A phone conversation with a muslim missionary

[rodgertutt]

That was some random website you found on google

I gave you a verse from our scripture itself.

But c0de, the scripture you gave only referred to the salvation of non-Muslims who "do good."
It says nothing about those who do bad.

But this website that is written for the purpose of explaining what Muslims believe about the afterlife says that non-Muslims who do bad will be punished eternally.

The Afterlife in Islam - ReligionFacts
QUOTE "Non-Muslims (kafir), however, will be punished eternally."

 

[c0de]

But this website that is written for the purpose of explaining what Muslims believe about the afterlife says that non-Muslims who do bad will be punished eternally.

Please don't lecture me on what Muslims believe.
(especially by quoting a non-Muslim website.)

I am a Muslim. So listen to what I am telling you.

But c0de, the scripture you gave only referred to the salvation of non-Muslims who "do good."
It says nothing about those who do bad.

It was in response to your assertion that most Muslims believe
ALL-non Muslims are going to hell. (which is clearly false).

And yes, Muslims do believe that good people go to heaven
and bad people go to hell. The fact that hell is finite while
heaven is infinite is a separate issue entirely.

 

[bob x]

Evidently you not only have not experienced this, but you can't even accept that this condition exists.

You are seriously mistaken. I spent years in chronic depression, found that meds were only marginally helpful, and was often oppressed by suicidal thoughts, which I CHOSE not to act on; and so of course I am personally interested in the question of whether the chemical imbalance, or whatever it is, can get so bad that "there isn't any choice" anymore. I find that survivors of serious attempts (as opposed to cry-for-help pseudo-attempts) find their decision, in retrospect, as inexplicable as those left behind by people who successfully suicide, although not in any apparently "strong" state of suffering. I am not saying that it is logically impossible for your position (that there is some compelling causal explanation) to be correct; just that it is seriously non-obvious that there is anything correct about it, so that I have to wonder why you thought it a good example.

No will "freely" chooses anything. Every choice is CAUSED to occur by a combination of influences.

Here you go again. In the electron case, more clearly than in the suicide case, we are talking about "choices" for which no material influence is the cause, or, as you were willing to concede earlier, there is no apparent reason (nothing in the observable universe). So if there is some influence that does cause it, it is "free" in the sense of being independent from the material influences.

There can be no such a thing as choosing what you don't want MORE than choosing something else.

If the only cause is that the will, itself, "wants it more", and no cause why the will wants it more except... it just does, well that is what we mean to say the will is "free".

Okay lets not go overboard. A loophole does exist, and it is possible to escape Bell's theorem (hence the possibility of a superdeterministic theory remains).

Superdeterminism, in Bell's sense, most definitely DOES require abandoning the theory that the present position of the material particles is sufficient to determine what happens next; instead, everything is determined by something "hidden". Von Neumann's proof of course does not exclude every variety of "hidden variables" theory, just the simplistic ones. Here is the easiest, and least satisfactory, way out: some Hindu thinkers speculate about the Akasha or "crystal chronicle" in which every event past, present, and future is written down, which is present NOW, and can be accessed from anywhere; it is just very difficult to get a peek. So we can have a theory in which there is only "one" law of physics, namely: "The whole sequence of events is thus: [huge HUGE HUGE information dump]." There could be no necessity for any regularities or patterns in the Akasha (as Hume said, tomorrow could be the day the sun starts rising in the west); if there are any, it is just that God (who wrote it all in one writing) happens to fancy regularities.

Bell regarded a theory in which information travels backward in time (the future is not only "present" now, but actually has effects on the now) to be "spooky" and repugnant, so he was trying to work out something like Bohm's "implicate order" where everything is determined by some structure that is not at all like a space-time geometry, from which space-time is an "emergent property"; instead of "one" law ("this is it") there would be a number of basic principles from which the structure of the Akasha could be inferred. The point I was stressing earlier is that nobody has made this work; the point I would stress now is that this is not salvaging the theory "The present distribution of material particles is sufficient to determine what follows" but rather is abandoning it.

What would stop a billion dollar true-A.I. from committing suicide? Or making just as many mistakes as we make? We assume that an A.I. would be this quantum leap in efficiency, but what if it just feels overwhelmed by all the "possibilities" like most real people?

This is my point. A "real" A.I. with free will (in my sense) would be no better off than we are.

I actually have very little problem with thinking in "zero causal" terms.

