‘Free will’ is not an excuse for God allowing atrocities.

[QuestioningMind]

I think you did not understand what I said.

Anyway, IF God exists, and as I said you have to approach this statement methodologically, we dont know why God doesnt do something. Because we cannot speak to God and question God. So if someone is giving you this free-will answer, it is an attempt at philosophising your question.

Hope you understand.

I understand what you said, I simply don't know why you directed the comments at me, since it really doesn't address what I wrote in my OP. All I've said is that the argument some theists make that god can't intervene to stop atrocities because of free will isn't valid, and for the reason I stated.

Hope you understand.

 

[MonkeyFire]

How is this a true statement? Disbelief in WHAT, exactly, gets children hurt? Use facts.


Yeah, I'm saying I don't believe. I can give a coherent explanation as to why I doubt the claims made by various believers.


Sounds like someone has told you things that have made you respond in fear. Who told you to believe what you believe?

Dis-belief is not okay once your an enlightened. I believe in science and I can tell you you are responsible for pain and suffer, and hopelessness. What is the point of allowing yourself to suffer? Do you really know what you are saying when you say you don't believe? I believe in truth and life. Without belief you are gettin yourself lied to. Dis-belief is only good and evil, it only tells the truth when it is suffering, and I know not to help them.

 

[F1fan]

Dis-belief is not okay once your an enlightened.

This explains nothing. You only makes another vague and unexplained claim.

I believe in science and I can tell you you are responsible for pain and suffer, and hopelessness.

These are two unrelated statements. First no one has to believe in science. Science has an objective and high methodical standard, and it does its work and presents results.

And in what way am I responsible for "pain and suffer, and hopelessness", whatever all that is supposed to mean?

What is the point of allowing yourself to suffer?

Well as a competitive cyclist it's necessary to endure pain in training and competition to achieve the goals i set for myself. And of course emotional pain comes in life as we form emotional bonds with people and pets. They get sick, they die. I'm not sure why you are confused about suffering since it is part of life.

Do you really know what you are saying when you say you don't believe?

Absolutely. I've been studying religion and philosophy since the mid 90's, and debating theists since 1996. I studied the psychology of religion in the early 2000s. I have more intellectual tools and knowledge than the average believer. I know better why they believe as they do that they do.

I believe in truth and life. Without belief you are gettin yourself lied to.

Without what belief, in your specific religious concepts? And who is lying, and what about, and can you prove it?

Why do you believe in the religious ideas you believe in? Who told you they are true? How much intellectual study did you do to see if they are true objectively and factually before you accepted these ideas as true?

Dis-belief is only good and evil, it only tells the truth when it is suffering, and I know not to help them.

This is vague. Are you unsure what you believe in, and struggling to articulate it rationally and coherently?

 

[Trailblazer]

If you say If God needs no excuses free will cannot be an excuse, then you AGREE with me that it isn't a valid argument.

Let's narrow in on the one statement above.
I agree that God needs no excuses, but I do not agree that free will cannot be an excuse because that implies that God needs to be excused for something...

Excuse for what?

If free will cannot be an excuse x then that implies that (a) God needs another excuse for x or (b) God needs no excuse for x. It is either a or b.....

My argument is that (b) God needs no excuse for anything He does or does not do.

To sum up, your argument is that:
"‘Free will’ is not an excuse for God allowing atrocities" and since God allows atrocities the implication that (a) God needs another excuse for allowing atrocities or (b) God needs no excuses for allowing atrocities.

So which is it, a or b?

 

[F1fan]

I cannot offer a way for every human to know a message is from an actual God, but I already found my way.

But you also offer no objective and rational method to how you came to this conclusion, so even your "vote" means nothing to the topic. "Your way" is irrelevant to anyone else.

It's easy to make outrageous claims. They just mean nothing until they are confirmed and verified as plausible, and likely true. This is where religious claims fall short: no confirmation or verification. Just more claims, on top of more claims, followed by still more claims, thus no truth.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Let's narrow in on the one statement above.
I agree that God needs no excuses, but I do not agree that free will cannot be an excuse because that implies that God needs to be excused for something...

Excuse for what?

If free will cannot be an excuse x then that implies that (a) God needs another excuse for x or (b) God needs no excuse for x. It is either a or b.....

My argument is that (b) God needs no excuse for anything He does or does not do.

