If God is loving, why is there so much pain in His creation?

[TIGERassault]

Just thought that I may as well make a topic on this!
Discuss as you feel necessary!
And don't just go here to say that you don't believe in a god, and do nothing else!


Myself? I believe pain was necessary! Here's why:
1: Without pain, people would not know when something was wrong, and wouldn't be able to survive! If it wasn't painful, then a lot of people wouldn't care if they did something wrong! If they were made care from the beginning, then they wouldn't have free-will!
2: If god had made it so that you couldn't die, and didn't need to know how to survive, then the world would become very quickly, very hideously over-populated!
3: If god had countered this by making it so that people cannot give birth, then there'd be a lot of souls that were never given a chance to live!

[De Rigueur]

There is some soul of goodness in things evil, would men observingly distill it out.
Shakespeare, Henry the Fifth

[Jeff250]

The issue isn't so much an issue of pain. If you've ever seen a documentary on somebody with CIPA, they don't make it very long in the world, or, if they do, not very well.

The issue is more, why are there things that we should need pain to try to avoid in the first place, i.e. the problem of evil. This consists in both moral evil and natural evil. Moral evil is something like a person X killing a person Y. Natural evil is something like a tsunami X killing a person Y.

[Duper]

Tiger, if you really want to know the answers to these questions. Read a bible. Most of it can be answered in the first 3 chapters of Genesis.

Things started out Perfect. Man, decided to do things differently. Creation was corrupted. Score one for \"free will\".

[TechPro]

Tiger, if you really want to know the answers to these questions. Read a bible. Most of it can be answered in the first 3 chapters of Genesis.

Things started out Perfect. Man, decided to do things differently. Creation was corrupted. Score one for "free will".

And with that, all people have a chance to learn a lot while dealing with the trials/troubles of Life.

[Jeff250]

Things started out Perfect. Man, decided to do things differently. Creation was corrupted. Score one for "free will".

Free will sorta works for explaining moral evil. It's unclear to me though how it works for natural evil. Besides, it's clear that the universe and the earth were going through the motions of natural evil for billions of years before man arrived on the scene.

[Duper]

And earth was the center of the universe once too. don't make assumptions. Either logical or irrational.

Also, realize that the account of creation in Genesis isn't necessarily an EXACT account of what happened. It IS what God wanted us to know about that time. It's not about the how. It's about the WHY.

Natural decay and death in the universe is why Christians can not be evolutionists. (I really hate to go here.. AGAIN but it relates) Evolution uses death as a mechanism to perpetuate its system. Death entered the scene LONG after man was created...as well as everything else. Ever notice that the sun was created after the plants were made? Read Here

[Foil]

Heh, as I mentioned in another thread, I was planning on posting about this exact topic when I got the chance.

[Disclaimer: let me clarify that I am referring to the problem of moral evil (from one person to another) in my response here. As Jeff250 correctly pointed out, the problem of natural evil (pain/death caused by nature) is a different subject, and one which I am not nearly as sure about.]

As many people are, I've always been intrigued and a bit troubled by the question of how to reconcile the idea of a loving God with the pain present in God's Creation.

The common explanation is, \"Well, God wanted to give us a free will, and the consequences of free will are sometimes evil/painful.\" The trouble I always found with that argument was: if free will causes evil and pain, why would a loving God want it for us? What value could free will have to outweigh the harm that comes with it?

The usual analogy about free will in relation to God is to point out that we would be \"choiceless puppets or robots\" without free will, but that still begs the question: why did God decide it was better to give us free will and the evil that comes with it, than to withold free will and protect us from the evil we do to each other?

[Note: I don't mean to start a \"free will vs. determinism\" debate here; I simply want to voice my own view on this matter, which relates heavily to my view of free will.]

It wasn't until a few years ago, in a class my pastor taught, that I began to understand what I now believe is the key. What I see as the answer resides in the question itself... the word \"loving\".

One of the fundamental things Christians believe is that God not only loves, but that God is love. In other words, that the deepest expression of God's nature is love itself.