OK. I don't think non-causality is likely to be true, but need to acknowledge that there is no logical necessity for causality; it is just a habit of our thought-process.

A lightning has just as much a chance of striking the good, as it does the wicked. I don't believe in "karma" or pop-culture versions of religion. Good things happen to bad people, and bad things happen to good people, more often then not.

As for the "why" questions behind our existence, it's just like asking "why" a painter paints? Or why a poet writes? God, creates. And that's just the way it is.

I find it emotionally easier to accept that the universe is full of both good and bad if God doesn't "make" anything happen, but "lets" his creations act freely; I cannot change what is bad, only decide to do what is right from where I stand.

I recently re-read Dostoyevsky's Brothers Karamazov. There was a passage where Ivan was talking about a nobleman hunting a little naked boy for sport, the dogs tearing the boy to pieces, and how little it does to make it right to imagine "HA HA, that evil noble will be tortured forever and ever!" (I agree with rodger on this much: that thought doesn't comfort me at all) or to imagine "The little boy will get eternal joy in heaven": here I disagree with rodger and agree with Ivan K, who says "That does not change anything; his moments of agony will, forever, be what they are." I do not like the ending that was tacked on to the book of Job: sorry about your kids all getting slaughtered for nothing, but here, have some NEW kids, everything better now? "Sorry kid, that I cut your balls off, but here, have a pony!"

If you leave out the notion of a God who acts with "intentions", and deliberately causes each and every evil thing that happens, then this need to insist that every evil thing will turn out to be a good thing disappears. There are good things, and there are evil things, it's all a package deal, and which you participate in is entirely up to you.

 

[rodgertutt]

The fact that hell is finite while
heaven is infinite is a separate issue entirely.

Yes it cetainly is a separate issue, but in my opinion it is the all-important issue.

Just like many Christians believe, many Muslims (according to that website) also believe in the eternal punishment of some people. Many of both Christians and Muslims have a god who either has no desire or no ability (or both) to correct the badness of bad people.

As a knowledgeable Muslim, do you know if any Muslims believe in the eventual salvation of everyone?

I am happy to say that some Christians do believe that their Bible,
literally (not interpretively) translated, does in fact teach the eventual salvation of everyone.

e.g. “He (God) that chastiseth the heathen, shall not He correct?
Blessed is the man whom Thou chasteneth, O Lord.” (Psalm 94:10,12)

TWO TREASURE HOUSES OF CHRISTIAN UNIVERSALIST ARTICLES
Christian Universalism Articles by Title
Christian Universalism Articles

 

[rodgertutt]

You are seriously mistaken. I spent years in chronic depression, found that meds were only marginally helpful, and was often oppressed by suicidal thoughts, which I CHOSE not to act on.

You are fortunate that the suicidal influences were not as strong as they obviously are in actual suicide victims.

Here you go again. In the electron case, more clearly than in the suicide case, we are talking about "choices" for which no material influence is the cause, or, as you were willing to concede earlier, there is no apparent reason (nothing in the observable universe). So if there is some influence that does cause it, it is "free" in the sense of being independent from the material influences.

And it is not "free" in the sense that its occurance could not have been prevented.

If the only cause is that the will, itself, "wants it more", and no cause why the will wants it more except... it just does, well that is what we mean to say the will is "free".

You can only choose what you want MORE than something else.
In other words, there is no possibility that you could have chosen something else instead.

If you leave out the notion of a God who acts with "intentions", and deliberately causes each and every evil thing that happens, then this need to insist that every evil thing will turn out to be a good thing disappears. There are good things, and there are evil things, it's all a package deal, and which you participate in is entirely up to you.

Why I reject that kind of thinking.
THE PURPOSE OF EVIL
evil.html

 

[c0de]

I recently re-read Dostoyevsky's Brothers Karamazov. There was a passage where Ivan was talking about a nobleman hunting a little naked boy for sport, the dogs tearing the boy to pieces, and how little it does to make it right to imagine "HA HA, that evil noble will be tortured forever and ever!" (I agree with rodger on this much: that thought doesn't comfort me at all) or to imagine "The little boy will get eternal joy in heaven": here I disagree with rodger and agree with Ivan K, who says "That does not change anything; his moments of agony will, forever, be what they are." I do not like the ending that was tacked on to the book of Job: sorry about your kids all getting slaughtered for nothing, but here, have some NEW kids, everything better now? "Sorry kid, that I cut your balls off, but here, have a pony!"

