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]

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".

Why not ask Jagella if he's interested in having that debate for a generic concept of God, rather than for the Christian God?

I'm aware of religions that justify suffering. But keep in mind that those religions don't put the blame onto humans for causing suffering.

Christianity places ALL BLAME onto humans. Their God takes no responsibility for being the cause of suffering at all.

In the case of religions where the God accepts full responsibility for being the cause of suffering, this changes everything.

I understand the idea behind those religions. But that's not what this thread is about in Christianity and Apologetics. You'd need to take that discussion to the "Other Religions" forums.

Ask Jagella if he would like to discuss this topic relative to other possible religions.

Why are you focused on me? I'm addressing the "Christian God" in this thread just as the OP has suggested.

If you want to debate Jagella on his position relative to other possible religions, just ask him. That should clear everything up.

[William]

[Replying to post 44 by Divine Insight]

Why would robots need to be programmed to regard suffering as 'evil' anyway?

That's another question you would need to ask the creator God, if there is one. In theory an omnipotent God could have designed humans with a total inability to experience any kind of pain or suffering at all.

My question wasn't asking why would humans need to be programmed to regard suffering as 'evil'.

I was questioning the OPblurb.

That assumption is that suffering and evil is universally preferred over our being robots programmed to do only good.

And you adding to the mix that there would still be plenty of nasty suffering, because even if we all were these robots the OP speaks of, we would still witness and be affected by the nasty stuff, but the OP claims;

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.

Note the word 'happiness' in the mix. As you have subsequently argued, all the 'nasty stuff' would still exist. How can these robots actually be happy if there is plenty of 'nasty stuff' around them to experience?

Thus my question as to why these robots need to be programmed to regard 'nasty stuff' [suffering] as 'evil'.

[Jagella]

So in the end we are robots. We are just poorly programmed robots. Although some of us are obviously programmed better than others. But again, why would a creator God allow even that to be the case?

You are correct that we are indeed programmed. I know I am because my feelings are often involuntary. And as you say our programming is rather poor. It may have sufficed when we lived in the "jungle," but in our modern world we can act to harm ourselves and others for no good reason. It makes mo sense that an intelligent being would create us that way, but if we assume there are no intelligent creators, then all the pieces fall into place.

In other words, our behavior demonstrates that no gods exist.

[Bust Nak]

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

"Can" as in have the capability to feel it? Then sure. That does not contradict what I said.

"Can" as in, is currently feeling it? Why would that be the case?

[Divine Insight]

And you adding to the mix that there would still be plenty of nasty suffering, because even if we all were these robots the OP speaks of, we would still witness and be affected by the nasty stuff, but the OP claims;

Keep in mind the OP is addressing "Christian Apologetics".

According to Christian theology ALL suffering is the result of humans having "Fallen from Grace" by choosing to do evil.

So with respect to Christian Theology if humans could not chose evil there would be no suffering at all.

I merely point out the facts of reality. In truth if no humans chose to do evil things, this wouldn't change the natural world. The idea that humans are the cause of the nasty things in nature comes directly from Christian theology.

So there's always going to be this problem of different worldviews when a naturalist debates a theist. The theist is going to assume that everything their theology claims is true. But if we accept that as a premise, then there would be nothing to debate.

[Mithrae]

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. . . .


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


So even Christian theology is in total agreement with my position. . . .

Once again...

To begin with there is nothing in the original religion that says, "Thou Shalt Be Perfect".

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.

...I have to point out that when you display a rather shocking ignorance of even such core elements like the sermon on the mount, all your other pontifications about the monolithic 'true Christianity' of your imagination are to be taken with a pretty big dose of salt. Despite the various errors in that section of your post, there's really no point trying to go down a rabbit hole which is mostly of your own creation.

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".

No, it's the same as saying that there would be no choice left in any decision where one option results in more overall wellbeing than another and all the 'bad' options are therefore removed as choices. That covers most decisions, and certainly all meaningful decisions. Granted, I could have just said that it would eliminate all choice, but that would be imprecise as there would still be meaningless choices to make; a 'choice' between Pepsi or Coke is unlikely to have a good or bad answer either way, for example. Maybe you should have thought about what I wrote, before jumping onto your imagined 'gotcha' moment. Or perhaps nuance and precision simply are not your forte; I'll try to keep my comments simpler going forwards.