Thus, we assume that God giving humanity free will must be an act of love. So, what is it about free will that relates to love?

Now, I know we could go off on a thousand tangents about the different definitions/meanings of \"love\", and how the English word doesn't do it justice... but here's what I want to focus on: I believe love, in its truest form, requires freedom. Without freedom, there's nothing beyond coercion.

So, why were we given this freedom, when it clearly often results in evil and pain? Not because it's somehow inherently good, or because God thought it would be cool to create creatures with the ability to choose. No, I believe that despite the pain it would cause humanity, God gave us free will, for the sake of giving us the ability to truly love.

Of course, I still have questions. This is a much deeper theological and philosophical issue than can be addressed in a few paragraphs. But for me it's made a big difference to begin seeing things in light of the nature of God as love. Even the act of Creation seems to me to be a reflection of the nature of love to give itself to another.

[Jeff250]

What would be your answer to the question, why not give us a better will? (By better, I mean a more virtuous will that chooses the right decision more often.) Would that make love more insignificant if it was an easier choice? I don't think you could say that a will that was more predisposed to making the right decisions infringes on our freedom.

[Foil]

Good question.

I'm not sure I know how to answer, beyond to ask how much is \"more\" (referring to \"more predisposed to making the right decisions\")?

If God created me with a \"better\" will, which chose right thing twice as often as mine does now, would that infringe on my freedom of will? Doesn't really seem like it.

Well, what about a will which chose the right thing ten times as often as I do now? Hmmm, I still can choose, but it certainly seems like I have less ability to choose wrongly.

Continuing this little thought experiment... a hundred times as often? A thousand? A million times as likely to choose right? ...

What if God gave me a will which was predisposed to choose the right thing every time? Do I still have a free will then?


Granted, I sometimes *would* like to have a will which is \"preset\" to choose better than mine does, but at least conceptually, it seems to me that it would also affect my freedom.

[TIGERassault]

Heh, as I mentioned in another thread, I was planning on posting about this exact topic when I got the chance.

Actually, I just posted this topic because you said you wanted one. I'm actually an atheist, and don't really believe in what I said; it's just how I used to before I was an atheist.

So, why were we given this freedom, when it clearly often results in evil and pain? Not because it's somehow inherently good, or because God thought it would be cool to create creatures with the ability to choose. No, I believe that despite the pain it would cause humanity, God gave us free will, for the sake of giving us the ability to truly love.

Well, why did he give us the ability to truly love if it means evil can be caused? And why didn't he just give us eternal bliss instead?
In fact, considering how love is only a mental thing that causes happyness, and has no actual spiritual bonds (that are known), it seems like a bit of a waste.

[Duper]

Well, why did he give us the ability to truly love if it means evil can be caused? And why didn't he just give us eternal bliss instead?
In fact, considering how love is only a mental thing that causes happyness, and has no actual spiritual bonds (that are known), it seems like a bit of a waste.

I think you answered your own question there Tiger.

[Foil]

Well, why did he give us the ability to truly love if it means evil can be caused? And why didn't he just give us eternal bliss instead?
In fact, considering how love is only a mental thing that causes happyness, and has no actual spiritual bonds (that are known), it seems like a bit of a waste.

I think you need to read my post again.

God's core nature is love (no, not "mental happiness" or simple affection), so He values giving us the freedom to love, even if it means we sometimes cause ourselves and others pain.

[De Rigueur]

Granted, I sometimes *would* like to have a will which is "preset" to choose better than mine does, but at least conceptually, it seems to me that it would also affect my freedom.

You're touching on the subject of a second-order desire, ie., what you want to want. (A first-order desire would be just what you want.) I believe if God interfered with your will, that would be the same as interfering with your freedom. But what if you wanted God to change your will? That would be a second-order desire: I want to change what I want. (I'm assuming if you change what you want, then you change what you choose.)

