Ep. 101: The problem of suffering

[tonyenglish7]

Bebop88,

Question on God's Knowledge:

When I hear theists talk about God's ability to know an outcome in the future, is this because God has some power that allows him to do so (like you know fortune tellers) or is it because God has such complete knowledge that this allows him to practically know what will happen next, because God has all prior knowledge beforehand.

For example, I used to love my mathematical modeling class, and in it we will try to predict future outcomes based on many variables. Obviously, we will always be off by some percent, but it could always be explained by the fact that we never took into account every single thing that affects this process. So applying this to God, since God is complete when it comes to knowledge, God is able to take into account every variable thus he can accurately without fail predict future outcomes? Please let me know what you think theists even if the thought is "what a stupid question!"--Thank you.

This is an interesting question. It has to do whether or not you believe in the A theory of Time or B theory of Time. Is God outside of Time and sees the end from the beginning? Or, is he in time and knows in some other manner. I think he cannot be outside of time otherwise he would be ignorant of what it means to know what now is. So, I think he has other ways of knowing what is going to happen. One is how you discussed, he has all the facts and knows what will lead to what by a sort of intuition. But just because we cannot figure out how he knows everything, doesn't mean we don't know that he knows everything.

[bebop88]

Thanks for your reply Tony. I wa just thinking of this since I remeber being told once that God, doesn't only know what will happen, but God knows all other logical possible outcomes. I still struggle understanding the concept of a God that is outside of time.

[JustJim]

I still struggle understanding the concept of a God that is outside of time.

I think you struggle because such a thing only exists as a concept, but not as a reality. Think of it... By what possible definition of "time" could an entity exist "outside" of it? It's a philosophical mind puzzle that's fun to play with in your head. But in reality, it's absurd.... So is God....

Merry Christmas!

Jim

[bebop88]

I think you struggle because such a thing only exists as a concept, but not as a reality. Think of it... By what possible definition of "time" could an entity exist "outside" of it? It's a philosophical mind puzzle that's fun to play with in your head. But in reality, it's absurd.... So is God....

Merry Christmas!

Jim

Yeah I know Jim, but I also get like this with Star Wars and video games. I obsess over simple things, a very though habit to break.

Feliz Navidad!

[yjoeyh]

Think of it... By what possible definition of "time" could an entity exist "outside" of it? It's a philosophical mind puzzle that's fun to play with in your head. But in reality, it's absurd.... So is God....

Yeah, that's kind of the same problem I have it the idea of being "outside" of time. It's similar to thinking that something is outside of a room, but not really in another place either... just not in that room. That doesn't really make any sense, so you can't really say that it's outside the room.
On the other hand, it is entirely possible that something could exist independent of time, but still inside it. It could exists necessarily whether or not time exists, or whether multiple times exist. It would exist in all of them and yet exist even if time ceased. The laws of logic are that kind of thing.

[Rian]

I know I am a whole lot younger than all of you here and maybe its me idk I have asked for help and feedback plenty of times and i get nothing.

FWIW, I have a lot of respect for you. You are intelligent, thoughtful, open-minded, willing to listen, patient and considerate.

[Rian]

Question on God's Knowledge:

When I hear theists talk about God's ability to know an outcome in the future, is this because God has some power that allows him to do so (like you know fortune tellers) or is it because God has such complete knowledge that this allows him to practically know what will happen next, because God has all prior knowledge beforehand.

For example, I used to love my mathematical modeling class, and in it we will try to predict future outcomes based on many variables. Obviously, we will always be off by some percent, but it could always be explained by the fact that we never took into account every single thing that affects this process. So applying this to God, since God is complete when it comes to knowledge, God is able to take into account every variable thus he can accurately without fail predict future outcomes? Please let me know what you think theists even if the thought is "what a stupid question!"--Thank you.

Well, it's certainly not a stupid question, especially when it's asked in a respectful manner.

I've found that most of the more complex ideas in Christianity can usually be better understood when they're examined in the light of our lives here on earth. So on this question, I look at my ability to guess what my kids will do in a certain situation ("I bet as soon as we get into that room, my daughter will do such-and-such") and make the logical extension that if I had all the information, including being able to see into their hearts/minds, I would know just what they were going to do, yet they would still have complete free will. It doesn't even have to be realtime; someone could tell me, "hey, your daughter went to math class yesterday, and you know what she did?" and I could guess - and it being in the past, I certainly didn't take away any free will!

