Answer to the Problem of Evil

[bruto]

But how did they know it was wrong/evil to do so? Until they ate the fruit they knew nothing about evil. Poor, trusting Eve was set up by Satan and YHWH Himself.

Depends on whether you equate wrong with evil. They knew it was wrong, in the sense that God told them not to do it, and we presume (lacking detail) that they knew God was God, and therefore the boss. But they still might not have known just what "evil" means, just as one might presume that a little child knows it's wrong to disobey, but has no concept of good and evil as concepts.

It still looks like a setup - don't eat that cookie or else....or else what?...I can't tell you that....but not an actual contradiction.

I think the problem in much of this is that one can argue the finer points of what constitutes free will in and out of captivity, but if you have a god looking over your shoulder, occasionally and unpredictably altering the physical universe, the minds of people, their fates in life, (or in the case of Catholics, right there in the room every week, incorporating and discorporating Jesus) you have a god who is continually reminding us that he is the boss, in charge, and free to do anything anytime to anybody for any reason. I'm reminded of the line in the Bob Dylan song, "You can do what you want Abe, but...the next time you see me you better run."

 

[GDon]

But how did they know it was wrong/evil to do so? Until they ate the fruit they knew nothing about evil. Poor, trusting Eve was set up by Satan and YHWH Himself.

Why do you think the original authors framed the story that way, then? Did they not recognise the obvious implications, in your view? (Ignorant goat-herders, and all that?)

 

[Foster Zygote]

But how did they know it was wrong/evil to do so? Until they ate the fruit they knew nothing about evil. Poor, trusting Eve was set up by Satan and YHWH Himself.

God likes to leave bricks under hats.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Why do you think the original authors framed the story that way, then? Did they not recognise the obvious implications, in your view? (Ignorant goat-herders, and all that?)

It is just a story.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Depends on whether you equate wrong with evil. They knew it was wrong, in the sense that God told them not to do it, and we presume (lacking detail) that they knew God was God, and therefore the boss. But they still might not have known just what "evil" means, just as one might presume that a little child knows it's wrong to disobey, but has no concept of good and evil as concepts.

It still looks like a setup - don't eat that cookie or else....or else what?...I can't tell you that....but not an actual contradiction.

I think the problem in much of this is that one can argue the finer points of what constitutes free will in and out of captivity, but if you have a god looking over your shoulder, occasionally and unpredictably altering the physical universe, the minds of people, their fates in life, (or in the case of Catholics, right there in the room every week, incorporating and discorporating Jesus) you have a god who is continually reminding us that he is the boss, in charge, and free to do anything anytime to anybody for any reason. I'm reminded of the line in the Bob Dylan song, "You can do what you want Abe, but...the next time you see me you better run."

An I'm reminded of Bob's I dreamed I saw St. Augustine because I never understood it either.

 

[psionl0]

But how did they know it was wrong/evil to do so? Until they ate the fruit they knew nothing about evil. Poor, trusting Eve was set up by Satan and YHWH Himself.

What does any of this have to do with free will?

The only relevant question is "did they make that choice themselves or did somebody program them to make that choice"?

 

[ynot]

What does any of this have to do with free will?

The only relevant question is "did they make that choice themselves or did somebody program them to make that choice"?

The only relevant question is "Could they make a free will informed choice to do wrong when they weren't informed of what doing wrong even is?". In case you missed it, the obvious and inarguable answer is "No they couldn't".

Might as well punish babies for crapping in their nappies/diapers.

 

[Scorpion]

I've told you pages and pages. Only those who have evidence against them, only those who face their own evil will go to hell.

https://www.answering-christianity.com/blog/index.php?topic=3845.msg18321

Those who die as babies or those who are created directly in paradise do not go to hell. Guilt needs proof, but innocence does not need proof.

God knows what you would do if you were tested in this world for eternity on endless options. If you are one of the total bad guys, he gives you a long enough life in this world to gather evidence against you. So he says, "This is what you are," and then you have no appeal in the afterlife. I have explained this extensively, giving pages and pages of verses. I am not going to explain it again here. Read and learn.

