If parents allowing their kids to have free reign over the neighborhood is considered immoral, then God doing the same thing can't be good. — Marchesk

Indeed, it would not be good. Free will is no excuse for bad behavior, whether on the part of a deity or the brats next door who ought to be straightened out with a big stick.

everybody would be a winner, including Christians, who could then flourish with a more authentic religious form of devotion. — andrewk

Here, here. There are some good aspects of Christianity. Unfortunately, those are often tied up with some ridiculous elements.

Indeed, it would not be good. Free will is no excuse for bad behavior, whether on the part of a deity or the brats next door who ought to be straightened out with a big stick. — Bitter Crank

The entire thread is directed against a very specific notion of God, which was inspired by another thread, parodying that notion with an all-evil God allowing good in the universe, because free will.

If the defence is that the Problem of Evil accusation is too anthropomorphic, CS Lewis is not a suitable lawyer for the defence, as he, being a very traditional, orthodox Christian, is deeply mired in the anthropomorphic concept of God - the 'God made man in his own image' idea that is encouraged by the Bible. — andrewk

Well, I don't know. I don't think the traditional doctrine of 'imago dei' is anthropomorphic. What I think is anthropomorphic, is to regard God as if he were human - as I said, as if he were like the manager who is responsible for everything, so if there's a problem then God has 'executive responsibility' for whatever is it that's gone wrong.

The very big problem for Christianity and Judaism is that God is very much portrayed as interfering kind of deity in their sacred scriptures. Thus, a Jew can meaningfully agonize at the holocaust, and Christian parent can wonder why in the world God would let their child suffer from a terrible birth defect.

If God is not the sort of being who interferes - speaking from burning bushes, issuing out commandments, healing and striking people down, then you have a more reasonable way of reconciling God with the cosmos, although it still doesn't explain why the cosmos was created in the first place. — Marchesk

It still depends on your interpretation. There is a discipline in continental philosophy - not so much in the Anglo-american tradition - called 'hermenuetics', which is concerned with the interpretation of texts such as the Bible.

I think, for instance, your very use of the word 'interferes with', would be considered an improper term from an hermeneutic perspective. And again, your total absence of sympathy with the subject at hand, virtually guarantees that whatever interpretation you come up with, will be negative.

The ironic thing is that the very concept of freedom coincides the concept of slavery. To be free meant to be sovereign, precisely to not have a lord. — Wosret

I think the missing factor in many of these discussions is the original notion of what 'freedom' means in (for example) the NT context. When Jesus says, 'the truth will set you free', what is he talking about? I think we've completely lost sight of that, if ever we had sight of it.

That's why I think the Hindu idea of mokṣa is significant. Mokṣa means 'liberation' or 'freedom' - but freedom from what? In the Hindu context, it is liberation from continual re-birth, which doesn't help much in the Christian context, as the idea of 'continual re-birth' is a Christian heresy. But the idea in a more general sense is liberation from earthly existence, or realisation of a higher identity (the subject of one of Alan Watts' best books, The Supreme Identity). I am one of those universalists who believes that religions generally are pointing at a reality behind or before all of them (again, an idea much more comfortable for Hindus than Christians). But the point is that this is about a state of freedom from any form of emotional turmoil, loss, separation, fear of death, and so on. It is freedom in the sense of not having a care in the world, being utterly untrammelled.

If there is such a thing as a god that is all knowing, eternal, perfect, perfectly free, and so forth, we would be quite unable to apprehend this god. The kinds of gods we could apprehend -- the fertility gods, the hearth gods, the god of the grapevine, etc. were put out of business by the Judeo-Christian-Islamic triad. What we were left with is a god of superlative features which we put together to be quite out of reach.

Why? Because the god who is all unknowable mystery can not be convicted of anything. He's the all-purpose cause, the all-purpose reason, the all-purpose excuse. Very useful, really, but bogus.