If you truly want a better will, that means you want to want what God wants. (You may not want what God wants, but you want to want it -- as in, not my will, by thy will be done.) In order to do this, you will need to give up some of your first-order desires (ie, those things which don't coincide with what God wants) and this will result in a kind of suffering.

This kind of suffering produces virtue and provides another response to the problem of pain. It is usually called the "soul building" defense and is a companion to the free will defense.

[De Rigueur]

Granted, I sometimes *would* like to have a will which is "preset" to choose better than mine does, but at least conceptually, it seems to me that it would also affect my freedom.

You're touching on the subject of a second-order desire, ie., what you want to want. (A first-order desire would be just what you want.) I believe if God interfered with your will, that would be the same as interfering with your freedom. But what if you wanted God to change your will? That would be a second-order desire: I want to change what I want. (I'm assuming if you change what you want, then you change what you choose.)

If you truly want a better will, that means you want to want what God wants. (You may not want what God wants, but you want to want it -- as in, not my will, by thy will be done.) In order to do this, you will need to give up some of your first-order desires (ie, those things which don't coincide with what God wants) and this will result in a kind of suffering.

This kind of suffering produces virtue and provides another response to the problem of pain. It is usually called the "soul building" defense and is a companion to the free will defense.

[Jeff250]

What if God gave me a will which was predisposed to choose the right thing every time? Do I still have a free will then?

The answer isn't clear to me either. On one hand, our decisions are largely predisposed by our genetics, our character, our personality, etc., so it seems like by just improving these dispositions, we wouldn't be infringing on our free will. On the other hand, intuitively, it does seem like, say if we take the most extreme example, being predisposed to always choose right actions, that this isn't free will either. But then again, what does this suggest? That to be the most free, we need to be predisposed 50-50 to do right vs. wrong actions? Surely this isn't the case. And I don't think that we would accept that working to improve our character to maybe a 60-40 predisposition would really be infringing on our free will.

In any case, what seems strange to me is that being completely predisposed to choose the right action seems to be exactly what the Bible promises us in heaven. If we accept that we have free will in heaven, that we can satisfyingly love in heaven, and that we will always be predisposed to choose to do the right thing, then it seems like that this would be possible elsewhere.

[Shadowfury333]

I'm thinking that maybe predisposition may not necessarily be the best word. I would suggest knowledge and forethought instead. For example, if one knew every consequence of every action that one could do, then logically they would pick the action with the best overall consequence, assuming that they are thinking rationally. Now, \"best overall consequence\" could theoretically have a million different meanings, but as we have established the assumption of a loving God, we can therefore assume that the best overall consequence would be the one that brings us closest to God. Thus, even though are will is completely free, in Heaven(and in many cases, on Earth as well) our knowledge and foresight will allow us to choose the most holy action every time.

[dissent]

In fact, considering how love is only a mental thing that causes happyness, and has no actual spiritual bonds (that are known), it seems like a bit of a waste.

This, indeed, is the source of your confusion. Love is not a feeling at all. I can still deeply love someone while being crazy-spitting angry at them. Because American popular culture has tried to equate love with a feeling (see any number of songs over the past half century for a multitude of references), it has trouble understanding the real thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agape
(see "Agape in Christianity")

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/love.htm

[Duper]

Great post dissent. I wish more people could understand this.

[TIGERassault]

In fact, considering how love is only a mental thing that causes happyness, and has no actual spiritual bonds (that are known), it seems like a bit of a waste.

This, indeed, is the source of your confusion. Love is not a feeling at all. I can still deeply love someone while being crazy-spitting angry at them. Because American popular culture has tried to equate love with a feeling (see any number of songs over the past half century for a multitude of references), it has trouble understanding the real thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agape
(see "Agape in Christianity")

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/love.htm

Yes, I know; happines is the real feeling, brought about by the thought of loving and being loved.
But describing it as a feeling in itself is the easiest way to do so.

[dissent]

It may be easy, but that doesn't make it correct. I thought truth was the virtue to be sought after; indeed, I have never considered ease to even be a virtue (though at times it feels really good )

[Shoku]

Original question:
\"If God is loving, why is there so much pain in His creation?\"

Good question.

