[Anika]

Hi Cat, I do not agree with this argument and here’s why.

My first issue is with premise 2 where you say “God created heaven which is a perfect society where free will remains”. Correct me if I am wrong but as I understand it there is no guarantee that free will exists in heaven. Although I know this to be a popular view, as far as I know, the bible does not expressly say that there will be free will in heaven. You also say that once in heaven, the people there will never be able to sin. I wonder if this in itself calls into question the issue of whether or not we will have free will in heaven. You say that people will have free will to be able to choose if they want to stay in heaven or leave. But surely being in heaven means that the people there have achieved the highest possible goal that God had set for them and therefore leaving would certainly be considered a sin. So, if we have the option to leave, which seems likely to be considered a sin, then you cannot say that in heaven we will never be able to sin.

Next, I would like to address your comments on how God does not want to force people to worship him. I do agree with this statement and I believe it further provides a reason as to why God created earth and why it is not cruel and unjust for him to have done so. It is actually the opposite. Life on earth where people are given free will to sin or not to sin, provides an opportunity for humans to choose whether or not they want to worship and follow God or not. He wants us to choose him, and life on earth allows us to do so. It is safe to say that not choosing God is considered a sin, and since people are unable to sin in heaven, earth is a necessity in order to give humans the chance to choose God or not.

[Baili]

I would like to refute premise (1), in which I argue that if God can create a perfect society where free will remains, then the existence of the earth would still be relevant. Your argument assumes that the purpose of earth and the purpose of heaven are the same, however, earth serves as a testing ground or a place for human growth and development, whereas heaven is a reward or afterlife for those who have made the choice to always do good, and their will is aligned with goodness.

Similar to Plantinga’s Free Will Defense suggests that, “God’s creation of persons with morally significant free will is something of tremendous value. God could not eliminate much of the evil and suffering in this world without thereby eliminating the greater good of having created persons with free will with whom he could have relationships and who are able to love one another and do good deeds”, that the existence of suffering on earth serve a purpose in shaping individuals’ virtues and characters and allowing them to exercise their free will in a world with moral choices and consequences.

Plantinga’s argument does not contradict the existence of heaven and the existence of earth. In addition, some theologians acknowledge that the ultimate purpose of the earth and the existence of suffering may be part of a larger divine plan that is beyond human comprehension.

[jayceeii]

What drew my attention here, is the presumption you are not part of the “cruel and unjust” situation on Earth; if you are a cause of hellish conditions, complaint is wrong.

For instance a cowboy in the old west, had he been attuned to his cattle, might have perceived in their lowing, “What a lot of dung from all these cows; I don’t belong here.”

[Maeve]

I would like to object to Premise 1, which assumed that anything aside form heaven is cruel and unusual punishment. On Earth, we are tempted and our will is tested by the world. This is meant to hone our affections toward God and experience His goodness and perfect nature in comparison to the broken world. This increases our affinity toward Him and helps us clarify for ourselves that He is the only one that we can rely on. I believe this is the purpose of Earth: to effectively prove the goodness of God and make it tangible amidst badness in a broken world. Our human minds also tend to rely on comparison for things that are good and bad; we have a harder time seeing positive things in life if we are surrounded by them. However, in heaven, we will have perfected wills in the sense that after living life on Earth, we are able to see God’s goodness and glory in its full form and only wish to worship Him. This comparison of goodness and net badness is a stark difference and allows our human minds to understand that our God is worthy of more praise than we can give. Also, there are so many opportunities to experience beauty and joy. Life on Earth is filled with community and growth and developing a positive perspective not only develops character, but also refutes Premise 1. Just because a perfect society exists where there is free will, this does not make existence on Earth and unjust. On Earth, you may be experiencing suffering or unjust acts from other juman beings, but this does not make life overall cruel and unjust. Compares to heaven, Earth is not anywhere near perfect; however, that does not mean that it is to be completely discarded. I agree that free will is maintained in heaven, as it is a good and valuable aspect of human nature. I disagree with the intricacies of your argument regarding free will. In a similar way to our earthly bodies and their perfection upon entry into heaven, so will our wills.

[Pater]

1. “If God can create a perfect society where free will remains, then the existence of the earth is cruel and unjust.”

