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?

[ttruscott]

YES! ...could instead of would...might instead of would.

Exactly my point. You have a logical possibility, not a logical necessity. And as I said, achieving a goal via non-necessity intermediate steps, is less than optimal.

Less than optimal only for those few who rejected the logical possibility YHWH WAS their GOD - for everyone else it works out perfectly.

HE can't fulfill HIS goal with logical necessities, needing a free will for true love and holiness to be created, and free will forcing possibilities over necessities...so I reject your estimation of the process as being non-optimal.

Your calling for a logical necessary process to reach the goal is impossible to fulfill - you may be emotionally attached to it but it does not sway me, sorry.

Peace, Ted

[tariki]

YES! ...could instead of would...might instead of would.

Exactly my point. You have a logical possibility, not a logical necessity. And as I said, achieving a goal via non-necessity intermediate steps, is less than optimal.

Less than optimal only for those few who rejected the logical possibility YHWH WAS their GOD - for everyone else it works out perfectly.

HE can't fulfill HIS goal with logical necessities, needing a free will for true love and holiness to be created, and free will forcing possibilities over necessities...so I reject your estimation of the process as being non-optimal.

Your calling for a logical necessary process to reach the goal is impossible to fulfill - you may be emotionally attached to it but it does not sway me, sorry.

Peace, Ted

Hi Ted, still strong on the logic I see.......... even though - as I see it - mercy trumps "logic" each and every time, just as that "lame" Christian Thomas Merton saw and witnessed to in the quote from him I gave previously. And still strong on "free will" which seems to be your catch all phrase to seek to justify the most obnoxious conclusions I myself have ever had the misery of reading in the whole wide world of Theology.

Again, somewhere else on this forum I have seen you once more insist that an unborn foetus nevertheless has the free will to determine its eternal destiny, which as far as I am concerned makes a mockery of the actual wills we do have, free or otherwise. (Apparently you seek to substantiate your own view by appeal to one or two OT verses that you stretch to there ultimate limit........and beyond.)

I may as well clean up now and make mention of your words concerning pure Calvinism being somewhat blasphemous. You would seem to make your own unique adjustments to Calvin's theology, and I might well be wrong, but I would guess it is because Calvin claimed that salvation was purely by the election of God.

I would just say that speaking in Christian terms, I would actually agree with Calvin here. Given a God who IS love, who wills that all be saved, and further, who is omnipotent, such follows notwithstanding appeals to the "need" for free will. For me, from my Pure Land Buddhist perspective, Calvin's blasphemy resides in his claim that God has not elected ALL.

All the best

[10CC]

YES! ...could instead of would...might instead of would.

Exactly my point. You have a logical possibility, not a logical necessity. And as I said, achieving a goal via non-necessity intermediate steps, is less than optimal.

Less than optimal only for those few who rejected the logical possibility YHWH WAS their GOD - for everyone else it works out perfectly.

HE can't fulfill HIS goal with logical necessities, needing a free will for true love and holiness to be created, and free will forcing possibilities over necessities...so I reject your estimation of the process as being non-optimal.

Your calling for a logical necessary process to reach the goal is impossible to fulfill - you may be emotionally attached to it but it does not sway me, sorry.

Peace, Ted

Hi Ted, still strong on the logic I see.......... even though - as I see it - mercy trumps "logic" each and every time, just as that "lame" Christian Thomas Merton saw and witnessed to in the quote from him I gave previously. And still strong on "free will" which seems to be your catch all phrase to seek to justify the most obnoxious conclusions I myself have ever had the misery of reading in the whole wide world of Theology.

Again, somewhere else on this forum I have seen you once more insist that an unborn foetus nevertheless has the free will to determine its eternal destiny, which as far as I am concerned makes a mockery of the actual wills we do have, free or otherwise. (Apparently you seek to substantiate your own view by appeal to one or two OT verses that you stretch to there ultimate limit........and beyond.)