The example that you used, and the "poem" Grand Inquisitor, show me that Ivan, the cold hard rationalist was in effect the most emotional of the three brothers. He was the only one who based his beliefs on his emotional state (throughout the novel, from beginning, to end). This is a very important feature, which is lost on most people who read this work.

The few but powerful dialogues which involve Ivan are the most powerful in the novel, but unfortunately, most people are more influenced by Ivan then learn from his mistakes. While people consider Aloysha to be the weak one, and Ivan to be the strong willed protagonist, they miss the point entirely. This is not an accident, in fact, it is clear to me that D. knew this would happen and allowed for it.

This was why D. wanted to write sequels to this novel, because the character of Aloysha had no chance to over-take Ivan in this novel. Which is why I think the Brothers K is one of the greatest tragedies in all of literature.

I find it emotionally easier to accept that the universe is full of both good and bad if God doesn't "make" anything happen, but "lets" his creations act freely; I cannot change what is bad, only decide to do what is right from where I stand.

Liebniz's perfect "Watchmaker" comes to mind.

Since the last few years I reject any emotional attachment with how God chooses to do anything. I realized I have ZERO control over what He does, I just try and focus on what I have to do (free will or not). I have found this keeps my sights clear.

If you leave out the notion of a God who acts with "intentions", and deliberately causes each and every evil thing that happens, then this need to insist that every evil thing will turn out to be a good thing disappears. There are good things, and there are evil things, it's all a package deal, and which you participate in is entirely up to you.

Personally, there have been times I have felt that death forever (no waking up, no judgment, no heaven) wouldn't be that bad of a deal and I have wished for exactly that.

But I wouldn't dare say this to any of the 6 million jews who had to face the nazi death camps. Or the people dying of hunger and thirst in Africa, etc. These are the people who are in actual need of divine justice, and heaven.

Superdeterminism, in Bell's sense, most definitely DOES require abandoning the theory that the present position of the material particles is sufficient to determine what happens next; instead, everything is determined by something "hidden".

Yea, sorry, I got confused.

Von Neumann's proof of course does not exclude every variety of "hidden variables" theory, just the simplistic ones. Here is the easiest, and least satisfactory, way out: some Hindu thinkers speculate about the Akasha or "crystal chronicle" in which every event past, present, and future is written down, which is present NOW, and can be accessed from anywhere; it is just very difficult to get a peek. So we can have a theory in which there is only "one" law of physics, namely: "The whole sequence of events is thus: [huge HUGE HUGE information dump]." There could be no necessity for any regularities or patterns in the Akasha (as Hume said, tomorrow could be the day the sun starts rising in the west); if there are any, it is just that God (who wrote it all in one writing) happens to fancy regularities.

I appreciate you mentioning Hume, because I was thinking of the classic empiricist argument as well. It is no accident that al-Ghazali was a precursor to Western empirical thought. The idea that nothing that we observe as a "cause" can actually be proven to be an efficient cause of anything, is something I find to be an incredibly powerful way of thinking.

Bell regarded a theory in which information travels backward in time (the future is not only "present" now, but actually has effects on the now) to be "spooky" and repugnant, so he was trying to work out something like Bohm's "implicate order" where everything is determined by some structure that is not at all like a space-time geometry, from which space-time is an "emergent property"; instead of "one" law ("this is it") there would be a number of basic principles from which the structure of the Akasha could be inferred. The point I was stressing earlier is that nobody has made this work; the point I would stress now is that this is not salvaging the theory "The present distribution of material particles is sufficient to determine what follows" but rather is abandoning it.

Maybe, just as Occasionalism/Subjective Idealism are coherent, yet unscientific points of view (because they can not be tested) Superdeterminism is also hard or impossible to test, which is why no one has made it work.

I guess this would sort of make these theories and philosophies transcendent (enter Immanuel Kant).

 

[c0de]

.

p.s.

do you know if any Muslims believe in the eventual salvation of everyone?

(lol) err yea... I know me. and I am a Muslim like me..

There are many more liberal Muslims then there are conservatives, trust me.

 

[rodgertutt]

.

p.s.

(lol) err yea... I know me. and I am a Muslim like me..

There are many more liberal Muslims then there are conservatives, trust me.

Well, I'm glad to hear that c0de!

Sad to say, quite the reverse is true in most of Christianity.

Although it is also true that Christian Biblical Universalism has been growing quite rapidly in recent years.

I'm trying to be part of the strongest influence that speeds up that process.