What if He can’t, and that’s the point of the cruelty and injustice?

[James]

God is omnibenevolent by definition so if Heaven will exist and God exists, it must be true that things only seem cruel and unfair. But this leads into the real problem.

If a being is defined as omnipotent and the idea of him doing something is not incoherent then it is true by definition that he can do it. In other words, even if that being doesn’t exist, he must be thought capable of doing the thing proposed. For example, the idea of an omnipotent being creating a universe ex nihilo is not prima facie incoherent so it is something that God is able to do and that is true by definition. Even if God doesn’t exist, he must be thought capable of it. The only way that an omnipotent being would be incapable of creating a universe ex nihilo is by not actually existing because it is something he is able to do, by definition.

The idea of an omnipotent being creating a scenario in which sin and evil are impossible from the get-go yet everyone is volitionally free despite this entails no incoherence (if it did then Heaven would be demonstrably incoherent). As such, it is true by definition that it is something an omnipotent being is able to do. It suffers the same problem as highlighted in my opening statement. The only way that such a being would be incapable of it, is by not existing. There is literally no reason to assume such a limitation on an omnipotent being (there is no evidential or inductive reason for doing it, and there is no analytic reason for doing so) making the assumed limitation thoroughly ad hoc. It is assumed just to avoid the possibility that theism may be mistaken (because doubting is a sin, every thought must be taken captive … and other forms of confirmation bias that are built into the system).

[Pater]

From Rev 12 – “Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.”

Heaven hasn’t always been perfect.

God can create a perfect heaven populated with persons (human and angelic) who never do evil. But it wouldn’t be the best persons and wouldnt be the best heaven.

And we would never know God in the extremity of His goodness.

• This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by  Pater.
• This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by  Pater.

[James]

As far as I can see, this still leads to some serious analytic difficulties (arguably, contradictions).

1. A person who is volitionally free and cannot sin is more like God than a person who is volitionally free yet can sin. In context, it is a contradiction to say that it is better for a person to possess a quality that makes that person less like God. For example, it is being asserted that a version of a person with an imperfection (one who has sinned) is better than a version of that person who has never sinned (so contains no imperfection). It is simply being asserted that to be imperfect (and less like God) is better than being perfect (and more God-like).

2. An omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient being who is capable of creating a world of free creatures who cannot sin is conceivable without contradiction. No human or angelic fall is possible in that world. The deity of the Bible is (it is being asserted) incapable of creating such a world. So there is a being that is conceivably greater than the deity of the Bible.

3. Epistemic cost. Untestable and unfalsifiable claims about God are being piled up on top of other untestable and unfalsifiable claims about God (which increases the risk of being mistaken in one’s conclusions) rather than entertain the notion that theism is possibly mistaken. This just means that the person doing this, has no way of finding out that their beliefs are mistaken and if they are. In epistemic terms, that’s costly. If I’m wrong about something, I want to be able to find out.

No. 2 is not a new idea. The idea that the deity of the Bible (and who claims to be God) was in fact a being created by God goes back a long way but it falls foul of objection 1. There are Gospels in which Jesus is portrayed as coming to reveal the truth about the deity worshipped by Israel (Jesus had come from the true God to inform his followers that Israel was worshipping the wrong spirit).

[Pater]

The knowledge of good.

The knowledge of evil.

Definitionally dependent. Can’t know what either means without the other.

The record of the garden of Eden in Genesis is quite philosophically potent. Perfect environment. Very good persons. And I don’t mean that from a moral perspective. I mean intelligent and rational and contemplative and high value people. Not 70 iq dullards.

So God put a tree in the garden and a restriction on its people. His intent is to teach His entire creation – human, angelic, and whoever else – about Himself. Demonstrate for all His maximal greatness.

He planned that out before He created anything.

So I question your assertion that God could create morally free persons who never sin. What sort of people would they be? If they are blobs that float in a vat and absorb nutrients from solution, or are blobs that never need nutrients, would that be better?

He created Adam and put Him in the garden and visited with him daily. Then He said “it is not good for man to be alone.” Even though He called the man and the rest of His creation “very good”, it still lacked something.