Why? Because the god who is all unknowable mystery can not be convicted of anything. He's the all-purpose cause, the all-purpose reason, the all-purpose excuse. Very useful, really, but bogus. — Bitter Crank

I just don't see how that God can be only good, when there is evil and suffering in existence. A God who was both good and evil makes a lot more sense. Or a god indifferent to morality. An amoral being. A being for whom empathy and justice is a foreign concept. My very limited understanding of Hinduism is that God is beyond good and evil.

But a perfectly good God with omni-powers is in direct contradiction with existence.

I think, for instance, your very use of the word 'interferes with', would be considered an improper term from an hermeneutic perspective. And again, your total absence of sympathy with the subject at hand, virtually guarantees that whatever interpretation you come up with, will be negative. — Wayfarer

What would you call what Yahweh and Jesus do in the various books of the bible, if "interference" is objectionable to your continental sensibilities? And I'm very familiar with the overall material, so it's not like you can tell me they weren't actively involved with human events throughout the entire Bible (or predicted to be actively involved in future events).

Also, I think the book of Job does a better job with evil and suffering than C.S. Lewis, and it still leaves one deeply dissatisfied. Afterall, God let Job suffer just to prove a point to Satan, and never told Job why.

Your alternate ideas for god are good. You might also consider adding "a god who is good but not all powerful". Or, as some have proposed, a good god who is actually not very powerful at all -- a deity who just isn't in charge of everything. (This weak god won't make many people happy either.)

You know people who are really very fine people, but they can't solve their own difficult problems, or other people's difficult problems. That kind of god would have to put up with evil, just like we do. That kind of god would make better company for us.

What would you call what Yahweh and Jesus do in the various books of the bible, if "interference" is objectionable to your continental sensibilities? — Marchesk

That name 'Yahweh' - are you familiar with the etymology and the rationale behind the etymology?

I just don't see how that God can be only good, when there is evil and suffering in existence. — Marchesk

As I say, I think it's because of a deficient characterisation.

it's not like you can tell me they weren't actively involved with human events throughout the entire Bible — Marchesk

God has interfered, intervened, got involved with, the affairs of this world much like the US got involved in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria: The intentions may have been good, but the results were not. For all the interventions of the triune god, the world is in pretty bad shape.

Useful classroom tutorial on the specific issue of theodicy. Makes reference to some current Christian philosophers, i.e. Richard Swinburne and John Hick (whom I have particular respect for).

I just don't see how that God can be only good, when there is evil and suffering in existence. A God who was both good and evil makes a lot more sense. Or a god indifferent to morality. An amoral being. A being for whom empathy and justice is a foreign concept. My very limited understanding of Hinduism is that God is beyond good and evil.

But a perfectly good God with omni-powers is in direct contradiction with existence. — Marchesk

Perhaps there's method in god's madness.

Perhaps we mistake justice for evil.

As you can see, defending god means doing some nifty mental gymnastics and those who do it aren't showing any signs of fatigue.

I don't think that it's helpful to talk about morality abstractly, or divorced from demonstration, from a direct expression of your own life -- maybe even dangerous. Maybe somethings are profane.

then what the dickens do you spend so much time hanging out on philosophy forums for then, woz?

When my children were little, I used to prevent them from running into the road, from fighting each other, and so on. But now they are all grown up, they have to make the best they can of their own lives. If they turn out to idiots and arseholes in spite of my loving care and education, that is unfortunate, but if I have to go on exercising parental control for ever, then they cannot possibly grow into responsible adults.

God is said to have given us free will, unlike parents who do not give us free will. So there is a difference in the meaning of "permission" in the OP when you compare parents who permit their children to perform evil acts and God who ("permits") allows for the ability to choose to perform evil acts.

So at whatever point certain believers decided that God was perfectly good and omni-capable, is the point at which skeptics question the existence of such a being, given that the universe is not a perfectly good place to live in. — Marchesk

When you say that "the universe is not a perfectly good place to live in", how are your terms defined, so that you can truthfully say that? Do we not live in the universe? And is the universe not perfectly suited for our living in it? It seems to me like you must be defining "good" in some odd sort of way. Do you realize that if we took all the pain and suffering out of living, it would no longer be living according to "living" as we know it? What kind of life do you think is "the good life"?

