anything except logical contradictions.
3) God is benevolent.
4) God is moral.
5) God's goal is to have companions who willingly love him.
6) "Willing love" must involve free will.
7) Assume nobody is going to hell

1-6 are accepted premises. 7 is an assumption. Fill in the "..." to generate a logical contradiction in the form of "A & not A." That would prove that the assumption is false, and hence someone going to hell is a logical necessity. You are allowed to add in extra premises but I reserve the right to challenge them. Can you do that? This is open to anyone.

Like this?
6a. GOD is eternal and so to create persons to share willing love as eternal beings has a higher value than mortal beings would have.
6b. The FREE of free will means not forced nor constrained by GOD in any way.
6c. Free will must be open to contradicting possibilities or the choice is not free but forced by the opposite not being available...ie only being able to only chose what is offered is not free but constrained.
6d. Having the ability to create a willing love by free will means that the possibility must be open for someone to chose 'not love', ie hate or indifference.
6e. One natural consequences of rejecting GOD through hate or indifference is to self create oneself as eternally evil in eternal enmity with GOD and HIS church, unless under the promise of salvation by GOD as the sinner cannot save himself.
6f. Hell is the other natural consequence of choosing hate or indifference to GOD and HIS promises of salvation from sin, as all sinners outside of HIS salvation must live outside of HIS created reality to save HIS Church from their eternal hate which is contrary to HIS purpose of sharing willing love in heaven.

Therefore assumption 7 is wrong and cannot exist within a plan of using true free will to find those who wanted to share divine willing love, unless every person in creation chose to accept that offer.

7) Assume nobody is going to hell is denied.

Peace, Ted

Given all that has gone before, I see a weakness in 6D.

But nevermind. I suppose all this is the result of seeking definitive answers to evil by reference to a book that cannot possibly bear the weight.

All the best