It is clear to me that for God to create the best possible world, it needs a full demonstration of who He is. Christ on the cross couldn’t happen in a lower quality world wherein all persons are pre-determined to only make morally right decisions. They would never know what “good” even means.

And Christ on the cross is the benchmark of maximal love. Nothing else will suffice.

• This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by  Pater.
• This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by  Pater.

[James]

The philosophical issues underpinning the problem highlighted in the opening post run much deeper than the problem of evil or choice.

For example, many theists (Craig included) assume that God could have not created. This gives us two possible worlds, this world (if God exists) and the world in which he creates nothing at all and only he exists. The same theists also assume that the constants are not necessary and could have been different, so there are also all those possible worlds in which he creates universes with various different constants. By definition, God is incapable of any type of failure (so long as it is insisted that he is maximally great) so this world cannot be considered better than any of the others (which represent what he could have done). So it cannot be said that this world is better than any alternative in that context and suffering hasn’t been mentioned.

To overcome this problem, theists can surrender the idea that he could have not created (or created other constants), but then the universe must be thought necessary in some sense and any idea that the constants could have been different, is false. That being the case, the fine tuning argument fails … and so on.

Then there is the epistemic cost of holding the position you propose. At best, it only shows the internal consistency of the belief system, not a reason to think it is true. If someone holds to it, there is no way of showing that it is false, but that is true even if it is. That’s a high epistemic price to pay. If people are mistaken in a belief they hold, many would want a way of finding out. There are many people in positions that we both agree are false and are exactly in the same position, by taking the same approach being proposed here.

[Pater]

We believe by faith. Epistemic warrant then would be purposely constrained by God. Jesus illustrated this many times by telling the receivers of miracles to tell no one.

Gods purpose is to design a context in which every person makes decisions primarily in answer to His constrained revelation. He knocks. We open the door to relationship.

So we don’t believe for no reason. There are lots of reasons and arguments and evidence. But primarily we answer God’s call on our hearts. Thats what He is most concerned with.

[James]

But the point is, faith is demonstrably unreliable and there is a problem with the idea that a maximally great being would require the use of a demonstrably unreliable method of believing. By faith, millions of people hold to positions that we all agree are mistaken and they have no way of finding out they are mistaken whilst they insist on taking their position by faith. Seems odd that God would insist people use something that leads most people down a false route. I’m not questioning that you can provide an internally consistent rationalisation for faith etc … you just leave yourself in a position of having no way of finding out, if your position is mistaken. That’s a high epistemic price to pay.

[Pater]

I think my principal objection to your common approach to any and all of these questions is to rely on quite capable brain power and logical skills to “figure out” God. Doesn’t that seem a little ludicrous, by definition?

[Jabberwock]

If some people cannot properly believe because of their insufficient intellectual capacity, then it is not their fault. And given that it is logically possible to create beings with sufficient intellectual capacities, you have to conclude that God just wants some people to be mistaken for some mysterious reason (but then he might want you or e.g. all Christians to be mistaken as well) or that God is incapable of doing that, therefore he is not omnipotent.

[Pater]

I should hasten to clarify – graded intellectual capacities in the context of our various human forms isn’t important to God and that’s not what I meant. I mean that God made man in His own image, with the capacity for high-value personal relationship. We are not simply another form of animal. God only holds us responsible for responding to Him, from the heart, by faith, with our minds, humbly, by the spirit, surrendered will, with all our strength, joyfully, and whatever the price. Love Him and love our neighbors.

Those whose human capacities are limited by their intellectual context are not less loved by God, any more than tall people or plain people or people who can’t dance. God is concerned about how we respond to Him and others within the context that we’ve been given.

• This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by  Pater.

[Pater]

James said: “For example, many theists (Craig included) assume that God could have not created. This gives us two possible worlds, this world (if God exists) and the world in which he creates nothing at all and only he exists. The same theists also assume that the constants are not necessary and could have been different, so there are also all those possible worlds in which he creates universes with various different constants. By definition, God is incapable of any type of failure (so long as it is insisted that he is maximally great) so this world cannot be considered better than any of the others (which represent what he could have done). So it cannot be said that this world is better than any alternative in that context and suffering hasn’t been mentioned.”

Ha ha good to have you back!