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"?

[1213]

... If so, then any understanding that can be gained by suffering, can be gained via another method that does not involve suffering. In that context, yes, it is still bad even if suffering helps to understand things better and doesnt cause any real damage.

Please explain why?

I dont think suffering can be understood without knowing it. If one knows what suffering means, he can also feel it.

[1213]

...
It's hard to say. Maybe if you contract cancer, then you can let us all know how bad suffering is.

I think I can already know and feel suffering. And one suffering for me is to see evil people.

[wiploc]

I take offense.

If you're not going to answer my questions, then please don't engage in debate with me.

I'm telling you, leave my mother out of this.

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.

Again, if you want to dodge my questions, then don't respond to them at all.

I don't know why you think I'm dodging. Below, you clarify that the robots have emotions. In other words, as I see it, they aren't really robots.

Obviously, if it's good to make kind, loving and harmless robots, then it's good to make people that way too. Only a fool or a scoundrel would create robots that can choose to needlessly harm people, so why would a god who created us with the free will to do evil be any less a fool or a scoundrel?

According to Plantinga, god knew at the beginning everything that would ever happen in every possible world (and in every impossible world, which I can't say I understand). He had to choose which world to create (Plantinga would say "instantiate"). He could have picked a world in which people had free will and never did evil, had free will and did evil, didn't have free will and never did evil, or didn't have free will and did evil.

He picked one of the bad ones, for some reason. That makes Plantinga's god evil.

He could have picked a goodworld, one in which we have free will but never do evil.

Such worlds are not contradictory; they are possible worlds. And god could have picked one.

So Plantinga's god is a bad god.

Any decent person would have picked one of the goodworlds.

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.

No problem at all! The robots will be programmed to appreciate goodness even more than we do.

Ah, then I don't know why you're calling them robots.

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

Agreed! I love free will too. Now if I could only freely choose to rid the world of evil. And I'd love to do so much good, but for some reason I can't do a lot of good. Hmmm. Why don't I have the free will to cure cancer? Maybe I have no such free will. It looks like the very idea of free will has nothing to do with the real world. It's a phony idea made up by Christian apologists to explain away the evils of a world they claim was created by a good god.

I think that's a bad move. You have just as much free will as theists do, but if you claim not to have free will, they'll use that as an excuse to defame atheists in general. "Not only do atheists hate gods and just want to sin without gods' oversight, they claim they don't have any choice in the matter."

If they make the free will argument, you can point out the flaws in that argument without making yourself look like a pariah.

[William]

[Replying to post 44 by Divine Insight]

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?

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

I was asking in order to ascertain your position more clearly.

So your position isn't;

"IF there is a GOD at all, THEN the GOD must be evil"

I wanted to clarify that in relation to the rest of your argument. When you wrote;

There would still be plenty of nasty suffering in the world even if no human ever chose to do any evil thing.

This gives the reader the impression that those who argue that nasty suffering is somehow 'evil', would be inclined to also argue that any creator GOD which may have been responsible for the existence of life on Earth and that nasty suffering, would also be 'evil' by association.

So then, are we to conclude that you position re that nasty suffering is that it is not 'evil'?

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 44 by Divine Insight]
I wanted to clarify that in relation to the rest of your argument. When you wrote;

There would still be plenty of nasty suffering in the world even if no human ever chose to do any evil thing.

This gives the reader the impression that those who argue that nasty suffering is somehow 'evil', would be inclined to also argue that any creator GOD which may have been responsible for the existence of life on Earth and that nasty suffering, would also be 'evil' by association.

So then, are we to conclude that you position re that nasty suffering is that it is not 'evil'?

Or we might conclude that not all suffering results from human choice.

[William]

[Replying to post 44 by Divine Insight]

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?

The concerns you've created in your above quote has nothing at all to do with the topic being discussed in this thread.

Well I am simply replying to your own words, so what allows you the right to bring arguments into this thread, which by your own words 'have nothing to do with the topic being discussed in this thread' and then argue that others cannot question you on what you bring into the thread because 'it has nothing to do with the thread topic'?

[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

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.