If God were not loving, there would be no possibility for humans to experience pain, because our lives would be totally controled by him, and this would make us less than what he intended. A domoneering parent is not loving; as a domoneering parent, God would be restricting our ability to make our own decisions, to learn, and to freely demonstrate our willingness to live our lives according to his commands; forced obedience is not genuine obedience, and does not promote true love.

If a child rebels enough, and is old enough, the parents will often kick them out of the house, yet with the understanding that if they willingly return to their senses they can return home; and they will be welcomed back with open arms, like the prodigal son.

Mankind, through Adam, rejected God's guidence. God, being an understanding fellow, decided to let man prove himself by allowing Adam and his offspring to fend for themselves - man was kicked out of paradise because Man chose to abandon God's guidence. The result is mentioned at Romans 8 begining in verse 18:

\"In my reckoning, whatever we are called upon to suffer in this present time cannot compare with the glory which is going to burst upon us. For the whole created universe eagerly and expectantly awaits the day God will show the world who his sons are. For the whole created universe was involved in a process of meaningless frustration, not of its own choice, but by the decree of God who did so subject it (because of Adam's sin God took himself out of the picture, allowing man to fend for himself - that's the source of our 'pain'). But the situation was never hopeless, because even the created universe itself will be liberated from its servitude to death's decay, and will come to enjoy the glourious liberty of the children of God. For we know that up to now the whole created universe groans in all its parts, like a woman in the birthpangs. This is not only true of the creatred universe. We too, although we have recieved in the Spirit a foretaste of what the new life will be like, groan inwardly, as we wait longingly for God to complete his adoption of us, so that we will be emancipated from sin, both body and soul. . . .What then are we to conclude in view of this? If God is for us, who is against us? IF God did not spare his only Son, but gave him up for the sake of us all (Adam's offspring who did not willfully chose to reject God's commands), can we not be sure that with him there is nothing that he will not freely give us? . . .Who can part us from Christ's love for us? Shall trouble or distress or persecution or famine, nakedness or danger or the sword? As scipture says: 'All day long we face death for your sake; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.' But he who loved us has enabled us, not only to overcome these things, but to emerge triumphant over them. I am quite sure that nothing in death or in life, no angel and no superhuman being, nothing in the world as it is and nothing in the world as it will be, no power of the heights and no power of the depths, nor anything else in all the created universe will be able to part us from the love which God has shown us in Christ Jesus our Lord.\"

So, pain is a result of man's disobedience. God's love has allowed man time to prove if he really needs God. God's love also allows those who recognize that they do need him, to return to him and recieve his blessing.

It is important to recognize that a precedent is being established. When the hammer falls; when enough time has passed for man to prove himself and God steps back into the arena, recess will be over for all those wanting to reject God's authority. Man's history of failure will be presented before the entire created universe, justifying God's position. Once this is established, rebellion will no longer need to be tolerated - pain, suffering, and death will cease.

[Sirius]

When does Mobius drive-by this thread?

On second thoughts, the topic title might be making him ignore it or something.

[Kilarin]

Excellent and interesting posts everyone!

why not give us a better will? (By better, I mean a more virtuous will that chooses the right decision more often.)

I think there are actually two aspects to your question. The first is why does man have a fallen nature.

As has been pointed out by others, according to the Genesis account, we started with very good natures. Man had no INCLINATION to sin. But by definition, free will must be free. So even without an inclination to sin, we had the ability to choose it if we wished. And they did. And THAT is why we now have fallen natures with an inclination to sin.

The second aspect of your question is, "Couldn't God had made Adam and Eve so that they had free will had no ability to choose evil". But this is actually saying, "Couldn't God give them free will without giving them free will?" As C. S. Lewis said, "Nonsense does not cease to be nonsense when we put the words “God can” before it."

If there is no choice to make, its not actually free will. Thus we COULD choose sin if we wished, and Adam and Eve did so.

