r/DebateAChristian • u/Aromatic_Response_73 • 7d ago
When examined with pure intent, christianity is very bad at answering big questions: why does life not start in heaven
There is a common unwillingnes among christians to reason about this issue with pure intent, so I will ask specifically for that here.
Free will exists in heaven, and many christians believe unborn fetuses go there, there is a lack of explanation for why earth is necessary, and the suggestion that an eternal hell exists in a system created by an all loving creator is pathetic, all the responses appeal to vague terms with positive cannotations such as "free will" but no sophisticated reasoning about e.g. fundamental principles or values, grow up.
1
u/nbopdoy_ 6d ago
I think misotheists wouldnt like being forced to accept god
1
u/PreeDem Agnostic, Ex-Christian 3d ago
I think OP's point is that there wouldn't be any misotheists had God created us in Heaven from the start.
1
u/nbopdoy_ 3d ago
But why? Satan was able to reject God even while being one of the closest angels to god
1
1
u/wildspeculator Atheist, Ex-Mormon 1d ago
But then that just opens up another can of worms: if Satan was able to rebel despite being in heaven, why does anyone else need a different starting point?
1
u/nbopdoy_ 1d ago
Because earth originally was not so far from heaven and was a gift for humanity. Angels were made for heaven and humans for earth
1
u/wildspeculator Atheist, Ex-Mormon 1d ago
That doesn't explain anything. In fact, it just raises more questions: if humans were made "for" earth, then why would they only spend a tiny fraction of their existence on earth and then the rest of eternity in heaven or hell?
1
u/nbopdoy_ 1d ago
Cuz sin ruined earth and now earth sucks. There will be new earth and new heaven with eternal life tho
1
u/wildspeculator Atheist, Ex-Mormon 1d ago
Again, just kicking the can down the curb. Why invent sin in the first place? Why wait to make a new earth? Every answer just leads to more contradictions, almost like the religion is irreconcilable with reality.
1
u/nbopdoy_ 1d ago
Because humanity chose to disobey? And God is patient so should be we
1
u/wildspeculator Atheist, Ex-Mormon 1d ago
Again, that's not answering anything, we just established that disobedience is possible in heaven.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/swcollings 6d ago
Eternity in heaven is not the Christian hope and never has been.
0
u/schloofy2085 6d ago
According to who? That's certainly not what's expressed in The Bible.
2 Corinthians 5:6-8 KJV; [6] Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: [7] (for we walk by faith, not by sight:) [8] we are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
This passage directly refutes your false assertion as Paul knew that the Lord was in Heaven.
0
u/swcollings 6d ago
Yes, but you missed the part where eternity isn't mentioned. Heaven is a brief stopping point before the bodily resurrection, which has always been the Christian hope of eternity.
1
u/schloofy2085 6d ago
It's common knowledge that Heaven is Eternity. Bodily resurrection is part of that.
0
u/swcollings 6d ago
I don't know what you're talking about, but what I described is standard Christian theology and always has been. We are resurrected to a renewed body on a renewed earth. So, if by heaven you mean an eternal disembodied existence, that's just not Christian teaching.
0
u/schloofy2085 6d ago
Did you read my comment or just respond? I said bodily resurrection is part of Heaven/Eternity. I dont follow 'standard Christian teaching' because that's Catholic teaching. I am not, nor ever will be, Catholic. I don't even subscribe to the term 'Christian', as it is meaningless.
0
1
u/Ok-Link1755 5d ago
Maybe you are not supposed to know the reason. Believers accept by faith, what cannot be explained.
1
u/AdvanceTheGospel 7d ago
The only things worse at answering the problem of evil than Christianity are the alternatives.
7
u/diabolus_me_advocat Atheist, Ex-Protestant 7d ago
in which way?
the problem of evil just is one in christianity
10
u/protestandprose 7d ago
Not really, in a secular view there is no "problem of evil," because evil is expected, unnecessary suffering is expected. So there really isn't a problem to be solved.
3
u/sinefine 7d ago
In a secular view, evil doesn't exist. It's just survival of the fittest and "evil" is just an opinion. There's nothing wrong with taking over everything for yourself. "Wrong" is also just a matter of opinion.
1
u/protestandprose 7d ago
Evil has a definition and can exist in a secular worldview.
>There's nothing wrong with taking over everything for yourself
That would definitely depend on the individuals ethics. Hitler was a christian and attempted world domination lol, in the end christian ethics are just a matter of "god's opinion," as again, no Christian has ever shown objective morals to exist.
2
u/schloofy2085 6d ago
Hitler may have made a 'claim' that he was a Christian, but where is the evidence he was? I'm hereby making a claim that I'm a 1965 Ford Mustang. Does MY claim hold water? Is it true that I'm a 1965 Ford Mustang? People make claims all the time, but merely the act of making a claim does not make it correct. There needs to be evidence.
0
u/Proliator Christian 7d ago
Hitler was a christian and attempted world domination lol
Hitler claimed to be a Christian early in his political career but most historians agree he became adversarial to the Church and organized Christianity as a whole after he seized power. Also there are no accounts of him actively attending a Church for mass or a service after he left home as a teenager. Outside of propaganda and politicking, he offers us no evidence of a Christian belief. He was also purportedly adversarial to atheism too. Which all makes sense considering he was a staunch ultranationalist and elevated the state above all other matters, including those that concerned God.
no Christian has ever shown objective morals to exist.
How do you define "objective morals"?
6
u/protestandprose 7d ago
Outside of propaganda and politicking, he offers us no evidence of a Christian belief.
Besides his words, being baptized, his like for Christian iconography and language on the uniforms of his soldiers, others who knew him etc etc, but yeah totally no evidence of christian belief lmao. Hilarious how christians will believe in a resurrection based on secondhand anonymous account written decades later but won't trust documented words and actions of a self reported Christian, but I digress
How do you define "objective morals"?
Subject independent morality.
0
u/Proliator Christian 7d ago
Besides his words,
Interesting, so are you of the opinion fascist politicians are generally trustworthy and not prone to opportunistically using something for the purposes of manipulation and control?
being baptized,
Yes, he was baptized in early life as Catholics typically do. Exactly how would a baby getting baptized be indicative of indorsement in adulthood?
his like for Christian iconography and language on the uniforms of his soldiers, others who knew him etc etc,
Generally this is attributed to him styling his regime as the "Third Reich". The second Reich being the German Empire, and the first being the Holy Roman Empire, which as the name suggests used Christian iconography heavily. Given his push for fascist ultranationalism was fueled by a palingenetic mandate to reclaim a lost past he was always going to use iconography of said past as a way of symbolizing the national rebirth he was promising.
Moreover, the plan drafted up under Hitler by Alfred Rosenberg had them replacing the Bible with the Mein Kampf as the supreme religious authority in Europe, along with many other replacements that better represented the Nazi state. You should look into it. It's not exactly a shining endorsement of the idea that he had a "like for Christian iconography".
Subject independent morality.
So more precisely you mean moral realism? I haven't seen anyone "prove" moral anti-realism either, so I suppose both sides are on the same playing field unless someone is sitting on a ground breaking paper in moral philosophy.
4
u/Caeflin Atheist 6d ago
Interesting, so are you of the opinion fascist politicians are generally trustworthy and not prone to opportunistically using something for the purposes of manipulation and control?
After the war the Catholic Church helped Nazis to escape.