[mikedsjr]

I still think the Christian solution to the problem of suffering is inconsistent with free will in heaven. If suffering is necessary for free will to exist on earth, it seems that must be the case in heaven. If not, can someone describe to me the sort of animal that is limited, has free will, yet does not sin?

You guys need to put your Christian thinking caps on here. Knowing what you know about how Christians define sin, I'm wondering if you think I've identified an inconsistency in their explanation of the problem of suffering.

Oh boy, I've got to hear the slippery slope in this podcast that the Christian side gives.

[Keep The Reason]

If one takes such an illogical position, then sure. But God does not and can not have infinitely more knowledge than we do.

Really? Then what does "omniscient" mean? Limited in some manner?

Actually that fits more in with an atheistic worldview than it does with a Christian one, because in the atheist worldview, God's knowledge doesn't really exist, it's merely a hypothetical and therefore imaginary. An imaginary God can have an imaginary quantity of knoweldge.

Please don't adopt this strategy. We are debating based on the issue of a god-- in particular the Christian god -- and that model hypothetically existing and the problems with such a model. As a matter of fact, god is indeed non-existent and hence is devoid of anything at all, including knowledge, let alone power, loive, or a white beard.

But if one suggests that God is real, and has real knowledge, then the quantity of it must also be real... not imaginary. There is no "disservice to God" in that.

And the "quantity" in OMNISCIENT is...?

Do you believe that your choices are an illusion?

Of course I don't believe my choices are an illusion because I'm an atheist and there's no divine entity that knows my choices inifintely before I was even around to make them.

Take God out of the question, and if someone else anticipates your choices, then does it fail to be your choices? That's what you are suggesting.

No because someone anticipating my choices has a statistical chance to get it right, or wrong. It doesn't change my choice; they simply may guess right.

But that's not god. God KNOWS the choice I will make. He knew it (sideways "8") years ago, and that's not "anticiapting" -- that's KNOWING. That means I have always made that choice from his perspective, which means I merely think I'm making some choice of my own volition.

I don't promote that worldview.

If you assert "free will" under an omnipotent, eternal, and omniscient god, yes, you are promoting that worldview.

I think your choices are just as real as you think they are.

They cannot be. They were known infinitely before I existed. And I can neither surprise nor thwart a god's omniscience.

This conclusion just doesn't follow from the assertion that someone else is able to anticipate your decisions, not matter how good they happen to be at it. The only variable you can possibly introduce is one where your decisions can't be anticipated at all because on some level they are purely random in nature. Now I would grant you that may indeed be the case, but even so, that randomness does nothing to give you any more freewill. In fact it seems to lessen your ability to make choices as they become something that arbitrarily happens to you, rather than something you control.

Well, the problem isn't my model but your use of the word "anticipate". Anticipate means, "Well, he might do A, B, or C but I don't know for certian which he'll do."

That's not god though, because the "I don't know for certain" part isn't applicable to god.

Rather, god is sitting there (or whaterver he does) saying, "Well, he could have the option to do either do A, B, or C and I already know he'll do C."

That's not anticipating due to the part where he says, "I ALREADY KNOW he'll do C". I think I have options, because god doesn't tell me that I do "C", but in his view, I did "C" before the first atom of existence was created. That is an illusion of free will.

So then you reject materialism and physicalism and take some kind of dualism or idealism view, correct?

I'm a materialist, among other things.

[Keep The Reason]

I still struggle understanding the concept of a God that is outside of time.

I think you struggle because such a thing only exists as a concept, but not as a reality. Think of it... By what possible definition of "time" could an entity exist "outside" of it? It's a philosophical mind puzzle that's fun to play with in your head. But in reality, it's absurd.... So is God....

Merry Christmas!

Jim

Honestly, the whole "outside of time" argument is pretty meaningless, and this one falls to the theists (please note, I consider the atheist "problem of suffering" argument to be lame on the atheist's side).

The moment someone suggests that "god is outside of time" as if that has any meaning, it's time to get out the "Uh-hunh" smiley because it means, "I don't have a clue WTF I'm saying."

Even if god IS "outside of time" it's menaingless because god can see "into the time" anyway and know how it will all come about. Unless you want to limit your god, which is fine by me. I find him limited in many ways myself.