 

[c0de]

Well, I'm glad to hear that c0de!

Sad to say, quite the reverse is true in most of Christianity.

Although it is also true that Christian Biblical Universalism has been growing quite rapidly in recent years.

I'm trying to be part of the strongest influence that speeds up that process.

I am sure most Christians don't feel that everyone else will burn in hell either, even if orthodox doctrines state otherwise.

Muslim scholars are divided about such issues too, but ordinary people these days are too secular to care what the preacher/imam/rabbi thinks anyway. In another century, I doubt anyone is gonna care about religion at all.

 

[bob x]

And it is not "free" in the sense that its occurance could not have been prevented.

But if it is not determined by the material, and your hypothetical influence that makes it unpreventable is elsewhere, it is at least "free" in the sense of being free of the material world.

You can only choose what you want MORE than something else.

And if there is no cause except that the will "wants it more", for no reason except... the will "wants it more", then that is totally "free", in every sense.

THE PURPOSE OF EVIL

If you justify evil, you are evil.

 

[bob x]

While people consider Aloysha to be the weak one, and Ivan to be the strong willed protagonist, they miss the point entirely.

Huh! It never would have occurred to me to view Alyosha as "weaker" than Ivan.
Joke: if Agatha Christie had written the Brothers Karamazov, it would have been revealed on the last page that Alyosha was the real killer!

Since the last few years I reject any emotional attachment with how God chooses to do anything.

The idea THAT "God chooses to do anything" is itself an "emotional attachment", just an outgrowth of our tendency to anthropomorphism. Mark Twain: "From a dog's point of view, a human is just an elongated and singularly clever dog." Is our view of God as "an exceedingly strong and singularly clever human" any more likely to be accurate? Doing away with the concept of God acting with "intentions", and "deliberately" choosing this or that to achieve certain "ends", but rather, instead viewing God as acting just as impersonally as the lightning bolt, removes difficulties which I think are just imaginary anyway.

Maybe, just as Occasionalism/Subjective Idealism are coherent, yet unscientific points of view (because they can not be tested) Superdeterminism is also hard or impossible to test, which is why no one has made it work.

What I mean by saying "no-one has made it work" is that no-one has formulated a system along those lines which is consistent with the observations we have. It would be great if the system also made predictions about things we haven't observed yet, but the first hurdle would be accounting for the data we already have.

 

[rodgertutt]

But if it is not determined by the material, and your hypothetical influence that makes it unpreventable is elsewhere, it is at least "free" in the sense of being free of the material world.

But it is not free in the sense that the choice HAD to occur without fail
since it could not be prevented. A choice that "just happens" without any cause (if there could be such a thing) would still HAVE to happen because it could not be prevented from happening.

And if there is no cause except that the will "wants it more", for no reason except... the will "wants it more", then that is totally "free", in every sense.

But it will ONLY choose what it WANTS. It could not have chosen anything else but what it wanted. Therefore it is not even possible that any other choice could have been made.

If you justify evil, you are evil.

That is a human ethical opinion that doesn't accept that the temporary prevalence of evil is under God's control, and when He gets finished using the existence of evil to accomplish all of the reasons why He allowed it in the first place, He will then erradicate evil and suffering from existence.

From the the point of view of the consummation of God's plan for the ages of time, everyone will look back and understand that it was better that everything happened the way that it did, better than if it had not happened that way.

GOD'S PLAN FOR THE AGES OF TIME ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE
The eons of the Bible With Concordance, God’s purpose of the eons.

I believe that God will eventually fit every unique individual into His master plan in a positive way that necessitates their unique temporary involvement in evil and suffering that will enable God to manifest, and glorify, and magnify the many facets of His character in a way that uniquely involves that person, and everyone else involved in that person’s life too.

I believe that after our resurrection from the dead God will eventually somehow transform every second of everyone's suffering into something better that it happened.
That includes both the unexplained and seemingly unjustifiable suffering that we all experience in varying degrees, as well as what the Bible calls "kolasis aionion" which means age-during corrective chastisement that everyone who needs it will experience.

I believe like Christian universalist Dr. Leslie Weatherhead who said

“God’s purposes are so vast and glorious, beyond all guessing now,
that when they are achieved and consummated, all our sufferings and sorrows of today, even the agonies that nearly break our faith, the disasters that well nigh overwhelm us, shall, seen from that fair country where God’s age long dreams come true, bulk as little as bulk now the pieces of a broken toy upon a nursery floor, over which, thinking that all our little world was in ruins, we cried ourselves to sleep.”