If we accept that we have free will in heaven, that we can satisfyingly love in heaven, and that we will always be predisposed to choose to do the right thing, then it seems like that this would be possible elsewhere.

It WOULD have been possible, but our parents chose otherwise. Being predisposed to a certain choice does not force one to make that choice.

[Samuel Dravis]

It WOULD have been possible, but our parents chose otherwise. Being predisposed to a certain choice does not force one to make that choice.

I'm not seeing a difference with the two; you "could not" make a different choice either way - if you were predisposed to make a good choice, then you would always do that given the same conditions, right? And if God makes the conditions...

I've actually just read "The Problem of Pain" by C.S. Lewis on this very subject. It was quite interesting. The point that Lewis was making is that, in any universe in which beings can communicate/exercise free will, the very act of communication/choice implies a common ground, a plane of existence that is the same for all, and upon which choices can be made. Given that this plane does not change to suit our whims (it cannot, because otherwise there would be no ability to communicate and choices would be meaningless) there will be people that take advantage of this mutual plane to hurt others and cause pain. Essentially, this means that God could either make a universe in which we were able to make choices (and have pain as a possible result), or he could have made one in which our choices mean nothing and free will doesn't exist.

Natural events are also covered by the fact that the universe can't be two things at once. If a rock is falling because it rolled off of a ledge, I can't stop it with my mind because the universe doesn't conform to my wishes. This brings the question of what made the rock start rolling, but that's a bit more than I care to write at the moment.

It was an interesting book; I'm not religious but I found the explanations it gave informative as to why christians believe the stuff they do.

[Duper]

nice post SD.

CS Lewis was probably one of the most practical and down to earth theologains of our time. (sry, spelling) Him and Tolkken were good friends who was also a Christian.

[Foil]

God could either make a universe in which we were able to make choices (and have pain as a possible result), or he could have made one in which our choices mean nothing and free will doesn't exist.

Exactly!

To some people (especially those who have experienced immense pain), a choiceless but painless universe seems better.

To others (often those who haven't experienced as much pain), pain is an acceptable sacrifice for human freedom, so a universe with free will seems better.

So why does God choose one over the other? Going back to my original post, that's where I think the relation of love to free will comes into play.

[Foil]

why not give us a better will? (By better, I mean a more virtuous will that chooses the right decision more often.)

...
If there is no choice to make, its not actually free will.

I'm actually intrigued by Jeff250's question. He's not talking about a "better will" which always chooses right (as you pointed out, that wouldn't be free will at all). He's talking about a "better will" which chooses right a little more often (i.e. his 50/50 vs. 60/40 analogy). Would that infringe upon free will? I think so, but I'm not sure I have a good reason to say that. Hmm.

[Kilarin]

if you were predisposed to make a good choice, then you would always do that given the same conditions, right?

Not if free will is actually free will.

You see, one of the root problems here is that there is no such thing as a definition of what "free will" actually means. We can only define two kinds of choices.

1:Pre-determined. given your genetics, the chemical/electrical potentials in your brain at the moment, the environmental situation, etc, the choice was made by physics.

2:Random chance. The choice was made by quantum dynamics.

Neither of these fits what most humans mean when they say "Free Will", and what Christian Doctrine requires.

If "Free Will" actually means you get to make a choice, a free choice, a choice that you are actually responsible for. THEN, you can be predisposed to certain choices, but not required to make them.

To give an analogy, some people are predisposed to be alcoholics. It's EASIER for them to become an alcoholic than the general population, but that does not mean they have to become an alcoholic. They still have a choice.

According to Christian doctrine, Adam and Eve were predisposed to make good choices. And yet, the option to choose evil was still available, and despite being inclined the other way, they chose evil.

"The Problem of Pain" by C.S. Lewis

Yep, Lewis is an absolutely incredible writer. And I think he has a VERY good point on this one. Thank you for bringing it up!

He's talking about a "better will" which chooses right a little more often (i.e. his 50/50 vs. 60/40 analogy). Would that infringe upon free will? I think so, but I'm not sure I have a good reason to say that. Hmm.