[Dr Mundo]

I know I am a whole lot younger than all of you here and maybe its me idk I have asked for help and feedback plenty of times and i get nothing.

FWIW, I have a lot of respect for you. You are intelligent, thoughtful, open-minded, willing to listen, patient and considerate.

Thanks Rian, for those kinds words.

I've found that most of the more complex ideas in Christianity can usually be better understood when they're examined in the light of our lives here on earth. So on this question, I look at my ability to guess what my kids will do in a certain situation ("I bet as soon as we get into that room, my daughter will do such-and-such") and make the logical extension that if I had all the information, including being able to see into their hearts/minds, I would know just what they were going to do, yet they would still have complete free will. It doesn't even have to be realtime; someone could tell me, "hey, your daughter went to math class yesterday, and you know what she did?" and I could guess - and it being in the past, I certainly didn't take away any free will!

Okay so under this paradigm, God is only Guessing as to what our actions would be. Then it would be inaccurate to say God knows what we will do. Because KTR is right on the mark here with his comments on God's foreknowledge and free will. It would be nonsensical to state that God knows what I was going to do and how my life would play out in its entirety, even before I was born, and to also say that I have free will. I am not accusing you of being sneaky, but both you and joey used words like guess and anticipate when describing what you would do and linking that to what God does. Do you both see why those choice of words would be misleading given what we are told to understand of Gods foreknowledge?

(please note, I consider the atheist "problem of suffering" argument to be lame on the atheist's side).

Its not even a logical argument, but it depends on how you apply different meanings to the words you use. For instance whether or not suffering in this world exists has no direct connection to a general God type being, or spiritual aspects of existence (at least no logical connection that we can conceive). However when you posit a God who is both all loving and all powerful then you do have a problem with the suffering in this world, especially the needless suffering of infants and the helpless. You either need to change you definitions of "All loving" and "All powerful" or adopt a system in which This God is neither 100% both, or non-existent. How do we know which one it is? Well since we have no demonstrable evidence based on empirical data for even the existence of this God, it is my contention that a non-belief in this type of God is certainly the most reasonable position to hold.

[yjoeyh]

Really? Then what does "omniscient" mean? Limited in some manner?

Omniscient means having all knowledge. If there is such a thing as knowledge, then there must be such a thing as all knowledge. If all knowledge is a real thing it must be finite (even a potential infinite is in actuallity, finite.)

And the "quantity" in OMNISCIENT is...?

I don't know. More than twelve? What's the quantity of shoes? If you don't know does that make them infinite?

No because someone anticipating my choices has a statistical chance to get it right, or wrong. It doesn't change my choice; they simply may guess right.

But someone who knows you and your tendancies and preferences has a better chance of anticipating your choices than someone who doesn't right? Don't you think that someone who knows more about you can do a better job at guessing and gain higher statistical probablility of getting it right?

God KNOWS the choice I will make. He knew it (sideways "8") years ago, and that's not "anticiapting" -- that's KNOWING.

How is that any different than me knowing my car will run out of gas? You are making a distinction without a difference. Anticipation is based on knowldge, not random guessing. Surely you agree with that.

They cannot be. They were known infinitely before I existed... I did "C" before the first atom of existence was created. That is an illusion of free will.

These are non sequitur. You haven't shown any correlation between knowledge and the limitation of freewill. I have shown that knowledge and freewill co-exist just fine for either the theist or the atheist and you haven't shown where that's wrong.

Well, the problem isn't my model but your use of the word "anticipate". Anticipate means, "Well, he might do A, B, or C but I don't know for certian which he'll do."

That wouldn't be much of an anticipation without some degree of certainty.

That's not god though, because the "I don't know for certain" part isn't applicable to god.

I don't see why it can't be.

Well, he could have the option to do either do A, B, or C and I already know he'll do C."

Okay, you have free will right? Will you then conced that I have made my point and that I am completely right and you are completely wrong? I already know you won't. Did I limit your free will there? Of course not! I simply accurately anticipated your choice. Is it really reasonable for me to think you would have chosen otherwise?

I'm a materialist, among other things.

Then how do you reconcile this with freewill? Do you just assume that there must be a correlation?

[Dr Mundo]

How is that any different than me knowing my car will run out of gas? You are making a distinction without a difference.