 

[c0de]

Huh! It never would have occurred to me to view Alyosha as "weaker" than Ivan.

I guess "weaker" was the wrong word. Some interpretations see the brothers as the three part of man in general. Aloysha being the soul, Mitya the heart, and Ivan the intellect.

It could be argued that D. was trying to show what happens when these three parts become disjointed, or one becomes more emphasized then the other.

The soul survives, and thrives in solitude (aloysha). The heart turns to self destruction (mitya) and the intellect has a tendency towards insanity...

The fact that Ivan is considered the hidden protagonist by the audience, even against the pleas of the narrator himself, hints at something.

The idea THAT "God chooses to do anything" is itself an "emotional attachment", just an outgrowth of our tendency to anthropomorphism. Mark Twain: "From a dog's point of view, a human is just an elongated and singularly clever dog." Is our view of God as "an exceedingly strong and singularly clever human" any more likely to be accurate? Doing away with the concept of God acting with "intentions", and "deliberately" choosing this or that to achieve certain "ends", but rather, instead viewing God as acting just as impersonally as the lightning bolt, removes difficulties which I think are just imaginary anyway.

I see things from the opposing angle. It is not an anthropomorphic concept of God that is holding us back, but a deified view of ourselves which fuels our neurosis.

For example, in your paradigm: humans are the ones who have the power to act on intentions to achieve the ends that we want. But to me: it is clear from the dismal state of humanity that this is NOT the case.

What I mean by saying "no-one has made it work" is that no-one has formulated a system along those lines which is consistent with the observations we have. It would be great if the system also made predictions about things we haven't observed yet, but the first hurdle would be accounting for the data we already have.

And it doesn't look like we're getting closer on that front. For now though, I am just waiting for CERN LHC to get back on its feet!

 

[bob x]

A choice that "just happens" without any cause (if there could be such a thing) would still HAVE to happen because it could not be prevented from happening.

But that is precisely what is meant to say that it happens "freely"; in the hypothetical you present, it is not only "free" of the material world, but "free" of everything.

But it will ONLY choose what it WANTS.

What the free decision is must be what the free decision is. A = A. Yes, yes, it cannot be two things at once, but that is not a "restriction" on freedom. I do not feel "oppressed" by mathematics just because I cannot make 1+1 equal 1.

That is a human ethical opinion that doesn't accept that the temporary prevalence of evil is under God's control

Indeed. It is my ethical opinion that you are describing God as a totally evil creature. Nothing that happens later can ever change the essentially evil nature of the evils that have been, and you are giving God the blame for each and every one of them. Even if Hitler had lived on for a billion years as a charitable healing saint, Auschwitz would still be Auschwitz.

For example, in your paradigm: humans are the ones who have the power to act on intentions to achieve the ends that we want. But to me: it is clear from the dismal state of humanity that this is NOT the case.

Humans have very limited power. In my paradigm, one of the ways in which God is imagined to be "bigger" than an ordinary human is that his powers are always adequate for his intentions, which ours are not; the other is that God's knowledge about his options is complete, which ours are not. But we can learn, improving our knowledge and extending our power.

We cannot change the past, only learn from it and do better from where we stand now. If we look at history realistically, without any false nostalgia, we are much better off than we were in past ages. AA saying: "we claim spiritual progress rather than spiritual perfection." We are finite beings, and create evils because of our limitations: we are often stupid and inept. Rodger would have me believe that the evils are intentionally created by a being who ought to know better and certainly is capable of doing right.

And it doesn't look like we're getting closer on that front. For now though, I am just waiting for CERN LHC to get back on its feet!

I too am awaiting those results with bated breath.

 

[rodgertutt]

But that is precisely what is meant to say that it happens "freely"; in the hypothetical you present, it is not only "free" of the material world, but "free" of everything.

What the free decision is must be what the free decision is. A = A. Yes, yes, it cannot be two things at once, but that is not a "restriction" on freedom. I do not feel "oppressed" by mathematics just because I cannot make 1+1 equal 1.

A choice that HAS to occur is NOT the product of a "free" will. It is not even possible that we could have chosen differently than we did when we made all of the choices that we made in the past.

Indeed. It is my ethical opinion that you are describing God as a totally evil creature.

God created evil for good reasons and when those reasons have been achieved He will erradicate evil and its suffering from existence. Isaiah 45:7 "I create evil."