I may as well clean up now and make mention of your words concerning pure Calvinism being somewhat blasphemous. You would seem to make your own unique adjustments to Calvin's theology, and I might well be wrong, but I would guess it is because Calvin claimed that salvation was purely by the election of God.

I would just say that speaking in Christian terms, I would actually agree with Calvin here. Given a God who IS love, who wills that all be saved, and further, who is omnipotent, such follows notwithstanding appeals to the "need" for free will. For me, from my Pure Land Buddhist perspective, Calvin's blasphemy resides in his claim that God has not elected ALL.

All the best

I think I need to correct you tariki.

Ted believes that the only time we souls ever had free will was before creation and we made our choice to go to heaven or hell.

After that there was no need for free will.

The souls of foetuses are therefore already destined for either heaven or hell, depending on what the pre-existence free will choice was.

Allegedly those foetuses who are aborted either by human or divine hand are those who chose HELL.

It keeps Ted all warm and cozy at night to believe this stuff.

[Bust Nak]

Less than optimal only for those few who rejected the logical possibility YHWH WAS their GOD - for everyone else it works out perfectly.

No, less than optimal for everyone who can follow a deductive proof, you accept the premise, the conclusion follows logically. You accepted it is not a logical necessity to have people in hell; you accepted God doesn't want anyone in hell; I presume you accept people will go to hell. You cannot escape the conclusion that God is not omnipotent.

HE can't fulfill HIS goal with logical necessities, needing a free will for true love and holiness to be created, and free will forcing possibilities over necessities...so I reject your estimation of the process as being non-optimal.

On what ground? How about you have another go at demostating that God cannot fulfill his goal without someone ending up in hell? i.e. show that for God to fulfill his goal, it is necessary for someone to go to hell.

Your calling for a logical necessary process to reach the goal is impossible to fulfill - you may be emotionally attached to it but it does not sway me, sorry.

But you just accepted people going to hell is merely a logical possibility, not a necessity. That's what you meant by "...could instead of would...might instead of would" right?

[tariki]

YES! ...could instead of would...might instead of would.

Exactly my point. You have a logical possibility, not a logical necessity. And as I said, achieving a goal via non-necessity intermediate steps, is less than optimal.

Less than optimal only for those few who rejected the logical possibility YHWH WAS their GOD - for everyone else it works out perfectly.

HE can't fulfill HIS goal with logical necessities, needing a free will for true love and holiness to be created, and free will forcing possibilities over necessities...so I reject your estimation of the process as being non-optimal.

Your calling for a logical necessary process to reach the goal is impossible to fulfill - you may be emotionally attached to it but it does not sway me, sorry.

Peace, Ted

Hi Ted, still strong on the logic I see.......... even though - as I see it - mercy trumps "logic" each and every time, just as that "lame" Christian Thomas Merton saw and witnessed to in the quote from him I gave previously. And still strong on "free will" which seems to be your catch all phrase to seek to justify the most obnoxious conclusions I myself have ever had the misery of reading in the whole wide world of Theology.

Again, somewhere else on this forum I have seen you once more insist that an unborn foetus nevertheless has the free will to determine its eternal destiny, which as far as I am concerned makes a mockery of the actual wills we do have, free or otherwise. (Apparently you seek to substantiate your own view by appeal to one or two OT verses that you stretch to there ultimate limit........and beyond.)

I may as well clean up now and make mention of your words concerning pure Calvinism being somewhat blasphemous. You would seem to make your own unique adjustments to Calvin's theology, and I might well be wrong, but I would guess it is because Calvin claimed that salvation was purely by the election of God.

I would just say that speaking in Christian terms, I would actually agree with Calvin here. Given a God who IS love, who wills that all be saved, and further, who is omnipotent, such follows notwithstanding appeals to the "need" for free will. For me, from my Pure Land Buddhist perspective, Calvin's blasphemy resides in his claim that God has not elected ALL.

All the best

I think I need to correct you tariki.

Ted believes that the only time we souls ever had free will was before creation and we made our choice to go to heaven or hell.

After that there was no need for free will.

