The High Cost of Being

[Guest Roger Doger]

The ambition of this thread is to demonstrate that there are persistent and unanswered problems with the concept of free will and that these problems are stemmed from the idea of a perfect and benevolent God. I hope to demonstrate that the problem of evil has not been adequately or fairly answered by Christians and that the answers that have been provided can be reduced down to clearly uneven bias towards the position they agree with and nothing more.

 

Definitions:

 

Free Will – The ability to choose from the available options

 

God – The God of Christianity

 

Evil – That which is not good, or is the absence of good

 

Perfection – The state of being without flaw

 

Sin – Synonymous with evil

 

Note: Out of respect for Ex-Christian's female audience, I would like to clarify that in this thread I refer to the human species as ‘man’ and other male references strictly for the sake of convenience to avoid terms like he/she, his/hers and so forth. I have excluded female terms for no other reason than that.

 

 

God: He’s Good

 

It is claimed by Christians that God is absolutely perfect. That is, God is absolutely without flaw of any kind. In fact, from the Christian standpoint the absolute standard for ‘perfect’ is God and nothing can be more perfect than God, nor can anything that is less perfect than God be God. Therefore, anything that is not equal to God is inferior to God i.e. not perfect. Simply put:

 

God = Perfect

Not God = Not Perfect

 

So, now let us explore some of the perfect properties of God.

 

God is said to be ‘absolutely good’. If we accept the Christian application of this absolute term, we can conclude that God does not have any evil in Him, or put another way, God does not lack any good in any way. Further, we can conclude that if God is truly absolutely good, he cannot lack good in any way, because if He could, he would no longer be absolutely good. Also, since it is maintained by Christians that God does not change, we can conclude that God will never be anything less than perfectly good.

 

Likewise, we can apply the same standard of definition for his physical (if He has any) and intellectual properties, so long as one absolute property doesn’t contradict with another such as saying God is absolutely evil or absolutely powerless. These claims are categorically opposed to His absolute goodness and omnipotence so we reject them as being contradictory to His nature. God is absolutely good, powerful, knowing, kind, loving, logical etc. (However, it should be said that God is not necessarily all that is, He is all that is good, or at least, He is in all that is good.)

 

One more thing that’s good about God: He doesn’t want evil to exist. So much so that it is claimed by Christians that God will one day eradicate evil. That is, all the evil and suffering that we as humans experience will come to and end and we will live in perfect, sin-free harmony with the Lord. Good on ya, God! :tup:

 

The Devil made me do it.. uh, I mean, God made me do it… uh… Who was it that made me do it again?

 

Some people argue that since God knows all that was, is and will be, and that God’s knowledge is perfect, that it must be the case that man is predestined for everything that will happen to him or that will come from him. Every event or decision in the life of a person happens as determined by God and thus is caused by God. Or put another way, God is by nature omniscient, so it follows that man will do “X”. This makes his decision to do “X” necessary per accidens so by logical extension it follows that all man’s decisions are accidentally necessary. What’s more, the transfer of necessity principle seems to show that there is indeed a relationship between “X” (God’s foreknowledge) and “Y” (man’s predetermined actions) thus, our actions are necessitated by God's knowledge.

 

The counter-argument to this position is that there is no relationship between God’s foreknowledge and man’s decision-making process. God simply knows what will happen and that knowledge has no bearing on what man does in any way. And this is a fairly defensible position simply from a practical point of view. A mean really, why did you get out of bed this morning? Because God knew you would or because you felt like it? In spite of the argument above, the assertion that God’s foreknowledge drove my decision to pee this morning seems just plain silly, IMO.

 

Also, some will argue that since God cannot commit an act of evil, that He does not have free will. Personally, I reject this based on the fact that if God is absolutely good, he cannot commit an act of evil by nature of His design, not because He doesn’t have free will. He can no more choose to commit an act of evil than you or I can choose to lay an egg. Am I less human because I can’t lay an egg? Of course not; I’m less fowl (or foul, depending on your point of view).

 

Now, some Christians will argue that God can sin but, being perfect, chooses not to. This argument if flawed for two reasons. For one, it is not an absolute claim as they may attempt to convey it, second, it is illogical. Let me explain:

 

Their claim is that God, as a matter of absolute fact, will not sin. The problem lies with the absolute nature of the claim. They is using an inductive line of reasoning to reach an absolutely true conclusion.