To sum up, your argument is that:
"‘Free will’ is not an excuse for God allowing atrocities" and since God allows atrocities the implication that (a) God needs another excuse for allowing atrocities or (b) God needs no excuses for allowing atrocities.

So which is it, a or b?

You'd have to ask the theists who make the argument. Though it would appear that they don't agree with (b) since they ARE offering up an excuse, even if it is an invalid one, as I've pointed out.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You'd have to ask the theists who make the argument. Though it would appear that they don't agree with (b) since they ARE offering up an excuse, even if it is an invalid one, as I've pointed out.

It's not an excuse, it's a reason.

You have yet to come up with another scenario which is coherent...
..other than the usual "why didn't G-d create us all in a cotton-wool world from day 1, instead of all this suffering?"

I'm sure any intelligent person could work that out for themselves.
Why do we have to go to school?
Why do we have to go to work?
Why do we have to learn the hard way? etc.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm not sure if you agree with the thread's title or not.

Allowing atrocities? Let me put it this way -- there ARE atrocities in this world, that's for sure. And many people believe in evolution. Therefore, evolution for such ones allows (or makes) atrocities. I'm just leaving that right now as a thought.

 

[F1fan]

Allowing atrocities? Let me put it this way -- there ARE atrocities in this world, that's for sure. And many people believe in evolution. Therefore, evolution for such ones allows (or makes) atrocities. I'm just leaving that right now as a thought.

Wut?

What does it matter that well educated people accept evolution as a real phenomenon, and atrocities happening? There is no relationship here to make sense of it.

 

[Trailblazer]

But you also offer no objective and rational method to how you came to this conclusion, so even your "vote" means nothing to the topic. "Your way" is irrelevant to anyone else.

My method is unlike anyone else's method because I am an individual. How I came to my conclusion is based upon the objective evidence surrounding the Revelation of Baha'u'llah, as well as the teachings and primary message Baha'u'llah. Other Baha'is came to the same conclusion but they had their own methods of arriving at their conclusions.

Of course my way is irrelevant to anyone else. Independent Investigation of Truth means we all have to investigate the Truth independently.

It's easy to make outrageous claims. They just mean nothing until they are confirmed and verified as plausible, and likely true. This is where religious claims fall short: no confirmation or verification. Just more claims, on top of more claims, followed by still more claims, thus no truth.

What atheists do not seem to understand is that nobody can or ever will verify or confirm God as existent because nobody has ever seen God. That is why there are Messengers of God. We cannot confirm or verify that Baha'u'llah received communication from God, all we can do is investigate His claim and determine for ourselves if the evidence He provided supports His claim.

I determined that my beliefs are true through the process of Independent Investigation but that it does mean that everyone will come to the conclusion I came to; in fact few people will.

 

[Trailblazer]

You'd have to ask the theists who make the argument. Though it would appear that they don't agree with (b) since they ARE offering up an excuse, even if it is an invalid one, as I've pointed out.

It is not theists who make the argument that free will is not an excuse for God allowing atrocities. It is atheists who make that argument. Theists agree with me, that (b) God needs no excuses for allowing atrocities.

So which is it, a or b? Do you think God needs an excuse for allowing atrocities or not?

 

[Wildswanderer]

When I ask believers why their god would allow a serial killer to abuse and murder a dozen innocent children over the course of his lifetime, I am often told that god is helpless to intervene because he gave us all ‘free will’ and that to intervene would be a violation of that ‘free will’. It sounds reasonable at first glance, but this argument doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.

I agree that if god were to snap his metaphorical fingers and magically take away the serial killer’s perverse desires or temporarily paralyze him any time he attempted to commit a wicked act that it would be a violation of free will. But why doesn’t god just snap his metaphorical fingers and give the guy a lethal heat attack? Obviously god deciding when a person’s life will come to an end isn’t a violation of their free will otherwise every single person who has ever died unwillingly has had their free will violated, which pretty much includes everyone except for people who commit suicide, sacrifice their lives for others, or are experiencing unendurable suffering.

So after this guy kills his first innocent child why doesn’t god decide to bring his life to an end? Even if god wanted to give the guy the chance to repent and seek forgiveness for his sins, why didn’t god give him a heart attack after the second innocent victim or the third? Why would a loving and caring god allow this maniac to kill a dozen little children and end up dying peacefully in his sleep in his late 80’s?


