Ehhhhhhh. You’re conflating this existence with all of eternity. Those are very different things.
Consider God as a parent. I used the example in an earlier response but my friend took her child to be vaccinated. For a baby, that’s a very unpleasant day. In a week, she won’t remember it.
Similarly, an all powerful, good God can be okay with someone suffering for a momentary blip because the end result is an eternity of paradise. (What is a lifetime of suffering against infinite years of happiness?)
“But wait!” you cry, “surely an all powerful God can skip the ANY suffering bit, right? He’s just choosing not to because he’s a prick!” Which misses the possibility of self imposed constraints on power. If I build a system and choose to work within that system, that’s still me being all powerful. And if, as an all knowing being, I know that a half moment of unpleasantness means an eternity of bliss (so I can reward free will, instead of just creating a bunch of automatons), that’s a tradeoff a good and all powerful God may make.
You’re conflating this existence with all of eternity. Those are very different things.
Those are very different things, but I don’t see how or where they were conflated. Nor how conflating them would even be problematic in this context: they’d both be within god’s full scope of control, right?
Similarly, an all powerful, good God can be okay with someone suffering
So, not ‘all good’.
self imposed constraints on power. If I build a system and choose to work within that system, that’s still me being all powerful.
And if that system you just built includes evil, again we’re in not ‘all good’ territory.
I know that a half moment of unpleasantness means an eternity of bliss
According to self imposed rules that include evil
that’s a tradeoff a good and all powerful God may make.
A tradeoff? Why would god need to trade? If he wants something, he just makes it so – unless he isn’t all powerful. Or unless we’re still in the self-imposed-rules that allow for evil, which again is claiming that god is evil.
(so I can reward free will, instead of just creating a bunch of automatons)
Yeah free will usually comes up in these conversations, but right out the gate that’s an attack on god’s power: does he not have the ability to grant free will without also allowing evil? And even if he can’t, and ignoring that that claim is that he isn’t all powerful: why is the ability to commit evil always a criteria for free will? We can’t fly, shoot lasers out of our eyes, or fart out unicorns either, so with or without the ability to commit evil our freedom is still not absolute - does that make us a bunch of automatons?
Or rather, if the ability to commit evil was taken away from us, would we lose our free will? Let’s look at your freedom of choice within the context of dinner. Half a second’s thought, and I’ve got dozens of restaurant options, or grocery stores that allow me to cook up something that might fall outside of what the restaurants here offer: the number of options, while technically finite, are so mind-bogglingly huge that it might as well be infinite: so I’m gonna say my freedom of choice here is almost literally absolute.
One of those dinner options is to kidnap my neighbor’s 4-year old, throw him in the oven, and cannibalize him. Why? Cuz god lets me, right? Sure it’s illegal, but we don’t care about legal authority, we care about god’s. So if god snapped his fingers and changed our reality so that I’m no longer even capable of considering that, let alone committing it, evil is officially off the menu… but the billions of other possible combinations are still open, so I’d argue that my freedom of choice didn’t actually change all that much. Does that make me an automaton?
…and what about the things that I already don’t have the freedom to eat? Most of our reality isn’t edible. And even if it was, I can only fit a few handfuls of it into my belly at a time - I can’t have the moon for dinner, it won’t fit. …does that make me an automaton?
Point is our free will already exists within a system that has limits. Evil is one of many, many, many parts of that system, so even ignoring Epicurean Paradox, why is evil always a focal point of free will?
Those are very different things, but I don’t see how or where they were conflated.
Because a moment’s or even human lifetime’s suffering is effectively nothing when compared to eternity. Show me someone who wouldn’t trade a hundred years of suffering for an eternity of bliss and I’ll show you a silly goof.
So, just like my friend’s kiddo getting jabbed, yeah, sucks in the moment but no reasonable person would really call it horrific suffering given that, while unpleasant, it lasted under a day compared to her (hopefully) ~ 35,600 days on Earth. Saying because suffering exists on a human time scale when you’re talking about infinity is similarly silly.
You keep coming back to this “why can’t God make free will without evil? If he can’t, he’s not all powerful!”
But it’s a basic definition problem. You’re effectively asking God to make 1 = 1 AND 1 = 2, which fine, could do but it eliminates the entire usefulness of 1 as a number.
Similarly, if the idea of free will is to find and reward good people and punish those who squander free will (by being jerks) free will probably necessitates the capacity for evil. (Otherwise, just stick with angels. Haven’t read the bible thoroughly but I’m pretty sure that’s basically the point of angels, perfect beings incapable of doing evil except for the one God made rebellious etc.)
So if there will be no suffering and no evil in the eternity, why can’t it be like that already? If one is incapable of doing evil in heaven does he have free will? If your answer is that he will not be willing to do that, why? Because here on earth one can be good and die and one can be good and turn evil in the end, what makes heaven different and why it wouldn’t be possible right here right now?
