Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JackWoot)
    More of an idiot than the person asking the question?

    ...I think not.
    Not sure, wether your muslim or not that was just plain stupid and irrelevant.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tw68)
    But if the police were also omnipotent then surely they could instil in the minds of the future criminals the intuition not to commit the crimes?
    But if they had the "intuition" not to commit crimes instilled in them by these god-police then would that be true free will?

    This is the crux of the argument of the FWD I suppose, some would argue that God could, if he exists, have created people with free will and the ability to do evil, but that never actually choose to do so. Others would say that this is logically nonsensical. There is also the other problem that if evil or the ability to do evil did not exist then the concept of good would be come meaningless.

    Personally I've never heard the argument resolved conclusively either way. A more difficult question to answer, and one which TS would have done better to choose is the problem of "natural" evil, or suffering not caused by humans. I've heard a satisfactory theistic response to that other than :iiam:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Addzter)
    Theists will spout their usual bull**** about free will and whatnot, but the Christian God (one of whom's attributes is omnibenevolence), simply couldn't have let it happen, if he truly is all-loving.
    Kant said something about God as a parent, allowing humans to make mistakes as an essential part of human free will. To God, human suffering must be like a child locked in his bedroom crying because he did something stupid.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by veux)
    Kant said something about God as a parent, allowing humans to make mistakes as an essential part of human free will. To God, human suffering must be like a child locked in his bedroom crying because he did something stupid.
    That sort of works if you look at it as God treating humanity as a whole, but what about the individual people who did nothing at all who died slowly and painfully choking on the fumes from the burning hot jet fuel? Why didn't God show them omnibenevolence? It's all well and good saying that God allows bad things to happen to humanity because he's treating them like naughty kids, teaching them a lesson, but leaving people to die terrible deaths means he simply cannot be all loving.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Nature does not know extinction.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sam1am)
    A more difficult question to answer, and one which TS would have done better to choose is the problem of "natural" evil, or suffering not caused by humans. I've heard a satisfactory theistic response to that other than :iiam:
    That argument really only tends towards modern times, and is based around the value of life in our modern day world. In far earlier times people used to be much more accepting about death and suffering, it was a natural part of life and death wasn't something to be agonized over.

    Nowadays with medical advancements people try and play God too much - in a historical context the notion that one might be 'risking death' by smoking or drinking was simply ridiculous, death wasn't a risk or something avoidable, it was a fact.

    People suggest that illnesses are a natural evil sometimes, but it raises the question of how one imagines one is going to die. The concept of natural evil in the now is anything that takes away or impinges on our manufactured human lives, generally with bias towards the capitalistic way of life. Which, really, isn't any evil at all.

    Really, to answer the genuine question of natural evil one must first work out what are lives for, and how they should be best lived for the world as a whole. Then, one should assess the impact natural evil has on this way of life, and to what extent are the evils genuinely evil, as opposed to an essential part of life and death,

    Along a different line of argument, human suffering at the hands of nature could easily be attributed to human faults and errors - earthquakes wouldn't kill so many if we didn't build massive cities, famines wouldn't be an issue if people didn't over-breed (which is brought about by advancements in healthcare).

    Before, say, the industrial revolution, or even earlier, humans tended towards temperate, hospitable climates and there were generally only as many humans in any ecosystem as it could support. People used to live in a far more harmonius, sensible way with nature - how many natural distasters do you think happened to American-Indians before the white settlers came along.

    I'd conclude, in short, that most natural evil is either not actually evil, or is caused by the actions of humans.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sam1am)
    But if they had the "intuition" not to commit crimes instilled in them by these god-police then would that be true free will?

    This is the crux of the argument of the FWD I suppose, some would argue that God could, if he exists, have created people with free will and the ability to do evil, but that never actually choose to do so. Others would say that this is logically nonsensical. There is also the other problem that if evil or the ability to do evil did not exist then the concept of good would be come meaningless.

    Personally I've never heard the argument resolved conclusively either way. A more difficult question to answer, and one which TS would have done better to choose is the problem of "natural" evil, or suffering not caused by humans. I've heard a satisfactory theistic response to that other than :iiam:
    But is true free will really that important? I don't take the absolutist view that there must either be complete free will or we will all be robots.

    It will never be resolved because anyone can easily say 'we cannot understand God's ways, they are beyond our rational capacity'. There is no real conclusive comeback to that. However, for me, I cannot reconcile the existence of such extensive evils with the existence of an all-loving God. I don't care if my perception of 'all-loving' is based on puny human reasoning, that is all I have to go by.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thomaskurian89)
    In the BuyBull. :cool:
    i dont think so
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    To finally destroy America so they can stop ****ing over the world.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by veux)
    That argument really only tends towards modern times, and is based around the value of life in our modern day world. In far earlier times people used to be much more accepting about death and suffering, it was a natural part of life and death wasn't something to be agonized over.