 

Kevin’s claim also violates the law of non-contradiction. He claims that God is able to perform an evil act, which is contradictory to His nature. If God can be something other than what He is (even if He chooses not to), then He is illogical. Remember:

 

God = Perfect

Not-God = Not-Perfect

 

Therefore, if God can be not-perfect, this means that He can be not-God. If God can be not-God, this means that God could in effect destroy Himself. Therefore, to claim that God can be something other than Himself is exactly the same as asking the illogical question, “Can God destroy Himself”. We are left with a conundrum:

 

Can God be destroyed? – No, because He is all-powerful

Can God destroy Himself? – Yes, because He can do anything

 

Or put another way: “Can an all-powerful being who can destroy any being destroy an all-powerful being that cannot be destroyed?” We reject this question as nonsense because it is illogical. This is why it is commonly accepted that God cannot sin rather than that He chooses not to sin. God looses nothing in the statement as sin is contrary to His nature and not a exposure of some weakness.

 

Regardless of which of these positions you hold to, the point is that God knows with perfect and flawless knowledge everything that was, is and will be. And this point will be very valuable later on in this writing.

 

It Doesn’t Matter if you Win or Lose, It’s how God Wants to Play the Game

 

As mentioned above, God is the standard for perfection. As such, we can conclude that anything that is not equal to God as not-perfect.

 

It is claimed by Christians that God created man ‘perfectly’. Now, it is obvious that man was not created to be on an equal playing field with God and thus, obviously not perfect as God is perfect. Knowing this, Christians claim that man was created as perfect as a human could be. That is, man was as physically, intellectually and spiritually as perfect as he could be. But God is absolutely powerful, so how is it the case than man was created ‘as good as a human can be’? If God is absolutely powerful, we must reject the assertion that the original product of man represented the zenith of God’s man-making abilities if man is anything less than equal to God.

 

Since we reject that man’s imperfect design is not the result of a limitation on God’s part, it must be the case that God made man imperfect by His own choice. After all, God intended to make something other than Himself, and since nothing can be as perfect as God, it follows that He would have to make something that, by comparison, is inferior to Himself. So when Christians say ‘perfect’ they don’t really mean ‘perfect’. What they mean is that God made man as good as He wanted to make him, not that man was created as perfect as God could have made him.

 

Not-So-Great Expectations or Designed to Fail

 

God cannot sin because He is perfect. Conversely, man cannot avoid sinning because his is imperfect. Let’s see where this takes us.

 

Remember:

 

God = Perfect

Not God = Not Perfect

 

Also:

• God is absolutely perfect. He is not, was not, nor will He be anything other than that.
  

• God created man, not as perfect as he could be, but as good as God wanted him to be.
  

• God knows with perfect knowledge what is, was, and will be.
  

• God experiences free will without the potential for evil.
  

• God, being one who dislikes evil, will one day eradicate it.
  

If God made man as perfect as He chose to make him, and the state of man’s imperfection was so much as to allow for something that God not only foresaw with perfect knowing i.e. evil or sin, one has to ask the question: Why would a God who doesn’t desire evil to exist take the necessary steps that would ensure that evil would in fact come into existence just as he foresaw? Also, if God will one day eradicate evil, it follows that right now He is either unable to eradicate evil, or He is unwilling to eradicate evil. If the former is the case (and this is where the Christian bias that I spoke of in the opening comes in), why can God not eradicate evil? If the latter is the case, again I ask why?

 

Would a God who does not desire evil, but could see with perfect knowledge that His actions would inevitably lead to evil, follow through with said actions? Of course not. Not unless that God valued the existence of evil over the non-existence of something else (in this case, free will). If said God valued the existence of evil in such a way, this means that it is not the case that He doesn’t desire evil i.e. He is not absolutely good.

 

Another question: Could an all-powerful God have designed man in such a way the he could enjoy free will in the same sense as God? Certainly He could. God’s absolute perfection is not necessary for Him to choose not to sin. If sinning can be distilled down to “missing the mark” (which it can), all that is required to avoid missing the mark is perfect reasoning. Since God reasons perfectly and with perfect logic, it follows that He will never make a decision that “misses the mark”. Therefore, it is the case that God could have made man’s reasoning and logical abilities so refined that they too could avoid “missing the mark”. What’s more, if God truly doesn’t desire the existence of evil and truly sees that His actions will inevitably lead to evil, it follows that He would have made man’s reasoning and logical abilities so refined that they too, could avoid “missing the mark”.