This weighing of temporary suffering against eternal bliss is just another example of what a lousy game God is playing. He could have come up with something else - but he didn’t. That makes him, in any case, a huge masochistic asshole.
And even if all of that were actually true, the question arises as to why anyone would ever regard such a being as the measure of all things, let alone worship it.
Ehhhhhhh. You’re conflating this existence with all of eternity. Those are very different things.
Consider God as a parent. I used the example in an earlier response but my friend took her child to be vaccinated. For a baby, that’s a very unpleasant day. In a week, she won’t remember it.
Similarly, an all powerful, good God can be okay with someone suffering for a momentary blip because the end result is an eternity of paradise. (What is a lifetime of suffering against infinite years of happiness?)
“But wait!” you cry, “surely an all powerful God can skip the ANY suffering bit, right? He’s just choosing not to because he’s a prick!” Which misses the possibility of self imposed constraints on power. If I build a system and choose to work within that system, that’s still me being all powerful. And if, as an all knowing being, I know that a half moment of unpleasantness means an eternity of bliss (so I can reward free will, instead of just creating a bunch of automatons), that’s a tradeoff a good and all powerful God may make.
Those are very different things, but I don’t see how or where they were conflated. Nor how conflating them would even be problematic in this context: they’d both be within god’s full scope of control, right?
So, not ‘all good’.
And if that system you just built includes evil, again we’re in not ‘all good’ territory.
According to self imposed rules that include evil
A tradeoff? Why would god need to trade? If he wants something, he just makes it so – unless he isn’t all powerful. Or unless we’re still in the self-imposed-rules that allow for evil, which again is claiming that god is evil.
Yeah free will usually comes up in these conversations, but right out the gate that’s an attack on god’s power: does he not have the ability to grant free will without also allowing evil? And even if he can’t, and ignoring that that claim is that he isn’t all powerful: why is the ability to commit evil always a criteria for free will? We can’t fly, shoot lasers out of our eyes, or fart out unicorns either, so with or without the ability to commit evil our freedom is still not absolute - does that make us a bunch of automatons?
Or rather, if the ability to commit evil was taken away from us, would we lose our free will? Let’s look at your freedom of choice within the context of dinner. Half a second’s thought, and I’ve got dozens of restaurant options, or grocery stores that allow me to cook up something that might fall outside of what the restaurants here offer: the number of options, while technically finite, are so mind-bogglingly huge that it might as well be infinite: so I’m gonna say my freedom of choice here is almost literally absolute.
One of those dinner options is to kidnap my neighbor’s 4-year old, throw him in the oven, and cannibalize him. Why? Cuz god lets me, right? Sure it’s illegal, but we don’t care about legal authority, we care about god’s. So if god snapped his fingers and changed our reality so that I’m no longer even capable of considering that, let alone committing it, evil is officially off the menu… but the billions of other possible combinations are still open, so I’d argue that my freedom of choice didn’t actually change all that much. Does that make me an automaton?
…and what about the things that I already don’t have the freedom to eat? Most of our reality isn’t edible. And even if it was, I can only fit a few handfuls of it into my belly at a time - I can’t have the moon for dinner, it won’t fit. …does that make me an automaton?
Point is our free will already exists within a system that has limits. Evil is one of many, many, many parts of that system, so even ignoring Epicurean Paradox, why is evil always a focal point of free will?
Because a moment’s or even human lifetime’s suffering is effectively nothing when compared to eternity. Show me someone who wouldn’t trade a hundred years of suffering for an eternity of bliss and I’ll show you a silly goof.
So, just like my friend’s kiddo getting jabbed, yeah, sucks in the moment but no reasonable person would really call it horrific suffering given that, while unpleasant, it lasted under a day compared to her (hopefully) ~ 35,600 days on Earth. Saying because suffering exists on a human time scale when you’re talking about infinity is similarly silly.
You keep coming back to this “why can’t God make free will without evil? If he can’t, he’s not all powerful!”
But it’s a basic definition problem. You’re effectively asking God to make 1 = 1 AND 1 = 2, which fine, could do but it eliminates the entire usefulness of 1 as a number.
Similarly, if the idea of free will is to find and reward good people and punish those who squander free will (by being jerks) free will probably necessitates the capacity for evil. (Otherwise, just stick with angels. Haven’t read the bible thoroughly but I’m pretty sure that’s basically the point of angels, perfect beings incapable of doing evil except for the one God made rebellious etc.)
So if there will be no suffering and no evil in the eternity, why can’t it be like that already? If one is incapable of doing evil in heaven does he have free will? If your answer is that he will not be willing to do that, why? Because here on earth one can be good and die and one can be good and turn evil in the end, what makes heaven different and why it wouldn’t be possible right here right now?
This weighing of temporary suffering against eternal bliss is just another example of what a lousy game God is playing. He could have come up with something else - but he didn’t. That makes him, in any case, a huge masochistic asshole.
And even if all of that were actually true, the question arises as to why anyone would ever regard such a being as the measure of all things, let alone worship it.