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.

You're still trying to argue by assertion. If that's all you've got to offer then fair enough - your guesses and opinions are as valid as anyone else's, I suppose. But as far as I can see there are two ways in which an actual rational argument can be made here:

1 > Describe a coherent model in which humans' ability to choose evil is wholly or even just significantly reduced from where it currently stands, without eliminating meaningful free will or diminishing our happiness and appreciation of our world. To do that you'll need to address issues such as
- shifting baselines (that in a gentler world we'd just find trivial hurt and wrongdoing all the more terrible in our pampered existence while comforts and goodness become blas, and we'd not really be any happier),
- the parameters by which you imagine choices would be limited and the potential side effects (eg. specifics like no killing = no euthanasia/abortion or generalities like not affecting others without consent = no business competition),
- the implications if your proposed ideal were taken seriously and widely accepted (we can't change fundamental human nature, but we could certainly curtail freedom to do evil on a societal level far more than we currently do)

So far, you have not really addressed any of these points I've raised; you seem to be simply sticking with the mantra that it could be better.

But more the point as far as religious perspectives go, most succinctly expressed in this thread by BJS in post #5, a more productive argument would be to
2 > Explain how a choice can be morally significant if there is no possibility of making the other decision. For example, would you attach moral significance to plants producing our food, saying that those plants are being 'good'; or would you attach moral significance to someone forcibly doped up on drugs and let loose on a murderous rampage, saying that person is 'evil'?

The first point would really address only happiness; an interesting question, though even on that score I don't think you've made a compelling case. But in terms of moral goodness, the decisions and character of the person, the main point which Christianity and most if not all other religions emphasize, not only have you failed to make a case but I rather suspect that it's impossible to do so; that it would be a self-contradictory concept to say that someone is an evil person if they never had any option of being good or a good person if they never had any possibility of being evil.

[Jagella]

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...

Actually, asking tough questions is a tried-and-true debating technique. In many formal debates I've seen, there is often a cross-examination period in which the debaters ask each other questions for the purpose of exposing fallacies and other problems with the interlocutor's arguments. I make good use of questions in debates to expose weaknesses in what my opponent is arguing. On this thread, I'm asking questions to see if those supporting the free-will apologetic even believe it themselves. It appears that they really don't accept the free-will argument especially if they are on the receiving end.

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!

Although I would want any person's life to be saved, I would honor their wish to refuse medical treatment. So I'm quite consistent with my position that we can have self-determination insofar as it does not interfere with the self-determination of others.

So contrary to your example, there would be no insurmountable conflict between my "general principle" and my feeling. By contrast, I'm exposing the supporters here of the free-will argument as being inconsistent. In practice, they'd hate being victimized by those freely willing to harm them and would gladly have their victimizers replaced by robots.

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.

Emotions are part-and-parcel in any discussion about evil and suffering. When people are hurt, they respond emotionally. So contrary to what you argue here, it is very important to consider peoples' feelings in such a debate.

Clearly, logic is not your strong suit.

Logic is my "strong suit." There-so we're even!

And it's very interesting that in critiquing my logic, you critique me which is a logical fallacy, of course.

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.

I don't see it that way. I think some members here are upset that I'm tearing their Christian apologetics to pieces.

[Mithrae]

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!

Although I would want any person's life to be saved, I would honor their wish to refuse medical treatment. So I'm quite consistent with my position that we can have self-determination insofar as it does not interfere with the self-determination of others.

So contrary to your example, there would be no insurmountable conflict between my "general principle" and my feeling. By contrast, I'm exposing the supporters here of the free-will argument as being inconsistent. In practice, they'd hate being victimized by those freely willing to harm them and would gladly have their victimizers replaced by robots.

In practice you would hate your daughter dying in agony and would gladly have the doctors override her self-determination to spare her.

Wow, I'm learning so much about logic by following your lead, aren't I? It's easy to win a debate when we get to make up other folks' positions for them.

[Divine Insight]

...I have to point out that when you display a rather shocking ignorance of even such core elements like the sermon on the mount.

Totally false accusation by you.

I am not only aware that Jesus instructed people to be perfect, but I have quite often pointed out the extreme contradictions in that.

Your claim that I am "ignorant" of a theology just because the theology itself is riddled with extreme self-contradictions is a false claim against me.