Better yet, use your own posts; since I was simply mirroring your attempt at feeble caricaturing/strawmanning, obviously it is you who are the master of fallacies and I merely an apprentice

###

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 you're not going to answer my questions, then please don't engage in debate with me.

But of course, any person with a bit of decency would never want a gang of rapists to freely choose to attack their mother. In a scenario like that, they'd beg for those robots I mentioned in the OP. "Free will" ends where the person's personal interests begin. So the free-will defense employed by Christian apologists is not only not well-thought-out, it is hypocritical.

This isn't the first time that you've tried to turn a general discussion into an intensely personal and emotional question directed at another user. It's a pathetic tactic quite frankly, and not just because it suggests an inability to defend your position on objective, rational grounds: It is obviously fallacious because there are always going to be potential conflicts between general principle and individual interests.

If your mother or daughter were not very bright and, going through a tough time in life, wound up with a predatory cult teaching that the medical profession is an evil scam and she should refuse all medical treatment, when she's in a car accident would you want the doctors to let your daughter die in agony? I guess if you say no then you must be an irrational hypocrite if you support any principle of self-determination!

It is utterly and obviously absurd trying to use a personal emotional response to a highly specific hypothetical as the grounds for establishing or refuting general principles. Clearly, logic is not your strong suit. But the fact that you also seem not to see how offensive your repeated efforts to pull this kind of stunt are is possibly even more worrying.

[William]

[Replying to post 44 by Divine Insight]

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.

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

The OPQ implies that it is either/or but not both.

So once again, you are addressing topics that don't apply to the discussion of this thread.

Once again, it was you who brought this into the argument, and I am simply responding to that.

[William]

[Replying to post 44 by Divine Insight]

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.

Well I do not see it as a problem of evil. My question had more to do with pointing out how the OP is worded;

Doubters might maintain that no good god would allow suffering. Since suffering exists, God probably doesn't exist.

This leads directly to the idea that;

IF a creator exists, THEN the creator must be evil, 'because suffering exists' and for those unable to cope with that idea, they add...a creator [GOD] "probably doesn't exist".

[Divine Insight]

As I highlighted, it's entirely possible or even probable that trying to entirely eliminate evil choices would drastically curtail or eliminate free will in ways you are not considering.

I disagree. And the reason I disagree is because this is an issue that I have been thinking about for many decades. So I have a solid understanding of these concepts.

We're already largely limited - by physical reality and by the biological and sociological programming you've highlighted -

That's exactly right. And we may not even have any such thing as "free will" at all. At least not in the way that you may think. In short, you may already be far more restricted in what you can choose already, without even being aware of it. In fact, when you think you've made a "free will" choice it may very well be true that you really had no choice at all. The entire perception that you actually had a choice my be an illusion. A false conclusion.

In fact any decision which is less than optimal - any decision which reduces the wellbeing of oneself, one's family and/or society at large, relative to other options - could be viewed as as a bad decision worthy of elimination from the realm of possible choices, which really would eliminate all meaningful choice.

What?

Think about what you have just said in the above paragraph. You have just suggested that if you cannot make bad choices then "all meaningful choices" have been eliminated from you.

That's the same as saying that the only "meaningful" choices you have are bad choices, and good choices have no "meaning". Because, after all, you have just suggested that if all bad choices were eliminated you have no meaningful choices left before you.

So this is the same as saying that good choices are not meaningful choices.

Do you really want to take that position?

YOU are the one trying to redesign the universe here, so these are issues which you need to consider. Merely saying "Oh, a real omni-God could and should have done it better" is not an argument. If you want your ideas to be taken seriously you need to coherently explain how it could be better.

Redesign the universe?

That presupposes that it had been designed in the first place. To be quite frank about it, I don't see any evidence that the universe was "designed'.

However, in the context of Christian Apologetics we have no choice to but to embrace the premise that it was designed by the God portrayed in ancient Hebrew mythology.

My position is that, if this were true, then the Christian God is an extremely inept designer. Not to mention being the worst communicator that ever existed. I mean let's face the truth of this last fact. Even people who claim to believe in this God all have dramatically different ideas about what this God was trying to communicate to humans. So there can be no doubt that the Christian God is an extremely inept communicator, if not also an extremely inept designer.

