From: dabrowski@rz-berlin.mpg.de (Jarek Dabrowski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: More "Best Wishes"
Date: 10 Apr 92 17:21:08 +0100
Organization: Rechenzentrum MPG Berlin

In <9204061435.AA28084@CSUFresno.EDU> David Choweller recalls the old
criticism of the "benevolent and omnipotent God" idea:

-David:
>|> Since God is omniscient, he could have predicted what would happen
>|> if he created souls; that is, he could predict that this act of 
>|> creating souls would lead to the future you describe below, a future 
>|> where horrible evil and indescribable suffering exists.  Yet, he 
>|> still went ahead and created souls.  Thus, God cannot be benevolent 
>|> in any reasonable sense of the word.
-Jarek:
>|Refutable: Omniscient and omnibenevolent God exists (assumpt.) and evil
>|exists (fact) => God knows that every created soul will, when mature, 
-David:
>I'm saying that Omniscient and omnibenevolent God doesn't exist, and
>you take it as an assumption?
>
I guess you ask for confirmation? Yes, I take it as an assumption and
using this assumption I refute your criticism aimed against it.

-Jarek:
>|treat its past mistakes and suffernig as a fine price for its present
>|freedom and happiness. There's no logical hole here.
-David:
>But since the rule that "past mistakes and suffering" are necessary for
>"present freedom and happiness" was created by God, God is responsible
>for the suffering. Remember that God is omnipotent.  He can change the
>rule, as long as it doesn't defy logic.  You have to show why past 
>mistakes and suffering are neccessary for happiness.
>
Not just for happiness but for freedom and happiness. Drugs can make 
you happy (as long as they work) but not free. And I did argue that it
comes out naturally that at least some souls pay with suffering for 
their complete and stable freedom: Briefly, the very chance to choose 
the world without God makes such a choice possible. God is responsible 
for giving us unrestricted, free will and thus for leaving all choices 
open to us, while we are responsible for the usage of His gift.

>Since God created souls, he defines what makes them happy.
>
Not necessarily. If God created souls as completely free beings, then
souls may also decide what makes them happy. Maybe they are unable to
execute their decision, but still they may ask God for help. And God
should help, provided that the wish doesn't conflict with the wishes
of other souls. I see souls as self-ruling universes, not as beings
which character depends on outer factors (eg. on God).

>So if he makes them so that they have to go through indescribable 
>suffering and torture so that they can be happy, then it's his fault.  
>Again, he's not benevolent.
>
I argued above why this conclusion is invalid. (I know you'll disagree)

>Also, I'm curious.  Do you believe that the God (of your scenario) 
>has the right to judge his creations?
>
In fact we judge ourselves. In the Last Judgement, God shows Heaven and 
our souls decide whether they want it or not. "Boys and girls, here in 
Heaven we wear no socks. Do you mind wearing no socks forever?"  :->
Maybe the Last Advertisement would be a better description. But because
our preferences are consequences of our deeds, the Last Judgement is
probably more appropriate.


Best wishes,
             Jarek
------------------------------------------------------
 .-----.    dabrowski@fhi-berlin.mpg.dbp.de
 `-> <-'           (Jarek Dabrowski)
I WANT DAN BREDY BACK TO THE NET
Newsgroups: alt.atheism