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"?

[Bust Nak]

Sorry, I meant, to know suffering, one must have felt it. And in the beginning people wanted to know evil, which is why I think we also have this lesson, where we can learn what evil and suffering truly means. Luckily this is just a short lesson and no suffering lasts forever.

Does that apply to omniscience being? What could possibly cause God to suffer?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 88 by bjs]

If God had slid the scale up, it seems likely that people would then say that God could slide the scale up a little further. I am reminded of the story of Abraham arguing with God about the destruction of Sodom. God promised not to destroy Sodom if He could find 50 righteous people. Abraham said, What if you only find 45 righteous people? Will you destroy the city over five people? When God said, I will not destroy the city if I find 45 righteous people, Abraham then said, What if you only find 40 righteous people, and so on. It seems that if God prevented murder, rape and torture then people would say, Okay, but will you also prevent stealing? No matter how much evil God prevents, people can always say that God could prevent a little bit more.

So what you're saying is that because humans are such whiny creatures, God couldn't be bothered to prevent murder, rape and torture? That this is a good excuse for God to use? Can a human parent use that with her children? "Oh, my baby just constantly cries, cries and cries. So I stopped feeding it and changing its nappy and keeping those horrible sick pedophiles away."
eyebrow raised

Oh and in case anyone's curious, I haven't voted. I honestly don't know which I'd prefer.

[1213]

Does that apply to omniscience being? What could possibly cause God to suffer?

Maybe seeing that people choose evil and do evil things?

[rikuoamero]

Does that apply to omniscience being? What could possibly cause God to suffer?

Maybe seeing that people choose evil and do evil things?

[YOUTUBE][/YOUTUBE]

Is this how you think?

[1213]

Does that apply to omniscience being? What could possibly cause God to suffer?

Maybe seeing that people choose evil and do evil things?

[YOUTUBE][/YOUTUBE]

Is this how you think?

Firstly, in Biblical point of view, there is only one true God that is greater than Jesus. That is why I think it is not correct to say Jesus is the God. However, I think it is possible that they get sad because of the same reason. And person who lies is probably evil.

Also, I dont call Jesus baby Jesus, I think it is not right. Similarly as I would not call you for example baby rikuamero. You would probably take it as an insult.

[Bust Nak]

Maybe seeing that people choose evil and do evil things?

You are telling me an omniscience being had a gap in his knowledge right up to the point when people he created did evil things?

[Mithrae]

Also, I dont call Jesus baby Jesus, I think it is not right. Similarly as I would not call you for example baby rikuamero. You would probably take it as an insult.

Surely the same reasoning applies to considering God as a mere human at all, or for that matter any way in which our feeble human minds could possibly imagine God? If we presume to imagine a creator of the universe at all, there's a lot to be said for portrayals of a baby or a tiny yoda-like figure or a flying spaghetti monster - explicit reminders that these are nothing more than placeholders - rather than some audible baritone voice or light-shrouded giant man. So many folk are so self-assured in their assumption that they speak on behalf of the almighty, perhaps in many cases because they're not reminded enough of how very often god is created in the image of man.

[youtube][/youtube]

[ttruscott]

Can you elaborate on your belief above please. What is this 'other method' you infer, which doesn't involve suffering, actually gain anyone understanding of and through suffering?

The other method I had in mind is invoking the supernatural powers of this omnipotent being to wire that knowledge directly into our brains.

Of course, if HE wanted robots over real people. Since HE changes our minds by allowing us to fail, bringing the inevitable suffering of failure to our attention (not just legal but the natural consequences of sin) and thereby helping us to CHOOSE never to sins again, Heb 12:5-11, HE has proven that our free will choices have real meaning to HIM and forcing us beyond our power to resist is abhorrent.

And to forestall those who would point to HIS forcing many against their will on earth, I do not think humans have a free will but lost it when they chose to be sinners and forcing a sinner against his sinful will is A-OK.

[Divine Insight]

I do not think humans have a free will but lost it when they chose to be sinners and forcing a sinner against his sinful will is A-OK.

You just killed your own theology.

If it's A-OK to force sinners against their sinful will, then there is absolutely no reason why this God can't just save everyone instantly, including Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

Have you forgotten that your theology has to do with God wanting people to willfully marry him? And not only this, but apparently your God wants to marry willful sinners.

What sense does that even make?

It doesn't make any sense Ted.

This is why these theologies are failing. They can't be made to make sense. And more and more people are beginning to realize this.

With every apology theists give for their theologies they do nothing more but put another nail in its coffin.

[1213]

Maybe seeing that people choose evil and do evil things?

You are telling me an omniscience being had a gap in his knowledge right up to the point when people he created did evil things?

I dont claim that omniscient person had gap in his knowledge. Also, I believe God is omniscient.