Nothing that happens later can ever change the essentially evil nature of the evils that have been

Only God can transform all evil into something better that it temporariy prevailed, and He will not fail to do so.

and you are giving God the blame for each and every one of them.

"Blame" is the wrong word. But yes, God is 100% responsible for all the evil that has, and will occur. Sooner or later He will "jusify" its prevalence to everyone's satisfaction.

Even if Hitler had lived on for a billion years as a charitable healing saint, Auschwitz would still be Auschwitz.

Auschwitz would still be Auschwitz, and God will still be God; the same God Who is able to, and will transform all the evil that He allows to happen into something better for everyone that it happened.
"The wrath of man shall praise Thee. The remainder of wrath shalt Thou restrain." Psalm 76:10.

Whatever God does not intend to eventually use for the good of everyone, He simply will restrain it from even happening in the first place.

Rodger would have me believe that the evils are intentionally created by a being who ought to know better and certainly is capable of doing right.

God always does "right" and He knows infinitely much better than us what He is doing, and His control is absolute.

"ALL things are of God" 2Corinthians 5:18
and
God works ALL things according to the councel of His own will. Ephesians 1:11

That is why He can and will eventually transform all the evil that He allows to happen into something better that it happened for everyone.

 

[c0de]

Humans have very limited power. In my paradigm, one of the ways in which God is imagined to be "bigger" than an ordinary human is that his powers are always adequate for his intentions, which ours are not; the other is that God's knowledge about his options is complete, which ours are not. But we can learn, improving our knowledge and extending our power.

We cannot change the past, only learn from it and do better from where we stand now. If we look at history realistically, without any false nostalgia, we are much better off than we were in past ages.

The idea that we are a better species today then we were eight thousand years ago in Mesopotamia is not only unjustified optimism but a seriously flawed argument.

First of all, genetically, we are the exact same homo sapiens that we were 80,000 years ago. So all the tendencies the Egyptians had (for example), are present in us today. Socially, we are also essentially the same since the days of the advent of sedentary civilization. The vast majority of the human species is still agrarian. In fact, I am sure if you took a census 8,000 years ago you might even come up with similar figures of poverty versus affluence.

The most obvious point that needs to be made is regarding slavery. And I am not just referring to the 29-30 million slaves present today (equivalent to the entire population of Canada). I am referring to the foundation of modern civilization, which was built by exploited human capital (in the US, and Europe). So even the only area in which we are better of as a species technological modernism, (and all its advantages) was built on the blood and sweat of the exploited, so I don't even consider it applicable.

Rodger would have me believe that the evils are intentionally created by a being who ought to know better and certainly is capable of doing right.

---

Nothing that happens later can ever change the essentially evil nature of the evils that have been, and you are giving God the blame for each and every one of them. Even if Hitler had lived on for a billion years as a charitable healing saint, Auschwitz would still be Auschwitz.

You don't have any right to make such absolute claims. If those who have suffered evil are satisfied by heaven, then who are you to say that "what happens later will never be enough"?

Also notice that your argument is no different than Ivan Karamazov's. It is a completely emotional position. How can you possibly compare finite pain with infinite pleasure? It doesn't make any sense, whatsoever.

 

[c0de]

.
p.s.


@ Bob


I know what you are trying to say: "God could have created a world where there was no pain. But according to Rodger's view, He chose to create a world with pain (finite or not) and this would make Him evil"

But I would like you to seriously consider the fact that the infinite encompasses the finite. If God allowed finite evil but created good to be infinite, then you can not hold the presence of evil against God because it is meaningless.

 

[bob x]

A choice that HAS to occur is NOT the product of a "free" will.

If there is no reason that the choice HAS to occur except that "it is the choice", that is perfectly free. If there is no reason within the material world, then it is at least free of the material. You seem to be defining the word "free" in some manner that makes it inapplicable to anything; it is rather silly to choose definitions that make words unusable. What WOULD be "free" in your usage, if anything?

It is not even possible that we could have chosen differently than we did when we made all of the choices that we made in the past.

After it is in the past, it is past, and nothing can change the past.

Only God can transform all evil into something better that it temporariy prevailed, and He will not fail to do so.

After it is in the past, it is past, and nothing can change the past.

"Blame" is the wrong word. But yes, God is 100% responsible for all the evil that has, and will occur. Sooner or later He will "jusify" its prevalence to everyone's satisfaction.