What Christian believes that they can be perfect?

Obviously they don't believe their very own Jesus had a clue what he was directing people to do.

So your claim that I am "ignorant of the theology" when the theology itself makes extremely self-contradictory and utterly absurd claims is absolute nonsense. I am totally aware of the extreme contradictory nature of Christian Theology. Why do you think I reject it as nothing more than a poorly invented man-made religion? No supremely intelligent creator God could be that ignorant.

[William]

[Replying to post 54 by Divine Insight]

From the OP:
Quote:
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.


Underline is my highlight.

If you want to make an argument for some other God be my guest. But don't blame people in this thread for not being interested in those arguments. It's not related to the discussion suggested by the OP.

[Replying to post 55 by Divine Insight]

So Jagella's concern with Christian apologetics simply wouldn't apply to those other religions anyway.

[Replying to post 71 by Divine Insight]

Why not ask Jagella if he's interested in having that debate for a generic concept of God, rather than for the Christian God?

...

Ask Jagella if he would like to discuss this topic relative to other possible religions.

Why are you focused on me? I'm addressing the "Christian God" in this thread just as the OP has suggested.

If you want to debate Jagella on his position relative to other possible religions, just ask him. That should clear everything up.

DI.

You seem to be confused. I am responding to the Jagella and your arguments, and do not require either of you to respond if you do not wish to do so.

What is your agenda?

That Q was asked by member and moderator Zzyzx and his answer was this;

My emphasis is on readers, the thousands and tens of thousands who view our debates " rather than on debate opponents (who I consider helpful in getting ideas across to readers).

I agree with that, and wrote this:

I wanted a place to test my Theist arguments to see if they could hold up against both non-Theist and Theist arguments, which this site at least affords one the opportunity to do so without sanctioning.

That non-theists such as yourself and Jagella have a specific focus and believe there is a case for "The one true [strike]Scotsman[/strike] Christian" and desire to only debate with those you deem to fit that criteria, is beside the point.

I am not specifically here to debate with anyone who only wants to debate a certain type of Christian Theist.

I am afforded the opportunity to take what either of you argue and throw it under the light of my own Theology - in this sub-forum - as this sub-forum is intended as a meeting ground for any and all theistic positions " none of which are given preferential treatment.

That you or Jagella or any other non-theist only wishes to debate with a certain type of Christian, and thus design your OP blurbs and questions to reflect that preferential, is besides the point. Doing so will not and cannot sanction what others can or cannot post.

I am here specifically to offer the reader alternatives to those preferential views such non-theists hold.

In that, it is a good thing to be able to recognize that not all folk calling themselves "Christians", believe in the things you are arguing Christians MUST believe in order for them to be able to call themselves "Christians".

JW as an example, does not believe that GOD punishes folk to eternal suffering in hell, but does believe the cause of the nasty things in nature comes directly from Adam and Eves choice.

Not ALL Christians believe that is the case...and I am surprised that you appear to think otherwise, and wish to use that as a sanctioning device so that only what you prefer, gets discussed.



Point being, from all the mish-mash of beliefs, my job is to sort the wheat from the chaff and present my findings here on this message board for the reader to contemplate if they so choose to. If other members giving their opinions in threads they start, are not interested in adding my input into the mix, that is simply beside the point, irrelevant as argument and presents no hardship, and really DI - I shouldn't be explaining this to a well seasoned long term member of this community message board - so this post is also directed more to inform the readers than anything else.

The thing is - my fellow readers - I recognize value in some of the individuals calling themselves "Christians" even that they might not agree with other folk calling themselves Christians, or even with my own Theist position.

I am more into encouraging folk to focus on GOD and identifying ideas about GOD which are more than likely false.

In that, two Theists who stand out for me are Members The Tanager and Mithrae because the former occasionally interacts with me and we have very interesting discussions and the latter writes a lot of things which I personally agree with as true.

I find overall that non-theists offer me nothing I can 'get my teeth into' often because their interpretation of Theism is usually very shallow and boorish to say the least.

This does not prevent me from attempting to interact with them, but often they do not or quietly withdraw eventually, because my theology out-wits their non-theist positions, and they appear to be looking for a certain type of theist in which to 'win' their arguments over, and I am not the Theist they are fishing for.