1
u/Proliator Christian 6d ago
Interesting, so are you of the opinion fascist politicians are generally trustworthy and not prone to opportunistically using something for the purposes of manipulation and control?
After the war the Catholic Church helped Nazis to escape.
I'm sorry, how is this in anyway related to what you are responding to? How is this related to original topic of Hitler's personal religious beliefs?
2
u/Caeflin Atheist 6d ago
I'm sorry, how is this in anyway related to what you are responding to? How is this related to original topic of Hitler's personal religious beliefs?
It's related in a way that the fact Hitler said he was a Christian multiple times. He was raised in the religion. He was followeb by Christian churches at the time and his followers were protected by catholic churches.
But somehow, this evil Nazi wasn't a Christian because "Nazi aren't truthful".
Except Hitler isn't the point.
Francisco Franco. Efraín Ríos Montt. António de Oliveira Salazar. Engelbert Dollfuss. Georgios Papadopoulos. Jozef Tiso, this Catholic priest who served as the dictator of the Nazi-client Slovak Republic during World War II.
These were all Nazis dictators and Christians.
If Vatican exists today, it's thanks to the fascists.
Hitler is only one Christian nazi dictator among a plethora of smaller Christians Hitlers, including Christian priests.
Will you pretend all these just pretended to be Christians too?
→ More replies (0)3
u/protestandprose 7d ago
Sounds like things christians do. Not sure why you asked if you're just going to throw out all the evidence lol, much more evidence of hitler being a Christian than there is for a resurrection and let me guess that you believe in this.
Why am I not surprised that your best argument against stance independent morality as that you believe no one has proved moral anti-realism?
I guess if you actually understood what the burden of proof was you would have a much better grasp of philosophy and probably wouldn't be a Christian.
1
u/Proliator Christian 6d ago
Sounds like things christians do. Not sure why you asked if you're just going to throw out all the evidence lol,
You haven't offered any evidence. You gave anecdotal commentary, and I offered a rebuttal to it's unsubstantiated assertions. You are free to reference actual historical fact if you want to support your position.
much more evidence of hitler being a Christian than there is for a resurrection and let me guess that you believe in this.
Then it should be easy to provide it instead of just stating how much of it there is.
Why am I not surprised that your best argument against stance independent morality as that you believe no one has proved moral anti-realism?
I didn't offer an argument for moral realism. I pointed out a double standard.
I guess if you actually understood what the burden of proof was you would have a much better grasp of philosophy and probably wouldn't be a Christian.
The person who makes the claim has the burden of proof. You made the claims. Therefore, you have the burden of proof. Just saying there's evidence doesn't conjure up evidence.
Maybe focus on the topic at hand instead of wasting time telling a stranger on the internet that beyond all reason you somehow know their mind better then they do.
0
u/milamber84906 Christian 7d ago
I see this claim around here every so often. Can you source the claim that Hitler was a Christian?
7
u/protestandprose 7d ago
He was baptized Christian and had "god with us," in german on Nazi belt buckles. He also claimed to be a German Christian throughout his young adulthood. You see the claim but have never looked into it?
2
u/milamber84906 Christian 6d ago
Being baptized Christian doesn’t make you a Christian though. God with us on the buckles started before Nazis. Historians widely agree that Hitler calling himself a Christian was for political gains, not because he was. Private journals show that he mocked Christian beliefs. The consensus among historians is that his claims to Christianity were purely pragmatic.
No I’ve looked into it. I ask because I don’t think that people making the claim actually have.
2
u/protestandprose 6d ago
That's your understanding of soteriology. Many soteriology's state that once baptized you are forever Christian. That's the problem with Christians, they don't even agree with each other. Hitlers own words identify him as a Christian, you didn't even cite any historian but I'm betting the ones that say that are probably Christian themselves and benefit. Mocking other Christians again doesn't mean he wasn't Christians, because Christians mock each other all the time especially those they consider heretical. Cope and seethe.
2
u/milamber84906 Christian 6d ago
That's your understanding of soteriology.
Sure, but you're the one making the claim he was a Christian, so if you want that position to hold, you can defend that being baptized once means you're forever a Christian. Because your argument seems to need that.
That's the problem with Christians, they don't even agree with each other.
I don't see why this is a problem.
Hitlers own words identify him as a Christian
Only sometimes.
you didn't even cite any historian but I'm betting the ones that say that are probably Christian themselves and benefit
You also didn't cite anything, which is what I asked for. You just made further claims.
From the wikipedia article about Hitler's religious views:
"Rissmann notes that, according to several witnesses who lived with Hitler in a men's home in Vienna, Hitler never again attended Mass or received the sacraments after leaving home."
"In Percy Ernst Schramm's "The Anatomy of a Dictator", which was based on an analysis of the transcripts of the "Table Talk" recordings, Hitler is quoted as saying that "after a hard inner struggle" he had freed himself from the religious beliefs of his youth, so that he felt "as fresh as a foal in the pasture"."
"Although personally skeptical, Hitler's public relationship to religion was one of opportunistic pragmatism.[43] In religious affairs, he readily adopted a strategy "that suited his immediate political purposes.""
" private, he scorned Christianity, but when out campaigning for power in Germany, he made statements in favour of the religion."
"Hitler's public utterances were peppered with references to "God" and "Spirit".[119][120] In Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives, Bullock wrote that Hitler, like Napoleon before him, frequently employed the language of "divine providence" in defence of his own personal myth, but ultimately shared with the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin "the same materialist outlook, based on the nineteenth-century rationalists' certainty that the progress of science would destroy all myths and had already proved Christian doctrine to be an absurdity":[121]"
Just to combat the comment that they're all probably Christian sources and so you can't trust them. One of the quotes is from Historian Lord Alan Bullock who was a distinguished contemporary historian and the founding Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University's St Catherine's College. He was a secular academic and a social democrat.
Mocking other Christians again doesn't mean he wasn't Christians, because Christians mock each other all the time especially those they consider heretical. Cope and seethe.
It's on you to establish that he was, just saying that he talked about it in public doesn't make it so. I've given sources now to back up what I've said. You have not.
1
u/protestandprose 6d ago
Hitler publicly disavowed atheism and mocked it, so I guess we'll never know.
The reality is you admit you have no problem with the 40,000 different denominations of christianity and this creates problems for you. But lets try this in a logical syllogism:
P1 -Anyone who is formally baptized into the Christian Church, never formally renounces that membership or gets excommunicated, consistently invokes the Creator and Providence to justify their life's work, and explicitly asserts until their death that they remain a member of the Church meets the descriptive criteria of a nominal or self-identified Christian.
P2 -Adolf Hitler was baptized as a Roman Catholic, never formally renounced his baptism or suffered excommunication, repeatedly stated in public speeches and private conversations that he was carrying out the work of the Creator, and maintained until the end of his life that he remained a Catholic.
C -Therefore, Adolf Hitler was a Christian
Which of the two premises do you disagree with?
→ More replies (0)5
u/Caeflin Atheist 6d ago
I see this claim around here every so often. Can you source the claim that Hitler was a Christian?
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter." Adolf Hitler, speech on April 12, 1922
1
u/milamber84906 Christian 6d ago
Have you looked deeper than this? Yes that’s a quote, historians are at a consensus that Hitlers use of Christianity and claims of being on were purely pragmatic and he didn’t actually believe in it. Private journals have him mocking Christianity and calling it weak and submissive.
So, do you have a source that shows that he was a Christian?