Not to mine.

Auschwitz would still be Auschwitz, and God will still be God

(yes, I intentionally "Godwinned" the thread; after this many pages of an Internet discussion, a Nazi reference is practically mandatory, isn't it?)
If Auschwitz was Hitler's decision, we can understand it as resulting from the finite and fallible nature of humans, who are subject to ignorance and impotence. Failing to see that others are people like oneself is a terrible form of ignorance: Hitler did not even know that he was doing wrong; he was trying to restore Germany's prosperity and self-respect, but had not the power to do so, and did wrong out of gross stupidity. But God allows finite creatures the freedom to make their own decisions; this is all that makes it meaningful for finite creatures to exist at all, and both good and evil arise out of that; this is how I understand it.

In your view, however, Hitler did not decide anything, or really, do anything; nobody except God really does anything, so there might as well not exist anybody except God. God freely chose Auschwitz, and now that it is in the past, its nature can never be changed.

Whatever God does not intend to eventually use for the good of everyone, He simply will restrain it from even happening in the first place.

Huh? He doesn't "restrain" anything from happening, in your view: that would imply that things develop independently of Him, and that He needs to take some action to "restrain" things that were originating from some other cause than Himself. And I don't care if He "uses" Auschwitz: that doesn't change Auschwitz. The founders of Israel "used" Auschwitz to change sympathy for their project: whether you think Israel's existence is a good thing or a bad thing has no relevance to whether Auschwitz was.

God always does "right"

No, your assertion is precisely that God does "wrong" all the time.

 

[rodgertutt]

What WOULD be "free" in your usage, if anything?

"Free" in the usual understanding of the meaning is that one could have chosen differently than they did.

No one could have chosen differently than they did because, all influences considered, they chose what they wanted MOST.

God has locked up humans in a lifetime made up of a sequence of choices that are ALWAYS made in the direction of the strongest sets of influences that dictate what they actually prefer MOST at the point in time that they make the choice. They could not have chosen anything else.

Everything HAS to happen the way that it does, including all of our efforts to assist, or prevent it from happening. That is called God's DECRETIVE will which is that which MUST occur.
biblical studies: His Achievement Are We - Part 16 - Choice and Deity
Especially read the section called
THE VAUNTED POWER OF CONTRARY CHOICE

No, your assertion is precisely that God does "wrong" all the time.

Here is why I don't believe that.
THE PURPOSE OF EVIL
evil.html

God does right all the time because it His intention to eventually transform the negative consequenses of evil into something better for everyone involved that they occured.

Only God can achieve that, and He will, because He is able to do above what we can even think. Ephesians 3:20

The only mistake I am probably making is that I am underestimating just how gloriously God will achieve that transformation universally.

Here is that concept expounded from a Christian point of view.
Read especially the very last paragraph on that link.
The Restitution of All Things: There Is One God; The Lord Our God Is One; All Things Created By God; All Things Created In Christ; All Things Out Of Him; The Unfragmented One; All Things Through Him; All Things Into Him; Restitution

I agree with c0de who said in his last post

"If those who have suffered evil are satisfied by heaven, then who are you to say that "what happens later will never be enough"?

Also notice that your argument is no different than Ivan Karamazov's. It is a completely emotional position. How can you possibly compare finite pain with infinite pleasure? It doesn't make any sense, whatsoever."

 

[bob x]

The idea that we are a better species today...

Whoa, stop right there. I was not at all saying that our capacities have evolved to any significant extent in historic times (too short a scale), but that we are making better use of the capacities we have (and have always had, from our beginning as a species).

I am sure if you took a census 8,000 years ago you might even come up with similar figures of poverty versus affluence.

That's absurd. The best-off people 8000 years ago were worse off than people we would nowadays consider direly impoverished. You seem to have some "noble savage" romanticism about how idyllic life in primitive hunter-gatherer societies was. Surviving societies of this type have trouble keeping their kids from fleeing to the modern societies, even though the kids are ill-equipped to do well there. Did you ever see At Play in the Fields of the Lord? I am reminded of the line, "Why is it we have NOTHING, NOTHING?"

The most obvious point that needs to be made is regarding slavery. And I am not just referring to the 29-30 million slaves present today (equivalent to the entire population of Canada). I am referring to the foundation of modern civilization, which was built by exploited human capital (in the US, and Europe).

This is false as regards the US. The slave states were singularly devoid of technological progress, which occurred in the free states.