 

The common Christian answer to this is that God desires the potential for evil to exist so that man can have free will. Without the potential for both good and evil, man is not truly free. If this is the case, how is it that God has free will? The answer to this is, of course, that God cannot choose sin as it is against His nature to do so. Man, however, can sin because it is in his nature to do so. In fact, since man’s reasoning ability is so insufficient that he can “miss the mark”, and the reason that man cannot avoid sinning is because he is imperfect, it is inevitable that man will do so. This is what brought the original sin to being. After all, if it is God’s perfect nature that prevents him from sinning, and it is man’s imperfect nature that prevents him from being unable to sin, it must have been the case that it was in Adam and Eve’s natures to sin. Since they cannot act in a way that is contrary to their natures (Hey, if God can’t, what makes you think that man can?) it was inevitable that they would sin. This is a simple product of design.

 

We know that God created man as perfect as He chose to make him. If it is the case that God has free will without the potential for sin, couldn’t God have made man perfect enough so that he could enjoy free will in the same way that He does? If the answer is yes, and God knows with perfect knowing every event of sin that has, is and will occur, then it follows that God purposely designed man to eventually fail just as He foresaw. After all, He could have designed man so well that he would never fail and he could enjoy free will just as God does. But God chose not to do this and in doing so ensured that all the evil and suffering in the world would exist just as it does. Did God commit these acts directly? No. But He did foresee them and He did by His actions make sure that they would happen.

 

Could He have done it differently? Of course He could have. But this is not as important as the next question: Would a God who knows everything with perfect knowing and who doesn’t want evil to exist have done it differently? I say unequivocally and unreservedly YES. Now, Christians will tell you differently but they will never give a sufficient reason why a perfectly good and all-knowing God would do so. You’ll hear lots of white noise about God’s desire for man to have free will and His eventual eradication of evil, but you’ll never hear a good reason why it all came about in the first place, but at the same time you’ll never here the concession that God wanted it that way.

 

Man was created as imperfect as God wanted him to be. This imperfection inevitably led to sin, yet we are held accountable for it. In fact, we are held so accountable for it that should we reject God as He foresaw before time itself (and we will) there will be no chance of a moment’s happiness after physical life has ended. We may make the choice to reject God, but since God isn’t directly influencing that and He knows that said rejection is inevitable, we pay the ultimate price for simply acting according to, not only what God already knows, but also according to our very nature. I don’t know about you, but this seems quite unfair to me. If God is real, then there is indeed a very high cost for being.

[Asimov]

Well you're wrong.

[Guest Roger Doger]

Well you're wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Dammit.

 

I was afraid of that...

[thomas]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Welcome here Rodger Doger. I hope you will enjoy the place.

 

Until now, I have only skimmed your post, so maybe I will come back later with a more detailed response.

 

But it is clear, that you operate with a very "greek" understanding of the Christian god. In your teminology, god is defined as a perfect and unchanging entity living somwhere in the platonic ideal world. This "greek" understanding has always been a part of Christainity and has found it's most clear form in Calvinism. And as you know, Calvinists do not believe in free will. They believe that everything (even sin and punishment in hell) is predetermined by god, and gives glory to god.

 

"Free will" theology does not agree. And although that kind of theology isn't as consistent as Calvinism, you will generally find that it does not accept (or at least is very critical towards) the "greek" idea of a perfect god. "Free will" theology does certainly have problems, but it should be discussed on it's own terms, and not on basis of concepts, that "free will" theologians do not accept.

[Guest Roger Doger]

Welcome here Rodger Doger. I hope you will enjoy the place.

Thank you very much.

 

But it is clear, that you operate with a very "greek" understanding of the Christian god. In your teminology, god is defined as a perfect and unchanging entity living somwhere in the platonic ideal world. This "greek" understanding has always been a part of Christainity and has found it's most clear form in Calvinism. And as you know, Calvinists do not believe in free will. They believe that everything (even sin and punishment in hell) is predetermined by god, and gives glory to god.

 

"Free will" theology does not agree. And although that kind of theology isn't as consistent as Calvinism, you will generally find that it does not accept (or at least is very critical towards) the "greek" idea of a perfect god. "Free will" theology does certainly have problems, but it should be discussed on it's own terms, and not on basis of concepts, that "free will" theologians do not accept.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't follow you here. First you say that the perfect, unchanging God has found its most clear form in Calvinism. Then you say that Calvinism does not accept (or at least is very critical towards) the idea of a perfect, unchanging God. If it has found its clearest form there, why would it be rejected there?