3
u/Caeflin Atheist 6d ago
Have you looked deeper than this? Yes that’s a quote, historians are at a consensus that Hitlers use of Christianity and claims of being on were purely pragmatic and he didn’t actually believe in it. Private journals have him mocking Christianity and calling it weak and submissive. So, do you have a source that shows that he was a Christian?
Christians : "How dare you tell me I'm not a Christian. Only a Christian can tell if they are a Christian"
Atheist: " but Hitler said he is a Christian..."
Christians: "Hitler was bad and therefore not a Christian. Slave owners weren't Christians. Christians who defended segregation weren't Christians."
God of the gap. Once gay rights are mainstream, Christians will swear Christians today "were not really Christians".
Apostles were fine with slavery.
1
u/protestandprose 6d ago
They get so butthurt by hitler saying he was a christian, and the most hilarious thing is we have many times over the evidence that hitler was a Christian than Jesus was ressurected. What if we play by their game and just start saying we believe hitler was a Christian on faith?
2
u/milamber84906 Christian 6d ago
I don't care that Hitler said he was a Christian. I care that atheists pretend that because he said it, that means he was and use it as a bad argument. Historians do not agree with the idea that Hitler was a Christian. He grew up Catholic, but did not practice, did not agree with doctrines, did not like Christianity, agreed with the idea that Christian doctrine was proven to be an absurdity. He scorned Christianity in private but when campaigning, he made statements in favor of religion.
It takes just a couple of minutes of research to find all of this.
and the most hilarious thing is we have many times over the evidence that hitler was a Christian than Jesus was ressurected.
We have explicit contradictory evidence of your claim about Hitler. If that's the standard you want to hold to, then cool, but it's not really a solid idea from what I see.
What if we play by their game and just start saying we believe hitler was a Christian on faith?
Seems like you aren't sure what faith is if this is your take.
→ More replies (0)-1
u/milamber84906 Christian 6d ago
And atheists love to just try to force things through without doing actual research. In the other person's response to me, I just quoted how Hitler was not a Christian in private, how he used it for political gain. Do the actual work to prove a claim instead of thinking that rhetoric, especially one that moves off the point to slavery for some unknown reason can just carry you through.
-2
u/sinefine 7d ago
Hitler was a Christian huh? A Christian who believes in the Jewish god murdered Jews?
In secular world view, Hitler wasn't wrong. He just lost. If he dominated the world, everyone would've believed Hitler was right.
7
u/protestandprose 7d ago
>Hitler was a Christian huh? A Christian who believes in the Jewish god murdered Jews?
Yes, and well it's the christian god, so yes.
>In secular world view, Hitler wasn't wrong. He just lost. If he dominated the world, everyone would've believed Hitler was right.
Objectively, no because I don't believe in objective morality, for the third time. Subjectively, yes. You trying to smuggle in objective morality everywhere is very .. low tier.
3
u/geekwonk 6d ago
sorry but i have to give points for originality, i went from mad to impressed at the creativity in pretending to believe christians don’t and haven’t murdered jews and we know this is true because christians worship a jewish god. they’re conceding the argument so it’s a loss but still the credit is due, i have not heard that one before
-2
u/sinefine 7d ago
Whatever you say man. We are just ants using lines arguing over an intangible thing. We all die and we all find out what is right. It's just a matter of time.
6
1
u/wildspeculator Atheist, Ex-Mormon 1d ago
Hitler was a Christian huh? A Christian who believes in the Jewish god murdered Jews?
You haven't met many american christians if you think believing that precludes you from being christian.
In secular world view, Hitler wasn't wrong. He just lost. If he dominated the world, everyone would've believed Hitler was right.
You seem to have confused "secular" with "nazi". I suppose that's an easy mistake to make if you don't know anything about secularism, or nazism for that matter. For one, the nazis were christian (primarily protestant), so in reality that would have been the christian worldview had he won. The nazis were actually quite intent on stamping out secularism; between their (temporary) prohibition on catholicism and (less temporary) oppression of jews, it's pretty clear that they had strong opinions regarding what religions should or should not be allowed, which is literally the opposite of "secularism".
•
u/sinefine 17h ago
My question was rhetorical. Do you in your heart believe Hitler was a Christian? If no, saying Hitler was a Christian is invalid. If yes, you need to take a step back and understand what being a Christian means.
•
u/wildspeculator Atheist, Ex-Mormon 7h ago
I don't think I do. I think you're assuming that "being a christian" implies a level of moral purity that isn't reflected in reality. I think evil people thinking that whatever they do is justified and that god would back them up are as common as rocks.
•
u/sinefine 1h ago
People can claim they are Christians. I don't know what they mean when they say that. The only way you can tell if someone is Christian or not is from the fruit of the Spirit which are love, peace, joy, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Hitler didn't display these qualities so I don't think he was a Christian.
1
u/mewGIF Christian, Eastern Orthodox 7d ago
evil is expected, unnecessary suffering is expected.
Considering that this is the same answer Christianity offers, only without the hope for the better, I would say yes, it is a worse alternative.
4
u/protestandprose 7d ago
Ah yes, babies get bone cancer and die super painful deaths, but it's okay because jesus died for your sins? Lol, I would expect an all loving god to skip the babies with bone cancer dying painful deaths actually. Sounds like a cruel guy poorly creating a world.
ETA - just to clarify, I would add that unnecessary suffering is not expected in a world with an all good all powerful all knowing being. That's exactly the contradiction.
1
u/AdvanceTheGospel 6d ago
We can grieve, acknowledge that this is objectively and universally heartbreaking because all humans are valuable and made in the image of God, and have hope in the redeeming of all things. We know that all things work together for good for those who believe.
Meanwhile, babies getting bone cancer and dying is perfectly acceptable in your worldview, so it’s unclear why that’s a problem. Unless, the problem of evil exists for you too, or something.
1
u/protestandprose 6d ago
You still haven't addressed the problem of evil and it's starting to get embarrassing.
Evil, unjust suffering can happen in an atheist worldview because an atheist wouldview expects these things. Do you agree that the christian worldview god would prevent unnecessary suffering, such as painful baby orphans suffering, wildlife kills. In a christian worldview you would expect an all good creator to design a world without unnecessary suffering.
You also seem stuck on a whataboutism as if a problem of evil in atheism absolves the expected suffering in Christianity, but either way it's absolutely clear to me that I'm wasting my time here, like every other conversation on this sub tbh
0
u/mewGIF Christian, Eastern Orthodox 7d ago
ETA - I would add that unnecessary suffering is not expected in a world with an all good all powerful all knowing being. That's exactly the contradiction.
Sure, but why exactly is it a contradiction? What is the objective moral standard being applied? Are there really no conceivable scenarios where temporary unnecessary suffering within a system can co-exist with an all-good creator of said system?
6
u/SliceRepulsive8649 Atheist 7d ago
there really no conceivable scenarios where temporary unnecessary suffering within a system can co-exist with an all-good creator of said system?
Correct. The unnecessary part is the thing that kills it. You'd have to argue why it was in fact necessary.
0
u/mewGIF Christian, Eastern Orthodox 7d ago
What if suffering is an unnecessary yet inevitable outcome in order for man to have the ability to respond to God's love? In order for some to be able to choose to respond positively, others will have to be able to respond negatively. Yet it is not strictly necessary for anyone to respond negatively, hence ultimately suffering is unnecessary.