Okay... and? That's actually a very specific notion of heaven you're talking about there; even when I was a Christian lad I believed that it would be theoretically possible to sin in heaven, albeit infinitely less likely than here on an imperfect earth and even less likely than was Lucifer's rebellion or Adam's sin.

Why would it be less likely than was Lucifer's rebellion or Adam's sin?

Are you suggesting that Heaven has been improved sin that time? If so, how was it improved, and why didn't this omnipotent God get it right the first time saving Lucifer and Adam (as well as all humanity) all this unnecessary suffering caused by sin?

What did God do to improve the design of heaven? Perhaps he could improve the design of earth too then?

In fact, if you are claiming that people in heaven still have full free will, but hardly ever choose evil, then clearly that design is POSSIBLE. So you have already validated my claims that such a design is possible.

The only question now is why this God couldn't see fit to provide the same design for life on earth.

The question of whether or not it's possible has now become a non-issue. The existence of the Christian Heaven proves the design is possible.

So in that respect Christianity has no choice but to acknowledge that I'm correct in my observations. A better design is possible. So Christian apologists can't argue against that.

You don't seem to be considering the effects of experience, environment and selection in your argument.

But I am. In fact, I not only consider them, but I fully understand how these experiences "program" our brains. And this is why you have no real free will. You don't even really have much (if any) control over how your brain is programmed.

But even more obviously, even if sin were impossible in the Christian heaven it wouldn't particularly change their apologetics as far as I can see: The argument is that we need the freedom to choose the red pill or the blue pill, not that the effects of the blue pill must forever be a conditional, unstable state. The bible itself is pretty explicit that Christians choose to 'put on Christ' and become a 'new creation' etc, so even if it's important for that to be a free choice from a being capable of choosing otherwise (which as I noted earlier Calvinists and probably Paul for one would dispute), it needn't follow that the new creation still be capable of evil. Honestly, this is fairly basic stuff; almost as if you're intent on attacking some caricature or only the weakest fringes of Christianity.

No, your description is not a true representation of Christianity.

Humans don't EARN their place in heaven based on their own choices. In fact, that's taboo in Christianity.

In Christianity a person needs to go to Jesus and beg for forgiveness for not being able to choose the correct pill on their own. They need to ask Jesus to reprogram them to choose the correct pill.

Christianity is all about becoming a "Robot for Jesus". Or a "Slave to Jesus". You must accept Jesus as your MASTER. Your LORD. Your dictator.

Only after you have asked Jesus to come into your life and CHANGE you for the better (i.e. reprogram you for the better) can you claim to have been "Saved".

And what have you been saved from? Your previous programming. Programming that was causing you to make all manner of bad choices.

So even Christian theology is in total agreement with my position. The Christian God wants to reprogram you. Period Amen.

And my point is that if he had programmed you correctly the first time you wouldn't be in this hopeless predicament in the first place.

The fact that he CAN reprogram you proves my claim that it's not beyond his capabilities.

~~~~~

Of course, keep in mind that all of this is just based on an ancient mythology. There is no evidence that there exists any God who programmed you poorly the first time around only to later blame your poor programming all on you just so he can reprogram you correctly at that time.

If such a God actually existed he would be the most dishonest and untrustworthy God anyway. The fact of the matter is that no such God exists.

If a God actually existed who wanted well-programmed humans he would have just created well-programmed humans to begin with.

But that's not what we see. Thus there most likely isn't any such thing as a God who designed human. What's far more likely is that humans invented the idea of a God, even though that idea has extreme problems and contradictions.

Yes, we are programmed robots. That's a fact. But we are not in full control of how we are programmed. And therefore we cannot be held responsible for how we think.

If we think in good ways we're just lucky. That's all.

And those who think in bad ways are unfortunately very unlucky.

Trying to pin the blame on them for having been poorly programmed is actually the greatest "sin" of religion. All religion does is make people feel guilty for things they truly have no control over.