Posted on 09/03/2023 10:10:00 AM PDT by daniel1212
If it's so plausible, then why don't you simply enlighten us?
Don't be coy! Spit it out!
"It is preferable to suffer than not to suffer because..."
Why?
Actually, the real question is: Why would the Creator have the effrontery to imbue me with Free Will, knowing that that would result in suffering?
Regards,
I had tyou, but pennicilin cleared it right up.
Just something we cannot do.
Kinda like trying to comprehend eternity.
Wasn’t that the lesson of Eve and the Apple, that Man cannot possibly understand God, and to believe it possible is a Satanic trick.
Here’s an interesting question. Regarding good will.
Good will is a powerful topic, for one thing because I don’t think it’s ever been reasonably acknowledged to be anything other than a desirable quality fully consistent with a good moral code.
Here’s the question:
Does the man who questions God’s existence have the same good will as he who doesn’t? Where good will is defined as derived from love.
Keep in mind, both men have equal claim to be seeking truth.
But it seems only one can claim to desire love.
You like to put your thumb on the scale.
Lol.
The whole question is like asking how many camels
can dance on the head of a pin?
Camels can dance? Who Knew ?
Not from me. My response: In an instant!
The possibility of eternal suffering would thus be removed in one fell-swoop!
How could one not choose that?
But still doesn't answer the problem of all that "pesky" suffering due to natural catastrophes. (One poster here - Fai Mao - has even gone so far as to declare that natural catastrophes have nothing to do with "sin" or "Free Will." In other words: God could have given us the capacity of Free Will, even if we misused it, and sinned - but he need never have allowed natural catastrophes.)
Regards,
Big deal. What about the years of terror and pain they have to endure first? Do they take their broken minds with them or does that get fixed in the end, too?
"For now [in this time of imperfection] we see in a mirror dimly [a blurred reflection, a riddle, an enigma], but then [when the time of perfection comes we will see reality] face to face. Now I know in part [just in fragments], but then I will know fully, just as I have been fully known [by God]." - 1 Cor 13:12
First let’s approach it from a context of probability: What does your gut tell you? What seems reasonable? Would a majority of people choose free will or the life of an automaton?
And if the answer is most would prefer to be a robot (which is highly improbable), would the absence of free will even allow for conscious awareness? What is a life without conscious awareness?
IIRC....yes.
You’re trying to say the desire to deny ultimate good is itself a desire for good?
Explain to me how such a claim is not logically incoherent.
Great! Now we have to start a whole new thread arguing what is meant by "Love!"
If you keep introducing additional, new concepts and points of contention, rather than addressing those already at hand, we'll never reach a solution.
This is a popular tactic with some people:
You: "Free Will is an absolute good, but is purchased at the expense of the possibility of sinning. Suffering is due to Sin."
Me: "But not all suffering is due only to Free Will / Sin. There are also natural catastrophes! They have nothing to do with Free Will. Volcanoes erupt and harm (suffering) the Just together with the Unjust!"
You: "Here's another interesting question: Good will..."
Unnecessarily prolongs the conversation. Diverts from responding to earlier points!
How are natural catastrophes a necessary result of Free Will (or its misuse)?
Regards,
I don’t believe in Self Evident things either.
When we speak of God we speak of love, because God is love.
It’s not a different topic.
Love is what we’ve been discussing the entire thread.
You are saying this about the one empire on record as having abolished slavery and fought against the practice worldwide. Don’t generalize; that’s an Obama tactic, with all due respect, and he and his allies have used that to broad-brush all white humans as inherently evil and racist for one glaring example.
Your method of structuring topics for discussion is “putting your finger on the scale” or “rigging the game” or “having the dealer deal from the bottom of the deck”.
You know the outcome you want and then structure the rules to help get that outcome.
How very human of you...
;-)
No, I would concede that you might be hallucinating. (Yes, and then you might draw a pistol and... That proves nothing. In good conscience, I must steadfastly maintain that I have no means of proving to you that you are not hallucinating me.)
Yes! This is what the skeptic does: He concedes that some questions are unanswerable, because data is lacking and/or because our computational skills are limited.
The theist, on the other hand...
Regards,
I lived in Ireland; I know their propaganda. As for the Indians, perhaps they preferred being terrorized by the Thugees?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.