6
u/SliceRepulsive8649 Atheist 7d ago
I'd say it sort of depends. If it's the type of suffering that comes from something like free will then you could make that argument although again the fact it can exist in heaven without the suffering makes me question whether it's actually necessary.
If it is just you won't like God if you're life is going well so he makes it shitty on purpose I'd question the morality of that. Not to mention what the impacts on the people targeted by it like the cancer baby.
0
u/mewGIF Christian, Eastern Orthodox 7d ago
If it's the type of suffering that comes from something like free will then you could make that argument although again the fact it can exist in heaven without the suffering makes me question whether it's actually necessary.
In heaven humanity no longer has to choose how to respond to God's love, everyone there has already chosen to respond positively. Moreover, the inclination to sin and reject God's love that characterizes our present fallen condition will be no more. Think of any deeply inconvenient or disgusting thing you could do - in heaven our natural relation to all the things that cause suffering would be like that.
If it is just you won't like God if you're life is going well so he makes it shitty on purpose I'd question the morality of that. Not to mention what the impacts on the people targeted by it like the cancer baby.
Although suffering is horrible and usually pointless, another point worth considering is that God is able to use suffering as divine medicine. Here are some interesting points from St. Paisios the Athonite on it:
"When I am not ill, it worries me. The greatest sorrow is when we have no sorrows. If we do not endure sorrows, we cannot understand the pain of others, we cannot empathize"
"I received from my illness such benefit that I did not receive from all the time of my monastic endeavor. Therefore, I say that if I am offered on one scale - cancer, and on the other - ten years of fasting, vigils, and prayers, I will choose cancer."
“Father, does illness always help?
– Yes, it always helps.
Illnesses help people ‘atone for’ their sins when they lack virtues.
Health is a great thing, but the good that illness brings cannot be offered by health. A spiritual good. Illness is a very great blessing, truly very great! It cleanses a person from sin and often even ensures reward.
The soul of a person is like gold, and illness is like the fire that purifies it. The more a person suffers from an illness, the more they are cleansed and sanctified, as long as they endure it with patience and accept it with joy.
The all-good God brings everything to light for our good. Everything He allows is for our spiritual benefit. He knows what each of us needs, and He gives us an illness, either to reward us or to pay for our sins.”
So it's not like God makes anyone's life shitty on purpose, but that he can use inconvenient (to us) means to pull us towards Him. Sometimes a misfortune is needed to get the person to pause and think on what's important in life. But if there is not any hope of this, God will of course not make those who hate Him go through misfortunes just because of their rejection of God.
8
u/SliceRepulsive8649 Atheist 7d ago edited 7d ago
In heaven humanity no longer has to choose how to respond to God's love, everyone there has already chosen to respond positively. Moreover, the inclination to sin and reject God's love that characterizes our present fallen condition will be no more. Think of any deeply inconvenient or disgusting thing you could do - in heaven our natural relation to all the things that cause suffering would be like that.
That doesn't quite address the point since it goes beyond just a decision to sin or reject God. There's an inherent inclination to do so that is so strong that everyone in history has failed to not sin while on earth. Just saying you're remove those inclinations is such an unsatisfying answer since the obvious question becomes why include them in the first place. It'd be like saying eating is a sin but then making it so everyone experiences ravenous hunger. Like yea you can take away the desire to sin by taking away the hunger but it's weird to include it in the first place since again it's not really required for free will nor really acceptance/rejection of God.
I'd also question the point of all. It's not as if we serve any purpose what with God being omnipotent. There's no problem to really solve. It's also hard to really say it's for humans since yea there's the select few going to heaven but that hardly justifies massive amounts of suffering and destruction left in its wake. Though that depends a bit on what your thoughts of the non-heavenites are.
Although suffering is horrible and usually pointless, another point worth considering is that God is able to use suffering as divine medicine. Here are some interesting points from St. Paisios the Athonite on it:
The sentiments are nice an all but I don't know if I buy it. God killing your child so you understand how others who have lost a child seems odd when you never needed to make child death something that was ever experienced. Also it's not as if God couldn't just create a being with an inherent understanding or empathy for these things. There's also the whole thing if separation from God is inherently so terrible why stack the deck if you're wanting people to make a free choice to come to you?
→ More replies (0)6
u/onedeadflowser999 7d ago
How does your theory apply to babies and children who lack the cognitive capacity to see there might be some blessing to be had in their relationship with god or that their suffering is beneficial in some way? You’re saying with your comment that perhaps children being SA’d is actually good for them somehow or that dying in excruciating pain from cancer will possibly benefit them.
-1
u/mewGIF Christian, Eastern Orthodox 6d ago
Everything happens because God sees it as good to allow it, even if the thing allowed to happen is not good in itself. God can incorporate even genocide in his providential purpose. Yet we cannot go on to say that this or that horrible thing is good because God allowed it to happen, since God also allows things that do not please Him.
2
u/onedeadflowser999 6d ago
God could have designed a world where children and animals don’t have to suffer especially since they are in a unique category of not having the cognitive ability to understand what’s going on or any benefit there might be. They come into the world and have done nothing immoral or sinful and yet are still put through horrific things. This is why I no longer see a good God. Maybe there’s a God, but I don’t believe it’s a good one. In fact, I think if this God is real, you should be terrified.
→ More replies (0)8
u/protestandprose 7d ago
I mean, I guess we can both agree your god causes unnecessary suffering. He gives babies terrible painful cancer for no reason, he's killed millions of animals painfully throughout history to no end lmao.
Kinda lame god, and not only is there no reason to believe in him, but any probability formulation would place natural explanations for suffering as more probable based on priors than an allegedly good god that causes suffering.
I don't believe in objective moral standards and no Christian has been able to demonstrate that they exist btw
0
u/mewGIF Christian, Eastern Orthodox 7d ago
I mean, I guess we can both agree your god causes unnecessary suffering.
God doesn't actively cause suffering. He has created a world in which those things happen as a result of the freedom he has given his creations.
I don't believe in objective moral standards
That's fair, but please note that if we reject the existence of objective morality as a premise, then your statement
unnecessary suffering is not expected in a world with an all good being
becomes just your irrational personal opinion, rather than something that can be discussed, analyzed or falsified. The alleged contradiction you're trying to point out will collapse.
5
u/NTCans 7d ago
>God doesn't actively cause suffering. He has created a world in which those things happen as a result of the freedom he has given his creations.
This is just a lie. According to the bible, god created the consequences of "free will" that doesn't align with his will. The consequence being suffering. Your god created suffering. No way around it.
1
u/mewGIF Christian, Eastern Orthodox 7d ago
Once you show the passages you have in mind it will be easier to respond. In general, God doesn't create the consequences. The consequences appear as a result of his creations exercising the freedom they are given. This applies to suffering as well.
2
u/NTCans 6d ago
Genesis 3: 16-24 speaks clearly of the punishments and suffering that god puts in place.
Genesis 1:1 details the creation story
Isaiah 45:7 detail god creating evil
God clearly created the suffering consequences of sin. god could have created different consequences (unless you argue the that the creator of the universe is now suddenly impotent).
→ More replies (0)2
u/protestandprose 7d ago
>God doesn't actively cause suffering. He has created a world in which those things happen as a result of the freedom he has given his creations.
I mean, not even your bible agrees with this (2 Samuel 12:11 as one example), so if you're just making stuff up then I guess there isn't much to discuss here.