No he is correct, I think you are just not understanding and in your analogy you are equating different aspects of what is being know and what is being acted upon freely. The fact that you know your car will run out of gas Means that the car has no free will to chose not to run out of gas. it is restricted by the natural laws of Chemistry and physics. If God knows I will run out of gas (read: cheat on my wife), then when I do run out of gas (cheat on my wife) I will have just acted out according to the natural laws that make up the choices and situations I made or got into, in order for me to do what God already knew I was going to do. In your case its the car running out of gas, and in gods case it was knowing I would cheat on my wife. You say knowing your car running out of gas doesn't stop YOU from filling the tank freely right? those are two different things. Because one you are just using your knowledge of Physics and Chemistry, to make a judgement call. And that is to keep fill your automobile with a fuel source. And the other is the car not having free will to not run out of fuel. Do you see the distinction?

Anticipation is based on knowldge, not random guessing. Surely you agree with that.

I also take issue with this, please read what I wrote in response to Rians comments I included your use of that same word in there as well. Would it be wrong to say that a father anticipates his daughter coming home from her first date, but unbeknownst to him her driver got into a car accident and killed them both. Now the father still is anticipating that his daughter will come home, however she will never will. Do you see how he didn't know she would come home. Sure its more than a random guess that she would be heading back home after her date, but one doesn't know these things. are you saying God also doesn't know? and that he/she/it is Guessing or assuming what you will do? But they how do you reconcile that with the thought that God is all knowing?

[Keep The Reason]

Its not even a logical argument, but it depends on how you apply different meanings to the words you use. For instance whether or not suffering in this world exists has no direct connection to a general God type being, or spiritual aspects of existence (at least no logical connection that we can conceive). However when you posit a God who is both all loving and all powerful then you do have a problem with the suffering in this world, especially the needless suffering of infants and the helpless. You either need to change you definitions of "All loving" and "All powerful" or adopt a system in which This God is neither 100% both, or non-existent. How do we know which one it is? Well since we have no demonstrable evidence based on empirical data for even the existence of this God, it is my contention that a non-belief in this type of God is certainly the most reasonable position to hold.

I don't agree that god is "all loving"-- it's certainly not biblical that he is "all loving". He doesn't love Satan, he doesn't love sin, and he's certainly willing to kill lots of people in horrible ways in order to punish them (the Flood).

So if we're talking about the Christian god, he's not all loving at all. That's not to say he doesn't have some degree of love according to how he's devised in the bible. He does, but not all. And he doesn't have to be all loving. He could be a right mean bastard and still be god. Which he actually is in the OT directly, and indirectly in the New by having this whole "Hell" scenario.

[Dr Mundo]

I don't agree that god is "all loving"-- it's certainly not biblical that he is "all loving". He doesn't love Satan, he doesn't love sin, and he's certainly willing to kill lots of people in horrible ways in order to punish them (the Flood).

So if we're talking about the Christian god, he's not all loving at all. That's not to say he doesn't have some degree of love according to how he's devised in the bible. He does, but not all. And he doesn't have to be all loving. He could be a right mean bastard and still be god. Which he actually is in the OT directly, and indirectly in the New by having this whole "Hell" scenario.

Well now I agree that under my definition of love, The God of the bible is far from all loving. For people like Tony, WLC, and other conservative Christians God is all loving, and those actions that you and I would look at and describe as abhorrent, or immoral, they look at and by virtue of their God doing it, its an act of love. That is why I told Tony that he and I don't share a common definition of love or justice. So you are right, If we are talking about the Christian God, the suffering in this world isn't a logical contradiction. I was referring to someone who claims their God to be both All loving and All powerful. So I suppose now we must ( I say we must in order for us to continue the conversation) look to see where Christians are getting this idea that God possess both of those qualities. I am suspecting that this will, yet again, come down to a disagreement of the definition of terms. Do the Christians on here believe this God to be an All loving God? Could you define Love for us, what is the point in discussing things if we are not using the same words to mean the same thing? Will we get anywhere like that, or is there still something to be gained from talking past each other? And now this comes back to my original post in which I tried to get some solid definitions before I commented what my thoughts were. Does anyone see my problem with such an approach to these discussions?

Either way would you agree with me that "proving" atheism is a god awfully stupid endeavor to embark on?