That is very ironic. Lucifer is perfectly free. — Marchesk

As I told you, this is not the case, quite the contrary, Lucifer is fated to eternal damnation, and that is the very opposite of free. It is by the power of God that Lucifer is thus fated. You wish to remove God from this scene, and give Lucifer free reign, but this is impossible, because God created Lucifer in the first place. So if you remove God, there is no Lucifer.

All you have done is created your own personal concept of "Lucifer", as independent from God, and absolutely free. But this is exactly Lucifer's mistake, which you are now making, why Lucifer got condemned to eternal damnation. Lucifer believed himself to be absolutely free, independent from God, not created by God, and therefore absolutely free, exactly what you are now saying about Lucifer. But this is a falsity, and that belief, believing this falsity, is what condemns Lucifer to eternal damnation. So you are simply repeating the false belief which Lucifer held, as if it were the truth, and making the same mistake as Lucifer.

If parents allowing their kids to have free reign over the neighborhood is considered immoral, then God allowing us to have free reign over the Earth can't be good. — Marchesk

God does not give us "free reign". The laws of nature are highly restrictive. And so we have pain, suffering, and death, as a result of the restrictions placed upon us by God. You seem to be arguing two sides of the same argument. You seem to assume that the suffering and death which are directly related to the restrictions but upon us by God, are bad, yet you argue as if God has given us complete freedom as well. Clearly, we do not have complete freedom. So if you want to attribute the pain and suffering which human beings cause to each other, to God, then you must recognize that pain and suffering only occurs when we are forced outside the bounds of God's restrictions, which are the laws of nature.

As I said before, free will is essential to learning. By pushing against God's restrictions, we learn them, just like children pushing against the adults' restrictions learn them. But to arguing that we allow our children free reign, yet we also punish them for being bad, would be contradictory. And that's what you are saying about God, that God allows us free reign, yet God also punishes us with pain and suffering.

But a perfectly good God with omni-powers is in direct contradiction with existence. — Marchesk

In Christian theology, "existence" is good, by definition. That's why God created, because He saw that existence is good. So your statement above, if taken under theological principles is complete nonsense. "Good" is defined by existence, so if God is what gives existence, then God is good.

The problem you are having, is that you want to define "good" in relation to something else, something other than existence. If you do this, then you will be able to say that the perfectly good God is in contradiction to existence. But you have not defined "good" at all. All you are doing is assuming that the concept of "good" can be based in something other than existence, and from this assumption you claim that the perfectly good God is in direct contradiction with existence.

But now they are all grown up, they have to make the best they can of their own lives. If they turn out to idiots and arseholes in spite of my loving care and education, that is unfortunate, but if I have to go on exercising parental control for ever, then they cannot possibly grow into responsible adults. — unenlightened

Sure, but society takes over that role to an extent. We have various laws that are enforced, to an extent, which curb people's free will to do anything they might want.I could really hate my neighbor and wish them dead, but restrain from carrying it out because I don't want to go to prison.

I think this sort of thing demonstrates that human beings don't really believe in any sort of absolute free will as being a good thing.

God is said to have given us free will, unlike parents who do not give us free will. So there is a difference in the meaning of "permission" in the OP when you compare parents who permit their children to perform evil acts and God who ("permits") allows for the ability to choose to perform evil acts. — Luke

All of that is fine, provided that God values free will over good, which means that God is something other than being perfectly good. It's certainly not something that human societies value in practice.

All of that is fine, provided that God values free will over good, which means that God is something other than being perfectly good. — Marchesk

That's not necessarily true. If free will is itself a good then it's imprecise to say that God values free will over good; rather you'd have to say that God values free will over other types of good. As explained here, "the value of free will (and the goods it makes possible) is so great as to outweigh the risk that it may be misused in various ways".