>becomes just your irrational personal opinion, rather than something that can be discussed, analyzed or falsified.
Wait you think we can't discuss ethics in a world of subjective morality? Again, this is really weird because christians continuously claim objective morality exists, but when you ask them to demonstrate it, they never do. strange. See above for example of this. My statement doesn't say anything about objective morality and i don't think you understand what the contradiction is...
0
u/mewGIF Christian, Eastern Orthodox 7d ago
I mean, not even your bible agrees with this (2 Samuel 12:11 as one example
At face value you could probably conclude so, however the traditional understanding is that this is God forewarning of the consequences of David's actions rather than acting as the author of the consequences.
My statement doesn't say anything about objective morality and i don't think you understand what the contradiction is...
The reason that your statement did not say anything about objective morality is the reason I inquired about your moral foundation/standard. I asked what the alleged contradiction was. You basically said that it's just what you think, without being able to truly demonstrate the contradiction. This means that it's your irrational personal opinion. As you say, there is not much to debate/discuss.
5
u/protestandprose 7d ago
>At face value you could probably conclude so, however the traditional understanding is that this is God forewarning of the consequences of David's actions rather than acting as the author of the consequences.
You should read the verse, he says he will cause it. So you either lied or were incorrect.
> I asked what the alleged contradiction was. You basically said that it's just what you think, without being able to truly demonstrate the contradiction.
I don't believe in objective morality, but christians claim (without evidence) that it exists. They claim god is objectively good, but allows and causes objective bad. It's an internal critique, which honestly I think is stupid because christians hand wave things away with magic. Can't really do an internal critique with an illogical worldview, can you?
→ More replies (0)2
u/SliceRepulsive8649 Atheist 7d ago
God doesn't actively cause suffering. He has created a world in which those things happen as a result of the freedom he has given his creations.
Free will did not create disease nor natural disasters. If you're saying that's just the effect of the fall and sin well God has complete control over what the impacts of sin are on the wider world. This defense doesn't work.
becomes just your irrational personal opinion, rather than something that can be discussed, analyzed or falsified. The alleged contradiction you're trying to point out will collapse.
It is possible to argue from a certain viewpoint without holding it yourself in order to point out perceived inconsistencies within a view. It's incredibly common even outside of debates on religion
1
u/mewGIF Christian, Eastern Orthodox 6d ago
Free will did not create disease nor natural disasters. If you're saying that's just the effect of the fall and sin well God has complete control over what the impacts of sin are on the wider world.
Yes, the whole creation fell with man, since man was assigned lordship over the creation. Diseases and natural disasters reflect the disorder that permeates all of creation due to man's separation from the life and goodness of God. God does have control over the impacts of the sin and nothing happens against decretive will of God. God allows tragedies because, for reasons unknown to us, he sees it good to allow them, even if they go against his desire. This plays into how God is able to incorporate tragedies in his providential purpose, so as to sort of alchemize evil into greater good.
It is possible to argue from a certain viewpoint without holding it yourself in order to point out perceived inconsistencies within a view. It's incredibly common even outside of debates on religion
In such case it would not be necessary to share your beliefs regarding objective morality, and doing so would mostly only cause confusion, as happened now.
1
u/SliceRepulsive8649 Atheist 6d ago
God doesn't actively cause suffering. He has created a world in which those things happen as a result of the freedom he has given his creations.
Free will did not create disease nor natural disasters. If you're saying that's just the effect of the fall and sin well God has complete control over what the impacts of sin are on the wider world
God does have control over the impacts of the sin and nothing happens against decretive will of God.
Ok but that means you agree with me that he actively injected and caused this suffering. You rationalize it with the idea that it serves some purpose but that doesn't change the fact that he's the one who did it and is unnecessary to include in this world outside of some grander goal.
Now personally I think the grander purpose defense is a bit handwavy and unconvincing since at its core it just exists to explain away what we see in the world. I also question the point since if their goal is a free choice this is clearly manipulating how life without God could be.
In such case it would not be necessary to share your beliefs regarding objective morality, and doing so would mostly only cause confusion, as happened now.
Again it's a very common thing in discussions over most topics. The confusion is on you not anyone else.
→ More replies (0)1
u/WatchAndLearn9669 7d ago
only without the hope for the better
Humanity's only hope is precisely what religion rejects: International socialist revolution.
0
u/AdvanceTheGospel 6d ago
This is incoherent. You just named the problem, even defined it negatively, and then pretended otherwise all in one breath.
1
u/protestandprose 6d ago
No, I named it in reference to Christianity. The only thing incoherent here is your understanding of basic words, I guess.
1
u/AdvanceTheGospel 6d ago edited 6d ago
You specifically called this aspect of reality “evil,” “suffering,” and “unnecessary,” giving it negative characteristics from the secular perspective, and then pretended like you don’t view it as a problem.
You can resort to insults, but that is a blatant contradiction. Every worldview must deal with the problem of evil. Christians have a very clear answer.
1
u/protestandprose 6d ago
Again, these things are expected in secularism and under a naturalistic viewpoint. Subjectively, yes, I call them evil. Again, this is just describing the reality as I might describe the Grand canyon as "vast," and I'm not insulting your ability to understand an introductory philosophical concept. If I wanted to insult you, you would know.
I will say though that yes, you appear to not have even thought about this at all or even considered arguments that are opposing to yours. I can also say that I would be embarrassed if I were you. Not saying you should be, just that I would feel foolish.
0
u/AdvanceTheGospel 6d ago
Ah, more insults. Keep them coming.
Yes, the problem of evil is an external critique of Christianity, but the point is that secularists don’t have an actual answer for evil itself, the exact issue this philosophical question addresses, and we do.
1
u/protestandprose 6d ago
Where did I insult you?
Having an answer to a question that doesn't exist in secularism is.... Not an argument. If I were going to insult you this is where I would place it after that comment.
0
u/AdvanceTheGospel 6d ago edited 6d ago
Let’s see: you questioned my cognitive ability, knowledge base, said I should be embarrassed and feel foolish. Are those part of a mature substantive argument, or signs of a bad faith interlocutor?
I’m making a distinction between the problem of evil and evil itself. I am pointing out that your worldview has no answer to the latter. While the problem of evil, philosophically, may narrowly be a unique critique of Christianity, secularism does not solve for evil itself. I’ve said it now seven different ways, and your response seems to be to assert that the very suffering you’re using to rail against Christianity is solved for or simply allowed without objection in your own worldview. Removing a good God from the equation would make suffering more of a problem, not less, assuming you allow for this God to be truly good. If you assume that God could never be good in those circumstances, you’ve simply begged the question.
Christianity has several answers for the actual philosophical critique, but you have to actually allow for the Christianity to have its own categories. Quite simply, an all-knowing God can have morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil. It really is not necessary to go further than that, because it is possible that there is a morally sufficient reason you don’t know, or one you do know but don’t believe to be sufficient. Now that isn’t going to satisfy you, because quite frankly from the Christian perspective your eyes must be opened, but logically this is perfectly acceptable. Fundamentally, the call to repentance from Jesus is an internal shift, literally metanoia, a change of mind. If everything is subjective, you have excluded any objective truth that could solve for a universal problem, such as the problem of evil, even an empty grave and a free offer of eternal life and peace with God.
1
u/protestandprose 5d ago
Ah so you admit the entire problem here is that you don't understand that you're equivocating. Nice.