I don't believe that mankind's current state is the way we were intended to be. I believe that our will is corrupt.

Rom 7:18-19 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

BUT, I also believe that by surrendering our wills to Christ, we can be given new wills.

Ps 51:10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.

And these new "better wills" don't intrude upon our free will at all. Quite the oposite. An alcoholic doesn't LOSE his free will when he gives up drink, he exercises it!

Of course, what you were speaking of is could fallen man be given this new and improved will, "against his will", and you are right, it can't be done and is incompatible with love.

[Jeff250]

It seems like you're just deferring the problem. Now it's unclear why God made wills that are corruptible and why God made wills' corruption inheritable. Besides, through what means does a will become corrupt to begin with? Some sort of appeal to metaphysics?

[Shadowfury333]

Besides, through what means does a will become corrupt to begin with? Some sort of appeal to metaphysics?

Probably simple savagery. I mean, most things listed as corrupt are simply caused by a focus on short term physical pleasures, generally those that have likely negative long-term consequences, i.e. premarital sex(strictly an example, not a new argument point). Whereas God wants us to have long-term pleasure, which in some cases requires us to forgo certain immediate desires. Basically, it is a matter of impulse, which all living creatures have, against intellect, which is AFAWK at its peak in humans.

[Kilarin]

Now it's unclear why God made wills that are corruptible

If a will is not corruptable, then it's not a will. If you are not CAPABLE of choosing wrong, then you have no choice.

through what means does a will become corrupt to begin with? Some sort of appeal to metaphysics?

Through thier own choice

why God made wills' corruption inheritable.

THAT one I can't answer. Charles Williams speaks about co-inherence, "a universal interdependence of all people and things within a mystical God or 'the Divine.'", and this concept seems to make sense to a lot of people, but I was always too left brained to understand it.

Anyone else have an insight?

[De Rigueur]

why God made wills' corruption inheritable.

THAT one I can't answer. Charles Williams speaks about co-inherence, "a universal interdependence of all people and things within a mystical God or 'the Divine.'", and this concept seems to make sense to a lot of people, but I was always too left brained to understand it.

Anyone else have an insight?

I think words like corruption and defilement (and holiness, for that matter) have ancient, symbolic meanings that are perhaps difficult for modern minds to appreciate. To define humans' status with respect to God, I would use terms like finite, dependent, contingent and subordinate. These terms might get the point across with fewer negative connotations.

[Jeff250]

If a will is not corruptable, then it's not a will. If you are not CAPABLE of choosing wrong, then you have no choice.

through what means does a will become corrupt to begin with? Some sort of appeal to metaphysics?

Through thier own choice

This seems problematic. We need a corrupt will to choose wrong, yet our will became corrupt through our own choice. Wouldn't you then need a corrupt will to choose a corrupt will? It doesn't seem to add up.

Also I don't think I've heard a satisfactory response as to how all of these things, like the compatibility of free will and always making good choices, are not possible on earth but will be in heaven. I mean, if one of my distant relatives sins in heaven, is that going to corrupt my will all over again? Of course, it doesn't even seem as though it could get that far in heaven from what I know of heaven.

[Kilarin]

We need a corrupt will to choose wrong, yet our will became corrupt through our own choice.

No no no! Your will is not "corrupt" because you are capable of choosing wrong. Your will only becomes corrupt if you exercise that choice. But it's not actually "Free Will" unless you've got the ability to make that choice.

Free Will requires the ABILITY to choose evil, it does not require a tendency to do so, or that you ever actually make that choice.

For a mundane example. A husband who was FORCED to "love" his wife, say through hypnosis, drugs, brain washing, whatever, would not have free will, and it wouldn't be proper to call what he felt "love" by a Christian definition.

But a Husband who freely CHOOSES to love his wife, even though he obviously COULD choose otherwise, does not need to WANT to choose otherwise, or to every actually do so, for his choice to still be free.