    Nowadays with medical advancements people try and play God too much - in a historical context the notion that one might be 'risking death' by smoking or drinking was simply ridiculous, death wasn't a risk or something avoidable, it was a fact.

    People suggest that illnesses are a natural evil sometimes, but it raises the question of how one imagines one is going to die. The concept of natural evil in the now is anything that takes away or impinges on our manufactured human lives, generally with bias towards the capitalistic way of life. Which, really, isn't any evil at all.

    Really, to answer the genuine question of natural evil one must first work out what are lives for, and how they should be best lived for the world as a whole. Then, one should assess the impact natural evil has on this way of life, and to what extent are the evils genuinely evil, as opposed to an essential part of life and death,

    Along a different line of argument, human suffering at the hands of nature could easily be attributed to human faults and errors - earthquakes wouldn't kill so many if we didn't build massive cities, famines wouldn't be an issue if people didn't over-breed (which is brought about by advancements in healthcare).

    Before, say, the industrial revolution, or even earlier, humans tended towards temperate, hospitable climates and there were generally only as many humans in any ecosystem as it could support. People used to live in a far more harmonius, sensible way with nature - how many natural distasters do you think happened to American-Indians before the white settlers came along.

    I'd conclude, in short, that most natural evil is either not actually evil, or is caused by the actions of humans.
    Ah that's interesting way of looking at things. However, whilst death may well be natural and neccessary, I don't think it neccessarily follows that suffering is also neccessary. Also some illnesses and disabilities cause suffering without death.

    It is also quite a stretch to say that it was bad foresight on the parts on humans to build cities when earthquakes exist, as it they happened gradually and organically not by one mistaken decision. Similarly with the industrial revolution, the unsustainabilty didn't occur from one evil choice, but from a gradual process stemming from humanity's natural tendancy to want to progress technogically.

    None the less that has made me think a bit differently about it.

    (Original post by tw68)
    But is true free will really that important? I don't take the absolutist view that there must either be complete free will or we will all be robots.

    It will never be resolved because anyone can easily say 'we cannot understand God's ways, they are beyond our rational capacity'. There is no real conclusive comeback to that. However, for me, I cannot reconcile the existence of such extensive evils with the existence of an all-loving God. I don't care if my perception of 'all-loving' is based on puny human reasoning, that is all I have to go by.
    I wouldn't suggest perhaps that there must be absolute free will or we robots, indeed we are in many ways constrained by our physical environments. But God making it such that no evil act could ever be commited is a fairly drastic curbing of free will that would somewhat result in "robotic-ness".

    I think it can never be resolved for a multitude of reasons, not just the "god's mysterious ways" get out clause: how we define free will, and how much importance we place on it, and what I said in my previous post. Yet I can understand your position.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Because he gave humans free will (arguably) :dontknow:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Because even god hates America.

    Just kidding, just kidding.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    you mean 11/9 i think :P , I dont belive in god so I dont have to deal with explaining how he can be all loving and still let evil things happen
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Religious people need to get their facts (and I use this term very loosely) straight. Everyone seems to have a different answer, lol. Not very convincing at all.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Addzter)
    That sort of works if you look at it as God treating humanity as a whole, but what about the individual people who did nothing at all who died slowly and painfully choking on the fumes from the burning hot jet fuel? Why didn't God show them omnibenevolence? It's all well and good saying that God allows bad things to happen to humanity because he's treating them like naughty kids, teaching them a lesson, but leaving people to die terrible deaths means he simply cannot be all loving.
    It's a difficult question to answer, the biggest problem with theological discussion is that it generally boils down to assertions - one person says x is true if my assertion is true, one person says your assertion is not true and mine is.

    As a theist, I would argue that what God shows omni-benevolence to the soul - to some extent I ascribe to the notion that all souls will be saved. I don't, therefore, consider human suffering as a problem with omni-benevolence. Of course, that depends on what you believe omni-benevolence is.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    More relevant: Why did the American government allow it?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Why doesn't he put a halt to poverty? That has claimed many more lives than 9/11 has.

    I think he answer is simple, he does not interfere, for whatever reason. Maybe he doesn't exist, or interference goes against his words when Eve ate from the tree.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Potiron)
    I guess the dudes flying the planes were praying to God that the attack would work, and no one else expected it so they hadn't bothered praying that it wouldn't. God has to pick a side somehow, after all.

    :dontknow:
    God is all powerful and therefore could cause both outcomes simultaneously.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    humans still have free will. It's not like God condones violence but there are people who turn away from Him and do ****ty things like blow up building. It's not God doing that, it's man
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I don't even believe in god and still know that is a stupid question. If he did/does exist then that doesn't mean he could take over peoples minds and control them.
    Apparently God created humans as his children or whatever so can you control your children's minds? No.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.