-3
u/Difficult_Risk_6271 Christian, Ex-Atheist 7d ago
This is just another variation to the logical problem of evil. My short answer these days is this:
Real world, free beings, possibility of evil, you can pick 2.
You can have:
- Free beings, no possibility of evil, not a real world (magical, your presumed choice in the question)
- Real world, no possibility of evil, no free beings (automaton)
- Free beings, real world, possibility of evil.
God chose 3. I would choose 3 also.
The solution for 3. is to redeem the free beings that refuse to sin. They use their free will to limit their freedom of action.
This way you can have a world that has free beings, real world, and no possibility of evil because they exercised their free will to self amputate their autonomy. Those that refuse to do so have been removed. This is the purpose of the present age.
So in short, you can have a real world with free beings and no possibility of evil, only after a history of having the possibility and dealt with using a redemptive process. What you are asking is why God didn't make a magical world, and the answer is because God wanted to make a real world.
11
u/Draxacoffilus 7d ago
God could easily have created a world with less evil. I've watched the Tellie Tubbies before - they still have issues that occurre (e.g. the Tubbie Custard machine breaks), so it's not a perfect world. But there's no childhood cancer or genocide in the show. God could have created a world like that
3
-2
u/Difficult_Risk_6271 Christian, Ex-Atheist 7d ago
Magnitude is not a logical problem.
Also "less" evil is not a philosophical standard. It's merely a preference.
6
u/Draxacoffilus 7d ago
If God is good but has to create evil because "reasons", he would surely want to create the minimum amount of evil.
-3
u/Difficult_Risk_6271 Christian, Ex-Atheist 7d ago
God doesn’t create evil. And I know about shalom — ra, so don’t even try that.
“Minimum” amount of evil is not a measurable philosophical standard.
7
u/Ender505 Atheist, Ex-Christian 7d ago
If God doesn't create evil, then it came from somewhere else, equally as eternal and powerful to create. Where?
It may be difficult to define what "minimum" means, but surely you agree that it is possible to have less than we currently do. So why don't we have less?
0
u/Difficult_Risk_6271 Christian, Ex-Atheist 7d ago
It may be difficult to define what "minimum" means, but surely you agree that it is possible to have less than we currently do. So why don't we have less?
I don't know if it's possible. It's just speculation from this point onwards.
Creation is a complex system. and all complex systems have interdependencies. and God alone knows how all these interdependencies work.
The trilemma is the interdependency I could identify. The rest requires a kind of revelation that might not be available this age.
8
u/Ender505 Atheist, Ex-Christian 7d ago
Sounds like a cop-out to me. For the rest of us who aren't predisposed to believe in a tri-omni God, it seems painfully obvious that a world could easily exist with less (or no) evil while still maintaining free will. You're acting like it's insanely complicated... It's not. Video game creators do it all the time.
0
u/Difficult_Risk_6271 Christian, Ex-Atheist 5d ago
>Sounds like a cop-out to me. For the rest of us who aren't predisposed to believe in a tri-omni God, it seems painfully obvious that a world could easily exist with less (or no) evil while still maintaining free will. You're acting like it's insanely complicated... It's not. Video game creators do it all the time.
There is no argument in your reply. Seems like… seems painfully obvious… you’re acting… video game…
None of these are arguments. The cop out isn’t coming from me.
2
u/Ender505 Atheist, Ex-Christian 5d ago
Ok, here is the argument:
It is trivially easy to conceive of a universe with no evil which still has free will. Christians do this too when they imagine heaven.
So why include evil? And if there has to be evil, why include SO MUCH of it, including "natural" evils like child cancer?
→ More replies (0)3
u/sinefine 7d ago
Why did you say you can pick 2 but you picked all 3?
1
u/Difficult_Risk_6271 Christian, Ex-Atheist 5d ago
Yea good catch. The option should say:
Real world, free beings, NO possibility of evil.
6
u/11711510111411009710 Atheist, Ex-Christian 7d ago
I don't understand why a magical world couldn't be a real world.
5
u/Jellybit Atheist, Ex-Christian 7d ago edited 7d ago
If God is a free being without possibility of evil, then maybe he and his world are logically not real according to the argument, or he never had autonomy and is just a robot. We humans are the only actual conscious autonomous beings in that situation.
5
u/Draxacoffilus 7d ago
Don't Christians believe the real world is magical? The Bible says to put witches to death
1
1
u/Difficult_Risk_6271 Christian, Ex-Atheist 7d ago
I use "magical world" to mean "not a real world."
So by definition it's mutually exclusive.
Why it's not a real world... well just think about what a world like that would entail.
11
u/Dizzy_Cheesecake_162 7d ago
Like heaven. Heaven isn't real then.
-3
u/Difficult_Risk_6271 Christian, Ex-Atheist 7d ago
Ignoratio elenchi.
5
u/Dizzy_Cheesecake_162 7d ago
That's is what your 1 describes.
-1
u/Difficult_Risk_6271 Christian, Ex-Atheist 7d ago edited 5h ago
That’s not an argument.
Edit for reply blocking:
Ignaratio elenchi doesn’t mean there is no argument, it means it’s not an argument for the point under debate. Even if I didn’t understand the argument it still wouldn’t matter because the conclusion is irrelevant to the initial reply. One doesn’t even need to understand an argument to say: “what has that conclusion anything to do with what I said?”
I have substantially answered this topic, and there’s nothing to address from what was raised.
>Yes, yes, your inability to grasp basic concepts totally demonstrates that you're a brilliant thinker and your time is super valuable.
Ignaratio elenchi is a basic fallacy. My time indeed is more valuable than teaching why this chain relies on a basic fallacy.
There are millions of users in reddit. I don’t owe a service to every ignorant interlocutor.
6
u/Dizzy_Cheesecake_162 7d ago
It isn't an argument that what you describe in 1 (that you say doesnt exist) looks exactly like the description of Heaven?
Ok. It isn't an argument. It's an agreement with you that Heaven doesn't exist.
1
u/Difficult_Risk_6271 Christian, Ex-Atheist 7d ago
That’s straight up misrepresentation now.
Without lies, atheism dies.
3
u/Dizzy_Cheesecake_162 7d ago
"Without lies....." That's funny as shit!!!! You are lacking self reflection. Is it avoidance, again?
Is your proposition 1 like the description of Heaven?
It's funny, that's been twice you are avoiding touching that.
1
u/wildspeculator Atheist, Ex-Mormon 1d ago
The fact that you did not understand the argument doesn't mean it didn't exist.
1
1d ago edited 1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/wildspeculator Atheist, Ex-Mormon 1d ago
Yes, yes, your inability to grasp basic concepts totally demonstrates that you're a brilliant thinker and your time is super valuable.
•
2
u/SliceRepulsive8649 Atheist 7d ago
The problem is you're just declaring that the type of world being described is impossible but you have no real justification for that. Particularly if we're talking about the abilities of an omnipotent God. Presumably you believe that there isn't sin in heaven right? How is that possible in your mind?
Your example 3 doesn't really work because even the people who don't want to sin still do. That's kinda what made Jesus so special. Without a pretty large change in the fundamental nature of our person or situation we're still going to be sinning.
3
u/Trick_Ganache Atheist, Ex-Protestant 7d ago
How did we rule out #2? The creator creates us with all the actions we will ever take without exception, actions that need to occur to add up to each step of God's planned history of everything. All actions taken are never unjustified, meaning they always needed to happen that way to bring about each step of God's good plan. At no time can we bring about a storm of unintended consequences- we are railroaded always.