It obviously has nothing to do with god being helpless to intervene because of the killer’s free will.

No one claims God is helpless. If you start there you have to end with God eradicating all evil even down to bad thoughts. It gets very subjective. Free will is certainly part of the explanation for evil but not the entire explanation.
But without it, we would be just programmed pawns...I doubt you prefer that option.

 

[QuestioningMind]

It's not an excuse, it's a reason.

You have yet to come up with another scenario which is coherent...
..other than the usual "why didn't G-d create us all in a cotton-wool world from day 1, instead of all this suffering?"

I'm sure any intelligent person could work that out for themselves.
Why do we have to go to school?
Why do we have to go to work?
Why do we have to learn the hard way? etc.

What specifically do you find incoherent about the scenario I presented in my OP?

 

[QuestioningMind]

Allowing atrocities? Let me put it this way -- there ARE atrocities in this world, that's for sure. And many people believe in evolution. Therefore, evolution for such ones allows (or makes) atrocities. I'm just leaving that right now as a thought.

I suppose it could be said that evolution allows atrocities, but it wouldn't be very accurate since evolution is a process and not a conscious being with intent.

But I really don't see what that has to do with the OP, which is asking: Is the claim that some theists make that the reason god doesn't intervene to prevent atrocities is because it would violate human free will a valid argument?

 

[QuestioningMind]

It is not theists who make the argument that free will is not an excuse for God allowing atrocities. It is atheists who make that argument. Theists agree with me, that (b) God needs no excuses for allowing atrocities.

So which is it, a or b? Do you think God needs an excuse for allowing atrocities or not?

Sorry, but you don't have the authority to speak for all theists. Especially not the ones I've asked who have told me that they believe the reason god doesn't intervene to prevent atrocities is because it would violate the free will that god gave to humans. My entire OP is in response to theists who make that argument. If you don't make that argument that's fine. But please don't try and tell me that there are no theists who do, because I've interacted with them on numerous occasions.

As for which is it, a or b, that's a pointless question to be asking, since I have yet to be presented with sufficient verifiable evidence to warrant a belief in any god. The only definition that I have for any god is the definition provided to me by theists who claim that a god exists. Asking me if I think the god you are proposing exists needs an excuse is kind of ridiculous. Since you've indicated that the god YOU are proposing does NOT need any excuse... all I can conclude is that the god you are proposing is one that doesn't need any excuses. How can I possibly argue against it if you're the one defining what this god is?

 

[QuestioningMind]

No one claims God is helpless. If you start there you have to end with God eradicating all evil even down to bad thoughts. It gets very subjective. Free will is certainly part of the explanation for evil but not the entire explanation.
But without it, we would be just programmed pawns...I doubt you prefer that option.

Please don't suggest I'm making things up. You may not claim god is helpless, but I have most definitely spoken with theists who claim that the god they believe in is helpless to prevent many atrocities like serial killers because god gave humans free will and he doesn't want to violate that free will. That's the reason I started this OP, as a response to theists who have made that exact claim.

I'm not sure what I wrote that makes you think I believe we'd be anything other that programmed pawns without free will or that I might possibly prefer that option.

 

[Trailblazer]

Sorry, but you don't have the authority to speak for all theists. Especially not the ones I've asked who have told me that they believe the reason god doesn't intervene to prevent atrocities is because it would violate the free will that god gave to humans. My entire OP is in response to theists who make that argument.

I think that somehow we got our wires crossed.

I agree that theists make the argument that the reason God doesn't intervene to prevent atrocities is because it would violate the free will that God gave to humans. I agree with those theists. So what those theists are saying is that free will is an excuse (a reason why) God allows atrocities.

However, it is atheists who make the argument that free will is not an excuse for God allowing atrocities.

As for which is it, a or b, that's a pointless question to be asking, since I have yet to be presented with sufficient verifiable evidence to warrant a belief in any god. The only definition that I have for any god is the definition provided to me by theists who claim that a god exists. Asking me if I think the god you are proposing exists needs an excuse is kind of ridiculous. Since you've indicated that the god YOU are proposing does NOT need any excuse... all I can conclude is that the god you are proposing is one that doesn't need any excuses. How can I possibly argue against it if you're the one defining what this god is?