 

Which is it? It seems your are attempting to disfuse my argument with something that dosn't make sense.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Thank you very much. 

 

I don't follow you here. First you say that the perfect, unchanging God has found its most clear form in Calvinism. Then you say that Calvinism does not accept (or at least is very critical towards) the idea of a perfect, unchanging God. If it has found its clearest form there, why would it be rejected there?

 

Which is it? It seems your are attempting to disfuse my argument with something that dosn't make sense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Free will" theology does not agree. And although that kind of theology isn't as consistent as Calvinism, you will generally find that it does not accept (or at least is very critical towards) the "greek" idea of a perfect god.

 

 

Thomas

..but it should be discussed on it's own terms, and not on basis of concepts, that "free will" theologians do not accept.

 

The bible was writen by different people who weren't exaclty contemporaries of eachother. The bible writers did not have the same perception of jesus. Why should we assume that books written by different authors should be harmonized with eachother when they did not even know eachother? Theology is dishonest.

 

As far back as we can see there are still different kinds of christians.

 

The focus should be on the bible and how inconsistent and contradictory it is, as well as how history contradicts the stories told. When pointing out the inconsistencies and the contradictions, why let xers bullshit us with theology? Why play by thier bizarre rules? Why can't free will theology be attacked by using scripture?

[thomas]

I don't follow you here. First you say that the perfect, unchanging God has found its most clear form in Calvinism. Then you say that Calvinism does not accept (or at least is very critical towards) the idea of a perfect, unchanging God. If it has found its clearest form there, why would it be rejected there?

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Roger Doger

 

Sorry if my first post wasn’t clear.

 

As dogmatically challenged mentions in his post, the bible is not a consistent book. In fact it is so, that different versions of Christianity is faithful to different parts of the bible. The bible is so full of different (and conflicting) points of view, that no version of Christianity can be faithful to it all.

 

In my first reply to you, I was simply talking about to major versions of (protestant) Christianity.

 

At one hand we have Calvinists, and they believe in a perfect unchanging god of the kind you describe. But Calvinists do not claim that we have free will. In Calvinism everything that happens is because god wants it so - nothing happens against the will of god.

 

And then at the other hand, we have those who do not like to think of a god who has predestined some people for sin and damnation. They believe that human free will is to blame for such things, and therefore they have some other ideas about god. The think, that god is limited by human “free will”, and if you read some "free will" stuff, you will also see, that they think that god can change his mind, god can grow and learn, god does not see the future (only able to make educated guesses) etc. An example could be this article The Problem of Natural Evil.

 

And therefore I se not point in using a calvinstic concept of god to “demonstrate that there are persistent and unanswered problems with the concept of free will”. Calvinists do not believe in “free will”, and “free will” Christians do not accept the Calvinistic god.

 

Of course, “free will” theologians can (just as the Calvinists) back up their position by (picking from the inconsistent set of books called) the bible. I do agree with dogmatically_challenged that we can debunk (all kinds of) Christianity by using the bible. But if you want to debunk, let's say "free will" theology, you cannot build your case from a starting point with an entirely calvinistic understanding of the christian god.

[Guest Roger Doger]

Roger Doger

 

Sorry if my first post wasn’t clear...

No problem and it certainly wasn't due to any fault of yours. I simply didn't read your post throughly enough.

 

And therefore I se not point in using a calvinstic concept of god to “demonstrate that there are persistent and unanswered problems with the concept of free will”.

Well, from that perspective I can certainly agree with your point. However, the concept of God I’m using is that one the kinds of Christians I grew up with and the kind that typically dominate the area I live in (the lower half of the United States). This area is dominated by Evangelical Christians who DO believe in a perfect and unchanging God and who DO believe in Free Will as I specified in the definitions portion of the opener. That is the primary audience I am addressing.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Roger Doger

No problem and it certainly wasn't due to any fault of yours. I simply didn't read your post throughly enough.

I missread posts all the time when I stay up too late. hehe.

 

Well, from that perspective I can certainly agree with your point. However, the concept of God I’m using is that one the kinds of Christians I grew up with and the kind that typically dominate the area I live in (the lower half of the United States). This area is dominated by Evangelical Christians who DO believe in a perfect and unchanging God and who DO believe in Free Will as I specified in the definitions portion of the opener. That is the primary audience I am addressing.

I'll vouch for that. I'm from the U.S.A. Its really ridiculous aint it.