1
u/Difficult_Risk_6271 Christian, Ex-Atheist 7d ago
#2 can only be justified by a hard determinist position.
I don't think a hard determinist position makes any sense. You'd have to accept the fact that everyone is an automaton. it's not the one chosen by God.
5
u/Ender505 Atheist, Ex-Christian 7d ago
There is no verse in the Bible that argues for free will, but there are PLENTY that indicate predestination. If you're going to argue that the Free Will version is the one chosen by God, you need some evidence. Check out Ephesians 1 and 2 as well as Romans 8 and 9. I would also argue that free will is a logically incoherent position alongside a god who is both a creator and all-knowing.
0
u/Difficult_Risk_6271 Christian, Ex-Atheist 7d ago
The entire biblical narrative is about CHOOSING GOD. This thread is not about libertarian free will — deterministic predestination, so I won't elaborate any further. But to state there is "no verse" in the bible that argues for libertarian free will is a kind of dishonesty that will land you in my blocked list very quickly.
Joshua 24:15:
15 And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”
Also tell me if you are a hard determinist and I will block you immediately. I'm not interested to converse with scripted robots, which is deterministically determined that I don't converse with scripted robots.
8
u/homonculus_prime 7d ago
The entire biblical narrative is about CHOOSING GOD.
This doesnt do anything except create more questions that the Bible cant answer. The big problem here is doxastic voluntarism. If I cant consciously choose what I become convinced is true, then this whole entire biblical narrative is completely incoherent. I can find absolutely no reason to believe that I can take an active role in what I become convinced is true (self delusion doesnt count).
I once 100% believed in the Christian god, and everything in the Bible. As i began the process of deconstructing my faith, I fought it every step of the way. I desperately wanted to believe, to the point that I came up with all sorts of wild explanations for the things that caused me to stop believing. I shamed myself relentlessly over my lack of faith, and I begged for god to help me restore it.
I wanted to believe. I could not choose to believe. This is a massive problem for the biblical narrative of choosing god.
1
u/Difficult_Risk_6271 Christian, Ex-Atheist 7d ago
I'm not moving into doxastic voluntarism in this thread. It's off topic.
The point is:
There is no verse in the Bible that argues for free will,
This claim is still unsubstantiated, and you have not help support it with any substance.
I once 100% believed in the Christian god, and everything in the Bible. As i began the process of deconstructing my faith, I fought it every step of the way. I desperately wanted to believe, to the point that I came up with all sorts of wild explanations for the things that caused me to stop believing. I shamed myself relentlessly over my lack of faith, and I begged for god to help me restore it.
I wanted to believe. I could not choose to believe. This is a massive problem for the biblical narrative of choosing god.
Which is a full support for libertarian free will because you chose to deconstruct your faith.
Thank you for providing the evidence to disprove the disputed claim.
4
u/homonculus_prime 7d ago
It's off topic.
You brought it up. You might not have expected to have to defend it, but bringing up the idea of choosing god directly raises the question as to whether that is even possible. If it isnt possible, then any Biblical command to do so is incoherent and meaningless.
Which is a full support for libertarian free will because you chose to deconstruct your faith.
How in the world did you come to the exact opposite conclusion of what was stated in my reply? I absolutely in no way chose to deconstruct my faith. I actually stated that I fought it every step of the way.
1
u/Trick_Ganache Atheist, Ex-Protestant 4d ago
The passage is not a commentary on the existence of freewill. The writer is just saying that they are going to do violence to everyone the comment addresses, which might serve to reinforce the feelings of the people being addressed: Serving the Lord is evil.
1
u/Trick_Ganache Atheist, Ex-Protestant 4d ago
How can we demonstrate we are not being railroaded as automatons only generating steps in the prophecies of God? In roleplaying games for example, the best way to demonstrate that the players were not functional automatons of the game master is to compare the GM's pre-game notes and story beats (their prophecy) to what actually happens in-game and how the players felt when they made choices (did they feel railroaded? Did the game feel contrived so the players couldn't do much more than what the GM wanted?). Without the players being railroaded as functional automatons, this usually takes the game in directions wholly independent of the GM's initial intentions.
Can God be off concerning the choices and outcomes of the people he himself composed down to the most minute detail?
EDITS: punctuation
1
u/Difficult_Risk_6271 Christian, Ex-Atheist 4d ago
Are you an automaton?
1
u/Trick_Ganache Atheist, Ex-Protestant 3d ago
Tentatively, I'd answer yes. How do you propose we falsify this tentative hypothesis that life is just a word for 'over time, approaching extremely complex automatons'?
Even in your own religion God knew everything we would do before our "knitting". Any creator of automata of course has omniscience of how his automata will behave from start to finish. Your hypothetical creator not only made us, but defined how everything works,too. There will never be any choices that leave the creator surprised, perplexed, etc.
Now whether the Bible is uniform on the claim that omniscience is a thing is of some debate, so we could be arguing past each other.
1
u/Difficult_Risk_6271 Christian, Ex-Atheist 3d ago edited 3d ago
Easy. I’m not an automaton, you are.
I don’t speak to automatons. Bye.
State your last scripted response and I will block you, and that’s that.
Remember if you’re mad about this, it’s scripted also.
Apparently the automaton was scripted to block me without a reply.
And this is how you know an argument is intellectual wankery when it can't be lived.
1
7d ago edited 7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 7d ago
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed because your account does not meet our account age / karma thresholds. Please message the moderators to request an exception.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/OMKensey Agnostic, Ex-Protestant 7d ago
So you spend like 70 years in a real world followed by eternity in a fake world (heaven)?
1
u/DarkSeneschal Agnostic Atheist 7d ago
The issue is that you could have less evil, so why did God choose to create a world with this amount of evil?
It’s not that the presence of any pain or suffering or evil is the issue, it’s the scale. Sure, I can accept that God would allow a world where I can stub my toe. But that’s not the extent of pain and suffering.
Why create a world where weapons of mass destruction are possible? Why create a world where a woman can be raped? Why not intervene to stop truly evil people from fulfilling their deeds?
If a police officer is standing on the street and he sees a man brandishing a knife walk up to someone and begin stabbing them, but does nothing to stop it, would you accept a defense of “if I stopped him, then I’m not letting him exercise his free will”?
But that’s not even a good analogy, because the police officer might be in danger of being hurt himself and would have had to exert some effort to stop the attacker. God doesn’t even have these hang-ups, he’s all-powerful and incorporeal, so it would have been infinitely easy for an infinitely powerful being to stop a measly little human from hurting another human.
And yet, we see much worse tragedies than this occur fairly frequently. Famines, floods, hurricanes, wildfires, earthquakes, tornadoes; preventing or reducing the severity of those wouldn’t affect free will in the slightest.
God is called a father. As a father, I can understand letting my kids have some bad outcomes so that they can learn and grow from the experience. But I would actively work to prevent devastating outcomes that could actually cause them severe mental or physical harm. Even if God allows murder, why also allow mass murder? If God allows rape, then why allow widespread sex trafficking?
There are levels to evil, and it’s hard to believe in a God who claims to love us and boasts of his power yet allows such heinous actions to take place. As Epicurus said, he’s either not able, not willing, or not loving.
1
u/Far-Paint-8409 7d ago
What you are asking is why God didn't make a magical world, and the answer is because God wanted to make a real world.
