The Problem of Suffering

The question what influences both our actions and our thoughts seems to be obviously a question for science as both are obviously physical phenomena. Now how one comes to those actions I think I have as well shown to be a physical mechanism, namely the workings of our brains. And the claim of free will is a clear statement about the properties of those physical mechanisms and fall therefore also into the realm of scientific inquiry. I have explained earlier why I think that our current knowledge of the physics that the particles in our brain are working by, give good evidence that the mechanism of free will you proposed isn"t fitting the data we have and I have also explained how one can easily experience the limitations of the seeming free choices in the brain by analyzing the way those are come to. Especially I think it is important to see that also actions are based in the same mix of different causes in the earlier experience which shows that not just thoughts but also actions and the decisions for them aren"t actually free but rather the affect of a huge array of causes from our earlier experience that are assessed by our brains. On the point about the implications of saying that thoughts are not controlled but only the choice of going on to think about them is free, it is important to notice that not thinking about something or choosing not to think about something is everything from very hard to impossible. I think that everyone experiences certain thoughts that he goes on and on about which he absolutely and deliberately chooses and wants not to think about, showing that also this is not really a decision as it is our brain that is circling those things back at us again and again. This also goes for the example of coveting another man"s wife (as it is particularly stated only in this way). Now in your next response you are coming away even further from what free will actually is. Now you say that besides our inability to freely choose what one thinks (and as I explain above by your criterion also does do), you also subconsciously begin choosing before you do it deliberately. This is just to say that it isn"t you in your consciousness which could be everything you define as the "immaterial mind" doing it but your brain prepares the decision before your "immaterial mind" than has the thought or seems to decide an action. This explanation is pretty much exactly what I say is the way our thoughts work aside from the point that I think that all thoughts and actions are build in this way by the brain. This doesn"t need an immaterial mind for which we have no evidence and this also doesn"t need free will which we have no evidence for either and accounts perfectly well for our subjective experience of choosing while there actually is a brain with its processes doing it. And with your next point you stress even more that what you say is free will describes actually nothing other than a deterministic process. You say that a Person A if placed in a Circumstance B will always choose a certain way and that the only way for A to choose something else would be to change the circumstance. This means that in a certain environment at a certain point in time (which is nothing else then a circumstance) your decision is determined to always that one choice. This is exactly what you would say from a neuropsychological view but it has nothing to do with free will, as there is no choice at all left in this determined scenario. In neuropsychology it can be seen that the later action of thought directly depend on your surroundings in where you are, your previous history and your memories and experiences as well as your gens and the way your environment has shaped you. All of this constitutes the circumstance and from this circumstance on it is determined what you choose. This is exactly what you describe and it is true but it has nothing to do with free will. God as an omniscient being still would stop you to do anything but the decision you were going to make based on that surroundings as it is still logically fallacious to do something else due to the omniscience, but this isn"t anymore important as you do not anymore talk about free will. This also holds for the free search for god that you need in order to make god free of his obligation to, as an omnibenevolent being, prevent suffering, as it is always just a circumstance that decides. Your position that morals aren"t explicitly set up by god is certainly far from the believe of most believing theists and it fits as this is one of the only questions where there is a reasonable agreement that theism achieves something namely objective moral values on a cosmic scale. The way you define omnipotence goes along with this. But if god had to abide by those rules in his actions it again questions his omnipotence in his obvious inability to build a creature that abides by morals which brings us back to free will, for which I have explained earlier why I do not think that even your position actually is free will. I do not agree that a defense is to try to square two pieces of a puzzle at least not if it goes over the realm of what can be evaluated on its truth or possibility. If you just say that it is a problem that is out of the realm that can be evaluated it is the same as saying that you believe anything that is not logically impossible. This means that you can with an omnipotent and omniscient being believe in literally anything as it is impossible to show that it is logically impossible. This then is not an argument for your case that suffering is compatible with god but a mere believe that suffering is compatible with god. While I cannot disprove it, I want to refer to two things. Firstly again Occam"s razor as it is again the easier explanation of our experiential data to just say that an omnibenevolent god does not exist than to add some ad hoc story about how angels could make it possible. And secondly I appeal just to your sense of what is rational and what isn"t which is build by your understanding and observation of the world around you, and which shows, that it does not help to hold to an idea for the sake of the idea itself but that evidence in favour of that idea allows us to form useful thoughts. I think that it doesn"t square with gods omnibenevolents to allow impotent angels to create just as it is not omnibenevolent to even create them this way in the first place. And also to say that he can rectify doesn"t allow for suffering in this world as it is important not to forget that he is claimed to be perfect. Therefore I want to conclude that I do not think that the free will defense for suffering in the world works. While it can"t be proven to be false it is as with most of the theistic arguments the case that all the available evidence points to the contrary. There is no evidence of free will and you actually affirmed that by yourself proposing a model that has nothing anymore to do with free will, there is a logical fallacy in having both free will and omniscience and there is a problem with a god who decides morality as in almost all of theism from which his approval for our circumstance is shown and his omnibenevolence. And lastly there is a contradiction between his omnibenevolence and the obvious existence of needless suffering that also can"t be dissolved by just postulating some evil angels. Therefore I conclude that free will is no reasonable explanation for the suffering in the world.