I agree that me asking you if you think the God I believe in needs an excuse is ridiculous. It makes no sense for you to argue with me if I am the one defining what God is and I say God doesn't need any excuses.

Do you want to know why I asked you that? It is because on a another forum I have been posting to an atheist for about seven years who says that my God needs excuses, and he says that because he thinks I am making excuses for my God. For example, he will say that my God needs excuses for not proving that He exists to everyone. His unfounded assumption is that IF God existed God would prove that He exists to everyone. However, that is illogical because we all know that God does not prove that He exists to everyone, so that means that if God existed God would not prove He exists to everyone, as evidenced by the fact that not everyone believes in God.

Many of my threads to atheists about belief in God and Messengers were precipitated by my conversations with this man. He insists he knows what God would do if God existed based solely upon the fact that God is omnipotent so God can do anything. So when I tell him that God does not do what he thinks God would do if God existed he says God needs excuses for not doing what he thinks God would do.

He also says that free will is not an excuse for God not doing what he thinks God should do, ridding the world of evil, although he does not even believe humans have free will.

 

[MonkeyFire]

This explains nothing. You only makes another vague and unexplained claim.


These are two unrelated statements. First no one has to believe in science. Science has an objective and high methodical standard, and it does its work and presents results.

And in what way am I responsible for "pain and suffer, and hopelessness", whatever all that is supposed to mean?


Well as a competitive cyclist it's necessary to endure pain in training and competition to achieve the goals i set for myself. And of course emotional pain comes in life as we form emotional bonds with people and pets. They get sick, they die. I'm not sure why you are confused about suffering since it is part of life.


Absolutely. I've been studying religion and philosophy since the mid 90's, and debating theists since 1996. I studied the psychology of religion in the early 2000s. I have more intellectual tools and knowledge than the average believer. I know better why they believe as they do that they do.


Without what belief, in your specific religious concepts? And who is lying, and what about, and can you prove it?

Why do you believe in the religious ideas you believe in? Who told you they are true? How much intellectual study did you do to see if they are true objectively and factually before you accepted these ideas as true?


This is vague. Are you unsure what you believe in, and struggling to articulate it rationally and coherently?

I believe in respect, dignity, and humanity. All I can say if knowledge became knowledge of good and evil, omniscience became knowledge. Would you believe the human race is susceptible to temptation, and Christ became human to deliver it of?

 

[muhammad_isa]

What specifically do you find incoherent about the scenario I presented in my OP?

What is incoherent about G-d creating ANY other environment for us to live in?
Why should G-d interfere with our lives in the way you suggest?
Is "because He is able to" a good reason?

Whatever scenario you come up with as an alternative, implies a world in which G-d prevents attrocities.
..hence is the same as "why didn't G-d put us all in paradise from day 1?"

Clearly, G-d hasn't done that.
His creatures experience pleasure and pain in many ways. Are you suggesting that is "wrong" as well, and that we should only experience pleasure?

It seems to me, that your complaints about reality will not achieve anything. You merely make a mockery of existence.
G-d has explained to us how we can overcome evil, and it is not by claiming "it is not fair".
G-d is fully aware of what is fair and what is not.
He allows us to taste the tyranny of one another.
He has left it up to us to eradicate evil. He knows why He has done that. He knows that many will go astray.
He gives life, and He takes life.

This life is as a "blink of an eye" compared to eternity.
No soul will suffer more than what is appointed for it, and those that have been wronged will be more than happy with the compensation that is waiting for them, if they indeed "enjoin righteousness and forbid evil".

You are saying that you think G-d should do it, but G-d wants US to do it.
It seems that most of us are failing miserably.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Please don't suggest I'm making things up. You may not claim god is helpless, but I have most definitely spoken with theists who claim that the god they believe in is helpless to prevent many atrocities like serial killers because god gave humans free will and he doesn't want to violate that free will. That's the reason I started this OP, as a response to theists who have made that exact claim.

I'm not sure what I wrote that makes you think I believe we'd be anything other that programmed pawns without free will or that I might possibly prefer that option.

I believe you misunderstood what they are saying.
God being all powerful can do as he pleases. The reason we have freedom is because he'd rather allow evil then make us robots. He can and did intervene with a solution to the sin problem however. He didn't just leave us in this mess with no way out.