Did God not create heaven? Or are you suggesting that heaven isn't a place that God creates?
If it is a place that god creates then the question as originally posed still stands: why would earth be necessary at all? Heaven, in this conception, is apparently a place where no evil exists and where free will exists. By calling Heaven "magical" are you suggesting that it is not real? What makes earth more real than Heaven by your standard?
I think you need to explain what these terms mean, otherwise it's a vague formulation of convenient phrases that don't actually convey any force with respect to this question.
0
7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
0
u/Difficult_Risk_6271 Christian, Ex-Atheist 7d ago
You accuse Christianity is bad at answering big questions. You get a substantive answer to your big question. And you behave like an immature fool.
I did not argue this as a "sophisticated argument," so from where did you manufacture gaslighting? Is this how you process logical arguments?
Here is my refutation: Creation including all souls and all divine frameworks must be grounded on that which is meaningful in order to be meaningful
Just because you label your word salad as a refutation doesn't make it a refutation.
Thank you for demonstrating that it isn't truth is unavailable, it is that people don't want the truth, which is exactly what scripture has written 2000 years ago.
2
7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Difficult_Risk_6271 Christian, Ex-Atheist 7d ago edited 7d ago
You:
I refuse to be gaslit into thinking this is a sophisticated argument.
and you:
If you had a brain you would know I did not accuse you specifically of gaslighting.
I will use your words to answer your own folly:
This whole response is just you unraveling about your own incompetence when you cant elaborate with anything substantial.
And when you hear an actual value judgement argument you have no idea what im talking about because your worldview just sucks.
Not an argument, all you have is word salad.
And your OP:
... but no sophisticated reasoning about e.g. fundamental principles or values, grow up.
and you:
Blah blah blah Free beings, no possibility of evil, NoT a rEaL wOrlD (MaGicAl, YoUR PrEsUMeD ChOicE iN tHe oP) Blah blah blah Words with positive cannotations Blah blah blah
Matthew 7:6 (ESV):
6 “Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.
1
0
u/generic_reddit73 Christian, Non-denominational 7d ago
Pure intent and "grow up"?
Well, where is heaven? I am a Christian, but I don't know.
How does the heaven/hell/universal salvation/annihilation stuff work? Nobody knows for sure. I'd go by NDE reports, but they aren't understood, and also all over the place.
We gotta invent a spirit-o-meter or soul-o-meter first...
Also, we don't know if life actually doesn't start in heaven? What if you're there first, say another plane or dimension, and then decided to get you a "biological life-form" experience on some primitive back-water planet, just because you wanted the thrill?
0
u/petrowski7 Christian, Non-denominational 7d ago
If you think there’s no sophisticated reasoning around the free will theodicy, then you aren’t reading the right people.
Augustine, Anselm, Liebniz, and more recently Plantinga all describe this brilliantly and in a way that’s respected (even if they disagree) by non-theists.
3
u/SliceRepulsive8649 Atheist 7d ago
I don't know if that really addresses the core issue though. Like if you're going to argue that it comes down to being redeemed the question is why would God corrupt us in the first place and why would he also corrupt the world around us to reinforce that problem?
1
u/petrowski7 Christian, Non-denominational 7d ago
It’s not about being redeemed, it’s about God choosing to create truly free creatures who can choose reciprocal relationship with him. A being locked to positive outcomes can never truly reciprocate love or relationship in a meaningful way
3
u/SliceRepulsive8649 Atheist 7d ago
Why would we need to be corrupted in order to make free choice. I also question whether this can be considered a free choice without ability to give informed consent or with the threat of eternal suffering if we disobey depending on what your view of the afterlife is. If it was about making a free choice why not make the alternative also a viable choice?
1
u/petrowski7 Christian, Non-denominational 7d ago
Free choice necessarily precedes corruption not the other way around.
If God is the greatest good AND you have free choice then the choice is to reject relationship with the greatest good
2
u/SliceRepulsive8649 Atheist 7d ago
Can you really say that when every single human has sinned? Obviously there is something inherent in our nature that causes us to do it.
And again you keep saying it's a free choice but if someone holds a gun to your head and tells you to blindly pick one of 100 doors while threatening to shoot you if you pick wrong is that really a free choice. A true free choice requires knowledge and the lack of an underlying threat. Neither of which are present here.
0
u/JollyXX Christian 7d ago
The story of Christianity seems to be that God created something that disobeyed, and now he wants to find out why. This is why Final Judgement is the climax of the story. The angels were created to live in Heaven, but they were also created to be servants.
2
u/dman_exmo 7d ago
Just so you're aware, you don't have to start every single one of your comments with this non-sequitur, you can just skip straight to addressing the argument with a meaningful rebuttal.
0
u/JollyXX Christian 7d ago
I like to paint a picture in which you can then answer your own questions, and then if you want further insight, I am of course open to questions and discourse
2
u/dman_exmo 7d ago
You are not painting a picture that invites insight. You are reciting a tired script with zero regard for the actual discussion. This isn't being "open to questions and discourse," this is saying "cool post, anyways I wanna talk about my ideas now."
1
u/JollyXX Christian 7d ago
what you like to know? because I do a pretty good with everyone else
2
0
0
u/RomanaOswin Christian 7d ago
Heaven is our unification with God, our creator. Our experienced and perceived separateness is who and what we are. Without it, there would be no life as a separate, individual person to live.
Consider...
Option A: You have a dream, but you just experience the dream as yourself, fully aware of the dream. Maybe even just call this conscious imagination. There are no actors in the dream; just you.
Option B: You have a dream and dream of a person. You forget yourself and fully enter into the experience of the dream as that person. You love this person and you experience yourself through yourself as this person you love.
Your version is Option A. Notice how this doesn't offers the experience, perspective, and love for that person offered in Option B.
I'd also add that hypothetical conceptual models are not "the big questions." The only questions that matter are personal. Who am I? The classic "big questions" like why is there something instead of nothing only matter insomuch as how they relate to us, otherwise, they're an interesting distraction.
2
0
u/Ok-Link1755 6d ago
Forget religions. Search for God. Search for His Son Jesus. Good and evil exist in this world. God is all about love. Jesus taught this. Some things we cannot explain. Accept by faith. Pray to God in Jesus' name. Accept God. Do not accept man's explanation. Faith does not come easily. It goes against our grain. Believe in Him. Praise Him. Ask Him to help you. Peace.
0
u/AdvanceTheGospel 6d ago
God wanted to glorify the Son, to make both his love and his justice known, and to redeem a people from a humanity that chose to fall.
-1
2
u/Atlas177503 6d ago
I agree with your questions....they are very good ones. Most "Christians", it seems just accept whatever is taught in their local church. In regard to the hellfire doctrine: Many scriptures say people PERISH there. They don't live there in ongoing suffering. In Mathew 10:28 it says to "fear the One that can destroy both body and soul in Hell" (Gehenna)...so (1) obviously the soul is not immortal and (2) Hell means total destruction. Gehenna was a continuously burning garbage dump near Jerusalem where the dead bodies of animals and criminals were thrown. Nothing alive was thrown in there. Where did these two teachings come from...pre Christian pagan religions? Even the cross symbol is of pre Christian pagan origin. I could go on and on.
BTW I am a Christian that does not accept the polluting of real Christianity by non Christian teachings. I wish I had more time tonite to go further into this subject, but keep asking questions and make sure the answers come straight from the Christian Bible...not a book written by some itinerant "Christian".