The Problem of Suffering

Pro says: "To begin I think that it is problematic to argue with free will, because we do not actually have any evidence from any science that such a thing as free will, especially libertarian free will, can exist or for that matter does. Therefore I would directly doubt your argument on the basis that if we boil down in our study of the way we think and seem to make decisions it does not support the prediction that your argument makes, namely that there is free will. " In response, I think that libertarian free will is highly defensible, as to me it seems to be the way that my will actually works. Now Pro and some others may not agree, but libertarian free will only needs to be possible in order for the free will defense to work because the free will defense is just a 'defense'. I am not claiming to be able to prove that people have free will, only that it is possible that they do and therefore the free will defense remains a legitimate option. Pro says: "Then I think it is also problematic to square an omniscient god, who knows everything with the thought of free will. If god knows all of the future which it means for him to be omniscient you can"t actually freely choose to do something else than he already knew you would do. This wouldn"t then be free will anymore. Else you would lose the property of omniscience. " In response, knowing something will happen does not make it happen in the same way that something being true or false from all eternity does not make it happen. For example, it was true from all eternity that I would type this sentence (since it is happening), but that does not make the act of my typing this sentence unavoidable. It only means that it is a true fact that at this moment I would type this. Now, God knows all facts/truths, including how people will freely use their will. So, I see God's omniscience as being entirely compatible with free will. Pro says: "Now to the question of suffering itself. If god is omnibenevolent and wishes only the best it again contradicts his seemingly open acceptance of both suffering in this world and especially the next one. To just say that it is unjust or not moral to force people into a union with him is not really an argument as the proposition of the god also includes that his rulings are what is morally right or wrong meaning that it is just a matter of taste on gods part whether he prefers the save way of a union or the seemingly inefficient way of free will. And if we here include again his all loving character we see that it seems way more reasonable to argue that a save way would be preferred by such a god. " In response, Pro seems to argue that theism holds that God decides what is right or wrong. I disagree with this because if that is the case then God could just decide that suffering is fine and the problem of suffering wouldn't be a logical problem. Rather, I think while the standard of justice resides within God, God did not arbitrarily decide what is just or unjust. So, if something is truly unjust, God cannot commit that act. So if it is truly unjust for God to force people into a relation with Him, then He cannot do that. Pro says: "If we accept that god for some reason preferred a free society it still doesn"t show how this squares with the scope of suffering there is. The whole animal kingdom is filled by suffering and evolution, the mechanism that build us, is also as cruel as it gets. There is nothing in all of this that would even hint at an omnibenevolent being behind it all as it is unnecessary suffering. Now If you want to argue that we can"t know how much suffering is needed as we do not know gods mind and that this may be the best configuration to achieve a maximum number of people accepting god, it would be enough to show one possible world that would be even a bit better to refute it, as an omniscient, omnipotent god would have been able to do it that way too. It is absolutely obvious that there is so much suffering in the world that if it weren"t there wouldn"t have any impact especially in the animal kingdom but also in humans. If just before a person dies of some horrible disease it would always stop their perception of that suffering, even without communicating it to anyone else it would be a better world. It wouldn"t make any difference to the outcome but would be less cruel. Therefore an omnibenevolent god should if existing have rather picked that one. This is not to say that this specific example is important but the general idea behind it. " In response, I agree that animal suffering also needs to be accounted for. This is where the argument gets more complex. I maintain that it is entirely possible that God created angels (as many theists hold) some of which turned bad as they too have free will. Furthermore, God could have allowed the angels to help 'decide' what the laws of physics would be in order to reciprocally co-create with God. In doing so, God instituted laws that reflect the collective will of all of the angels and therefore the laws instituted by God are imperfect, not because God wanted them to be, but because some of the angels wanted them to be. Therefore, the natural world does not work the way that God would have wanted, but in God's love He allowed the angels to help Him decide the laws of physics. Now obviously this solution is not a commonly held one, but this type of solution does have support from some major thinkers through the ages. So I think it is a serious option that one has to contend with, as one must remember that the theist is proposing a possible solution which for all we know could be true. I am not claiming that I can prove my defense correct, rather I am saying that my defense is possibly true. I look forward to hearing Pro's response.