The souls of foetuses are therefore already destined for either heaven or hell, depending on what the pre-existence free will choice was.

Allegedly those foetuses who are aborted either by human or divine hand are those who chose HELL.

It keeps Ted all warm and cozy at night to believe this stuff.

Hi 10CC, well, each to their own, but what may keep Ted warm and cozy doesn't actually have the same effect on me.

But thanks for the correction. To be honest I find Ted's words impossible to follow. They come across to me as virtually incoherent.

All the best

[ttruscott]

...

I think I need to correct you tariki.

Ted believes that the only time we souls ever had free will was before creation and we made our choice to go to heaven or hell. After that there was no need for free will.

We did not make a choice to go to heaven or to hell. These were the natural consequence of accepting YHWH as our GOD or rejecting HIM as a false god with no divine power. When we ignored HIS claim to divinity and HIS claim of hell as a real consequence of such a choice, we ignored hell as a falsehood, not as a choice, but we did take a chance of its reality if YHWH was finally proven to be GOD.

There is no free will on earth not because we don't need it but because we are addicted to evil and evil impulses control our will. It was our choice to be evil which broke our free will under its coercions, not GOD. But we must also be constrained by grace or we could never be brought to repentance nor holiness.

I also think we will have a will free of all coercion in heaven.

The souls of foetuses are therefore already destined for either heaven or hell, depending on what the pre-existence free will choice was.

Yes, this I contend.... if destined is rewritten "self destined."

Allegedly those foetuses who are aborted either by human or divine hand are those who chose HELL.

I have never contended this and according to the rules I have a right to know who these allegers are or demand a retraction.

I contend that both elect and non-elect can die in the womb by any means. I believe that a sinful elect must come under Adam's death (that is, be put into a human body, even if only 2 cells big) to come under Christ's one death, that is, so His one death will cover all of the sins of HIS elect and He does not have to die for each of us individually.

I also believe scripture teaches that the sinful elect become human to learn to reject sin and to seek holiness which can be achieved in the womb by those whose addiction to sin is very weak...[I won't bore non-believers with a list of scriptures they find meaningless.]

So the death of a baby at any age does not prove their election or non-election.

It keeps Ted all warm and cozy at night to believe this stuff.

I was considering that your misrepresentations of my pov were mistakes of memory or of understanding but this bit of superfluous ad hominem sarcasm turns me to wonder of they were not in fact on purpose for some reason...? Your moral superiority fails in the light of nonchalant abusiveness.

Peace, Ted

[ttruscott]

...

But you just accepted people going to hell is merely a logical possibility, not a necessity. That's what you meant by "...could instead of would...might instead of would" right?

GOD can't fill HIS goal of having a true love relationship with a created being by coercing their love as a coerced love is not what is meant by true love. It is not a matter of power but of emotional reality, that nature of truth and of love.

NO one in hell was a logical possibility before anyone chose to reject HIM but it became a logical necessity once someone chose to reject HIS claims as false. HE cannot have evil in HIS creation so the natural consequence of becoming eternally evil is to be put outside of that creation.

Peace, Ted

[tariki]

...

I think I need to correct you tariki.

Ted believes that the only time we souls ever had free will was before creation and we made our choice to go to heaven or hell. After that there was no need for free will.

We did not make a choice to go to heaven or to hell. These were the natural consequence of accepting YHWH as our GOD or rejecting HIM as a false god with no divine power. When we ignored HIS claim to divinity and HIS claim of hell as a real consequence of such a choice, we ignored hell as a falsehood, not as a choice, but we did take a chance of its reality if YHWH was finally proven to be GOD.

There is no free will on earth not because we don't need it but because we are addicted to evil and evil impulses control our will. It was our choice to be evil which broke our free will under its coercions, not GOD. But we must also be constrained by grace or we could never be brought to repentance nor holiness.

I also think we will have a will free of all coercion in heaven.

The souls of foetuses are therefore already destined for either heaven or hell, depending on what the pre-existence free will choice was.