So the problem is that you think the evils of "tortur[ing] animals, terroriz[ing] neighborhood kids, steal[ing] and vandaliz[ing], etc." are greater than the good of free will, whereas the free will theodicist thinks that the good of free will is greater than those evils.

Corrupting the youth.

Sure, but society takes over that role to an extent. We have various laws that are enforced, to an extent, which curb people's free will to do anything they might want.I could really hate my neighbor and wish them dead, but restrain from carrying it out because I don't want to go to prison. — Marchesk

If society was omnipotent to the extent that every crime was invariably punished, then indeed every arsehole would find it expedient to be compliant. There would be no virtue in good behaviour, any more than there is virtue in having regard to gravity. Such a world would be 'perfect' in the behaviour of its inhabitants without their being 'good' at all. In fact it would be a pretty hellish society to my mind.

That's not necessarily true. If free will is itself a good then it's imprecise to say that God values free will over good; rather you'd have to say that God values free will over other types of good. As explained here, "the value of free will (and the goods it makes possible) is so great as to outweigh the risk that it may be misused in various ways". — Michael

That's an interesting justification. But what's really being argued is that God values free will at the cost of permitting various evils to exist. It's not a matter of weighing goods, it's a matter of weighing the good of free will over permitting evil.

And it's not a risk to God, because God already knows that various evils will happen as a result of free will.

So the question becomes whether any good justifies evil, and whether free will is such a good. It would be quite easy to turn the argument around and argue that free will is evil, because it allows for evil to exist. And God, being in favor of evil, created free will for that very reason.

There would be no virtue in good behaviour, any more than there is virtue in having regard to gravity. Such a world would be 'perfect' in the behaviour of its inhabitants without their being 'good' at all. In fact it would be a pretty hellish society to my mind. — unenlightened

It would be a hellish society where nobody had the free will to murder, rape, steal, commit genocide, or start wars?

I understand such an argument if that involves other unacceptable costs to being human, but not if it only limits our ability to do evil things. Because that is the sort of society we attempt to have much of the time, but fail to do so because we're imperfect, fallible humans with limited abilities.

Let's try another analogy, which is actually rather close to God. Some think that we will create a self-improving general purpose AI at some point in the future. Being that it does not have the restrictions of biology, it will be able to bootstrap itself to super intelligence.

Setting aside the plausibility of such a scenario, which is fodder for a different sort of discussion, what might such an AI do? Well, let's say it was designed initially with humanity's highest ideals as its guiding motivation. Then when it eats the internet and becomes all-knowing and powerful, relative to us, it could set about to prevent murder, rape, war, child abuse, etc.

It could do what God fails to do, which is prevent various evils. Would we consider such a constraint on human free will to be a good or bad thing?

It would be a hellish society where nobody had the free will to murder, rape, steal, commit genocide, or start wars? — Marchesk

A Clockwork Orange.

A Clockwork Orange. — unenlightened

I've never actually seen it, so can you explain how not being able to commit terrible evils would be a hellish thing for society?

I'm just going to say that it's not good for a serial killer to have the free will to kill people, and I don't think other people believe it is good either, which is why we try to deny free will to persons with such compulsions, when we become aware of it.

It turns people into automata.

I'm just going to say that it's not good for a serial killer to have the free will to kill people, and I don't think other people believe it is good either. — Marchesk

I'm all in favour of locking them up out of harm's way, but eliminating everyone's freedom is a very high price to pay.

I'm all in favour of locking them up out of harm's way, but eliminating everyone's freedom is a very high price to pay. — unenlightened

But we are only talking about eliminating everyone's freedom to commit certain crimes. Now that can be abused, and accomplishing it might have unwanted consequences, so maybe we wouldn't find such a society acceptable.

But not because people were unable to rape, pillage, burn, etc. Most people would rather live in a world where war and child abuse was a thing of the past and what not.

My argument is that we don't really value the free will to commit certain evils, nor do we consider having such free will a good thing. What we value is the free will to do non-evil things, and we're worried that some people would like to constrain us from living how we like, when it doesn't involve committing those evils.