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"?

[Divine Insight]

Besides, I see no reason why we cannot be programmed to be good.

The Bible ends with the marriage of HIS holy creation with GOD Himself AFTER all evil has been excoriated from the earth. This implies that since the Bible is the story of GOD's interaction with the people of Earth that this marriage culminates and fulfills HIS purpose for our creation.

It is an absolute imperative that a real marriage must be entered into by the free will of both parties or there is no real marriage and that neither marriage nor true love can be coerced but must be freely chosen.

Freedom to choose to accept a marriage proposal implies freedom to reject it!

Therefore no matter how much you like the Stepford Wives (subservient) position of the robotic partner, it is plain that YHWH does not share this rather bizarre attitude and rejects coerced marriage and coerced sex.

Oh please!

Any God who threatens to condemn those who refuse to accept his marriage proposal to an eternal hell fire of condemnation wouldn't be worth marrying anyway.

If a human male pulled a stunt like that we would consider him to be an extremely deranged criminal.

The marriage proposal apology doesn't work Ted.

A decent proposal would be to simply make the proposal and politely accept rejections without throwing temper tantrums and threatening to harm people.

There would be no reason to condemn people as being "evil" for not wanting to marry this selfish ignorant God.

That's never going to fly. That's got to be one of the worst apologies for this ancient mythology ever.

[Divine Insight]

We can be programmed to do good; we cannot be programmed to be good.

Why not?

You are placing extreme restrictions on what you will allow your God to be capable of.

Who are you to say that an omnipotent programmer couldn't program people to be good?

In fact, can you please explain exactly how God programs humans in the first place?

Apparently you must know since you are claiming to know what God's programming capabilities and limitation are.

I'm sure the AI community would love to hear more about this.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 21 by Divine Insight]

That's never going to fly. That's got to be one of the worst apologies for this ancient mythology ever.

No matter how many times I see Ted describing his personal theology, I just can't ignore the massive failure of it. Who would say yes to a marriage when the person "popping the question" is deliberately keeping the other person in the dark as to who they are? Ted's God is like a politician who proposes to a woman who doesn't keep abreast of current politics, who claims to be a politician but deliberately never shows any evidence of it. In Ted's theology, the woman becomes "evil" for wanting evidence that he is a politician, for wanting more information (such as, could she handle being in the media spotlight?). Ted's theology demands that if people were provided with proof, they'd just go with the option by default...no. He's apparently unfamiliar with me. I've repeatedly stated on this website that I would NEVER worship or obey a creature like the Bible God (or Ted's God). The only way it could compel that would be to well...compel it by force. At which point, I've been proven right, about how this creature is a tyrannical overlord bent on domination.
If it doesn't compel me by force...then wonderful. I'll have been shown to have made a mistake. Okay, what happens next? Should I be punished for making a mistake? If this creature really is all about love, justice, forgiveness and mercy...then it can't punish me for making a mistake.

[Mithrae]

Edit: The more common Christian doctrine is actually one of my favourite left-handed compliments: "It's not that you aren't good, it's just that you're not good enough"

This is just a deterioration of the whole theology into extreme apologetics that can be seen as nothing other than an act of desperation to save an otherwise failed theology.

To begin with there is nothing in the original religion that says, "Thou Shalt Be Perfect". And any rational person knows that such a demand would be extremely unreasonable anyway.

• Matthew 5:48 Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
  
  Leviticus 19:2 Speak to all the congregation of the sons of Israel and say to them, You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy.

The Sermon on the Mount is literally one of Christianity's most famous passages, and is "generally considered to contain the central tenets of Christian discipleship." Given that you seem to know so little about the original religion, I think we can safely take your diatribe on the subject with more than a little grain of salt

[Bust Nak]

How do such disabled fetuses benefit from no longer existing?

Not suffering from a disbility is a benefit, no?

Likewise, what would I benefit from being reduced to automata?

No more suffering.

Can I still procreate and rejoice over my son? Can I still behold a sunset and stand in awe? Can I still read Robert Frost and smile at his irony?

Sure, why not?

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 13 by Mithrae]

You're getting off the topic. This isn't a debate about which motivation for goodness is best, and it isn't about what I may have argued in the past. The debate is what kind of world is preferable. Please answer the question for debate and maybe vote in the poll if you haven't done so already.

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

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 26 by Jagella]

I take it you've realized it would be absurd to claim that if the consequences are the same then there is no moral distinction between programmed/forced behaviour and freely chosen behaviour. There is a very important distinction between someone choosing to go on a murderous rampage and someone doing so because they've been forcibly doped up on drugs, for example. Pointing out that fallacy in your earlier argument is not suddenly off-topic just because you've come to that realization.

BJS' original comment still seems to be the most succinct summary in the thread:

If the goal is happiness then free will would seem like a terrible idea. If the goal is goodness then free will is an absolute necessity.

As for which I'd prefer, well, I'm an independent kinda guy, a bit of a maverick, even a loose cannon at times. Robotic conformity might be well enough for some others, but my gut reaction is to prefer the freedom to think and act for myself.

[1213]

... Personally, I'd take the robots![/b] 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"?

I prefer freedom.

And, is suffering really always bad? If it helps to understand things better and doesnt cause any real damage, is it really bad?

[Jagella]

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?

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

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.

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?

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.

[Mithrae]

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.

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