Peace

In other words you cannot quote any verses in the Quran about what happens to babies when they die, because there are no such verses.

As for who goes to hell the Quran says , over and over again that Unbelievers in Muhammad and the day of judgement go to hell.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

What does any of this have to do with free will?

The only relevant question is "did they make that choice themselves or did somebody program them to make that choice"?

It is not free will if you do not have all information about the effects of your action.

 

[psionl0]

It is not free will if you do not have all information about the effects of your action.

Free will doesn't mean freedom of choice. Either you make your own choices (good or bad) or somebody makes them for you. In the latter case, deception is irrelevant because you aren't making a choice.

 

[psionl0]

The only relevant question is "Could they make a free will informed choice to do wrong when they weren't informed of what doing wrong even is?". In case you missed it, the obvious and inarguable answer is "No they couldn't".

Might as well punish babies for crapping in their nappies/diapers.

You changed the subject again. You even equated free will with involuntary actions.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

If your creator can (and does) take charge whenever they feel like it, it's not "free will." It's like turning "autoplay" on in a "Sims" game and letting your creations run amok until you take control again.

An omniscient creator creating something he KNOWS WILL let him down, and then punishing it for doing so, is like getting mad at a dog for eating chocolate and getting sick. The dog doesn't understand why it's being punished, and you've accomplished exactly squat.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

You changed the subject again. You even equated free will with involuntary actions.

I love how we're required to examine every aspect of believers' gods separately, as though there is no context or history behind their "arguments." The contradictions amass too quickly when you hold them up side by side.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

psionl0, do you consider this scenario to be a case of use of free will?

You go voting an vote for Party A.
Unbeknownst to you, the voting machine has been rigged to give Party A the vote no matter who you vote for.

Did you have the Free Choice to vote for Party A or not?

 

[psionl0]

If your creator can (and does) take charge whenever they feel like it, it's not "free will."

If some of your choices (no matter how few) might not be made of your own free will then there is absolutely no free will whatsoever is a false dichotomy.

 

[psionl0]

I love how we're required to examine every aspect of believers' gods separately, as though there is no context or history behind their "arguments." The contradictions amass too quickly when you hold them up side by side.

I am only arguing about free will. It is other people who keep trying to change the subject.

This is not about unfairness, coercion, deception, Hobson's choices etc. It is only about whether the choices you made were pre-programmed or not.

 

[psionl0]

psionl0, do you consider this scenario to be a case of use of free will?

You go voting an vote for Party A.
Unbeknownst to you, the voting machine has been rigged to give Party A the vote no matter who you vote for.

Did you have the Free Choice to vote for Party A or not?

Did somebody force you to press button A or did you choose to press the button yourself?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Did somebody force you to press button A or did you choose to press the button yourself?

that seems to be an odd question in the context, and not relevant, IMO.
but let's assume that it you wanted to go vote and chose Party A, and no one forced you to go vote or press button A (because they knew it didn't matter).

Would you consider that a case of application of Free Will?

 

[psionl0]

that seems to be an odd question in the context, and not relevant, IMO.
but let's assume that it you wanted to go vote and chose Party A, and no one forced you to go vote or press button A (because they knew it didn't matter).

Would you consider that a case of application of Free Will?

What is not relevant is that the machine was rigged. What is not relevant is that you were deceived about the effect of each button on the machine.

The only relevant aspect was that you had a number of buttons to press and you chose which one to press. Since nobody chose the button for you, that is definitely an application of free will.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

What is not relevant is that the machine was rigged. What is not relevant is that you were deceived about the effect of each button on the machine.

The only relevant aspect was that you had a number of buttons to press and you chose which one to press. Since nobody chose the button for you, that is definitely an application of free will.

I strongly disagree. I see the definition of Free Will as the ability to have done differently, given the same circumstances.

But I acknowledge that your POV is different which leads you to a different conclusion.

Thanks for answering the question!