Yes, this I contend.... if destined is rewritten "self destined."

Allegedly those foetuses who are aborted either by human or divine hand are those who chose HELL.

I have never contended this and according to the rules I have a right to know who these allegers are or demand a retraction.

I contend that both elect and non-elect can die in the womb by any means. I believe that a sinful elect must come under Adam's death (that is, be put into a human body, even if only 2 cells big) to come under Christ's one death, that is, so His one death will cover all of the sins of HIS elect and He does not have to die for each of us individually.

I also believe scripture teaches that the sinful elect become human to learn to reject sin and to seek holiness which can be achieved in the womb by those whose addiction to sin is very weak...[I won't bore non-believers with a list of scriptures they find meaningless.]

So the death of a baby at any age does not prove their election or non-election.

It keeps Ted all warm and cozy at night to believe this stuff.

I was considering that your misrepresentations of my pov were mistakes of memory or of understanding but this bit of superfluous ad hominem sarcasm turns me to wonder of they were not in fact on purpose for some reason...? Your moral superiority fails in the light of nonchalant abusiveness.

Peace, Ted

Ted, your posts give me indigestion. Quite how you move from the recorded parables of Christ - and much else found in the Bible - to the sheer nonsense of the above is totally beyond me.

Please be advised that this is not nonchalant abusiveness; and speaking for myself I do not feel morally superior to anyone. To repeat, I just find your posts to be the most pitiful attempt to convert the Bible into theology/belief that I have ever had the misery and misfortune to read.



PS and Edit:- off now to see my daughter and grandchild for a few days. Some real life! And fortunately, no access to a PC.

[Bust Nak]

GOD can't fill HIS goal of having a true love relationship with a created being by coercing their love as a coerced love is not what is meant by true love. It is not a matter of power but of emotional reality, that nature of truth and of love.

Granted. For God to fulfill his goal, it is necessary for everyone to have the ability/opportunity/option or whatever you want to call it, to reject God's claims as false.

NO one in hell was a logical possibility before anyone chose to reject HIM but it became a logical necessity once someone chose to reject HIS claims as false. HE cannot have evil in HIS creation so the natural consequence of becoming eternally evil is to be put outside of that creation.

Also granted. If someone reject God's claims as false, it is necessary for someone to go to hell.

How does these premises help you in showing that for God to fulfill his goal of having a true love relationship with a created being, it is necessary for someone to go to hell? Alternatively you could demostrate for God to fulfill his goal, it is necessary for someone to chose to reject God's claims as false.

[ttruscott]

GOD can't fill HIS goal of having a true love relationship with a created being by coercing their love as a coerced love is not what is meant by true love. It is not a matter of power but of emotional reality, that nature of truth and of love.

Granted. For God to fulfill his goal, it is necessary for everyone to have the ability/opportunity/option or whatever you want to call it, to reject God's claims as false.

NO one in hell was a logical possibility before anyone chose to reject HIM but it became a logical necessity once someone chose to reject HIS claims as false. HE cannot have evil in HIS creation so the natural consequence of becoming eternally evil is to be put outside of that creation.

Also granted. If someone reject God's claims as false, it is necessary for someone to go to hell.

How does these premises help you in showing that for God to fulfill his goal of having a true love relationship with a created being, it is necessary for someone to go to hell?

All I can think of to do is to repeat what I said: NO one in hell was a logical possibility before anyone chose to reject HIM. IT WAS NOT NECESSARY FOR ANYONE TO GO TO HELL TO FULFILL HIS GOALS. HIS purpose for creation had no sin or hell in it. Sin and hell were created by the rebellion of the creature against HIS wishes.

Hell became necessary only when someone rejected HIS divinity and HIS purpose for ever.

Alternatively you could demostrate for God to fulfill his goal, it is necessary for someone to chose to reject God's claims as false.

I can't demonstrate that; I believe it to be false. The creation of sin by some served HIM not at all and was not what HE wanted, but only allowed because true free will was an absolute necessity to HIS goals.

Peace, Ted