But since his will is free, he COULD choose to have an affair. It's a CHOICE that is available to him, and there will certainly be consequences for his relationship, and quite possibly an increased tendency to make the same kind of choice again. The analogy starts to break down here, but I think it's served it's purpose.

I don't think I've heard a satisfactory response as to how all of these things, like the compatibility of free will and always making good choices, are not possible on earth but will be in heaven.

From a Christian point of view: In God's original design of the Universe, Sin was possible, but not necessary. It could have all gone on happily forever choosing love and not evil, but it didn't. Someone exercised their free will and chose otherwise.

Once sin got started, it became difficult, actually impossible, for us to stop on our own. Think of Sin as a drug that is instantly addicting. And this addiction to sin was passed on to our own offspring.

Now, that is a part of the story I have a lot of trouble with. Why should Adam and Eve's children suffer because of them? I don't have a perfect answer. The best that has been given to me is one that deals with your actual question. Will sin ever rise again in heaven?

Nahum 1:9 "What do ye imagine against the LORD? he will make an utter end: affliction shall not rise up the second time."

Is actually dealing with Assyria, but most Christians believe it was also symbolic and discussing the ultimate fate of evil. We don't think sin will ever happen again once it's been dealt with on this earth. Why?

One Christian theory is that this is the reason Sin is being allowed to run its course here on earth. It's being given a chance to show exactly what happens when it does. And BECAUSE of that example, everyone who chooses Love will never choose hate again. And thus sin will never spoil heaven.

I find this answer to be not entirely satisfying. But if the universe was really created by an omnipotent omniscient being, the it's hardly surprising that there should be some areas of philosophy that my finite brain can not yet fully comprehend.

[Jeff250]

When I said, \"Now it's unclear why God made wills that are corruptible...\" you said: \"If a will is not corruptible, then it's not a will. If you are not CAPABLE of choosing wrong, then you have no choice.\" Given this and your last post, I think there was some ambiguity concerning the word corruption. By corruption, I was referring to the loss of our original predisposition to do good things. So to rephrase my question more specifically: Why is it necessary for free will that we lose a certain predisposition to make the right choices once we've made a bad one? This seems necessary neither for the coherency of free will, nor for the good for human beings--in fact, quite the opposite. (And, again, if we never lost a certain predisposition to do good, why didn't we have it to begin with?)

[Foil]

So to rephrase my question more specifically: Why is it necessary for free will that we lose a certain predisposition to make the right choices once we've made a bad one? This seems necessary neither for the coherency of free will, nor for the good for human beings--in fact, quite the opposite. (And, again, if we never lost a certain predisposition to do good, why didn't we have it to begin with?)

Interesting. So you see "free will" and "predisposition" as mutually separate?

Kilarin is arguing that if there is a predisposition to one direction or another, that means they don't really have free will / choice, and I tend to agree.

On the other hand, you seem to be referring to "predisposition" as something outside free will (like a tendency toward something, but which doesn't interfere with ability to choose). Could this simply be an issue of semantics, or am I misunderstanding?

[Jeff250]

Probably an issue of semantics. I mean predisposition in more of the tendency sense, where something you're predisposed to do is not something that you cannot not do, but you're just more inclined to do it. Predisposition is not to be read like predetermination or predestination.

I think a good example of what I mean by disposition would be building virtuous character. When we study and practice virtue, it becomes easier for us to do as we become more inclined to do virtuous activity and less inclined to do vicious activity. In this sense, we are more disposed to practicing virtue (and less disposed to practicing vice), and it's in this sense that I think it makes sense for God to make us more predisposed to do virtuous activity.

[Birdseye]

*insert religious rationalization for dogmatic, emotional unprovable belief here*

[De Rigueur]

*insert religious rationalization for dogmatic, emotional unprovable belief here*

Due to limitations of the human intellect, I'd say that the class of unprovable beliefs is large -- including metaphysical, ethical and aesthetic beliefs. Religious rationalizations are as good as any other kind of rationalization.