B Theory's Eternal Suffering: A problem for atheism

Following on from my previous posts that shows B theory’s incoherence (A Critique of B Theory of Time and Perdurance and the Incoherence of B Theory of Time) to our lived experience and the issues B theory has on theistic grounds. I will try to show that on B theory the Problem of Evil (PoE) has an intractable problem. 

To briefly summarise my posts;

1. On B theory objects do not really change, they endure through time in a 4D block. E.g. a Ford Mustang is said to exist, even if it isn’t in a Ford Mustang shape. 

2. Attempts to salvage this clear absurdity, namely perdurance theory, only adds to the problems. E.g a banana being simultaneous unripe, ripe and overripe.

3. Theologically, it leads to absurdities, like committing to believing Jesus is timelessly in Mary's womb, being beaten, flogged, crucified and dead.

4. The creation event becomes immutabile with God.

The non theist may not care about theological concerns and claim that is a theistic problem, not an atheists issue.

However, I believe the atheist has their own issue. Consider the case of Sue, the hypothetical girl, who is brutally raped and killed. In this case the atheist who holds to B theory must believe she is tenselessly in a state of being abused both physically and sexually, and dead. Meaning in a very real sense, Sue’s torture never ends, at every point here suffering never ends.

The sceptic may want to insist this is further proof that this evil is evidence against God. Insisting that God allows the torture and rape of Sue, endlessly is a clear case that God isn’t good.

Not so fast! I have given multiple reasons why PoE is false (The Evidential Argument from Evil and The Problem of Evil: why so much suffering?)! Moreover, I give multiple reasons and defences why God has morally justifiable reasons for allowing any given suffering. 

This critique is solely and specifically to those who hold that B theory is true.


Conclusion. 

This is further proof B theory isn't a reasonable belief, if one is committed to believing a person's suffering is eternally and immutabilly anguishing in pain, this should be evidence that such a commitment is absurd to believe. Therefore, it is evidence that the A theory is a more coherent understanding of time and our lived experience. 


Possible objections. 

The B theory of time is amoral:- By this, we can believe the universe is indifferent to morals, it's just as metaphysical commitment. 

If this is the case, it should rule them out in criticism of theism, especially regarding PoE. Moreover, this goes against our moral intuitions. 

Sue’s suffering is temporal:- While Sue’s suffering exists as a "block" in spacetime, her subjective experience of it is limited to the moments of her existence. Thus, Sue is not subjectively eternally suffering.

Even if I grant this, it doesn't eliminate Sue's suffering or infinite nature of this evil, it just tries to redefine the issue.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A critique of Symmetry Lost: By Peter Fritz, Tien-Chun Lo, and Joseph C. Schmid

Formal Proof: The RMOA At Best Establishes ¬□g in w0 Objective: My aim to prove that if g (an MGB exists) is metaphysically possible (◇g), the RMOA’s premises P1 (□(g → □g)), P2 (♢g), and P2* (♢¬g) in KT/S4 at best establish ¬□g (it is not necessary that God exists) in the actual world (w0), not ¬g (God does not exist in w0). The derivation of ¬g in w0 is formally valid but metaphysically overreaching, as ◇g implies g is possible in w0, making ¬g possibly false. The conclusion ¬g in w0 requires an unjustified assumption about w0’s metaphysical status, limiting the RMOA’s conclusion to ¬□g. Definitions and Notation: g: An MGB exists, with properties of omnipotence, omniscience, and Omni benevolence. w0: Actual world. w1: A possible world where g holds (for P2). w2: A possible world where ¬g holds (for P2*). ◇p: p is possible (true in some accessible world). □p: p is necessary (true in all accessible worlds). R(w, w’): Accessibility relation (w accesses w’).  KT: Modal logic with ref...
Read more

Is It Fair to Be Judged for Adam’s Sin? A Christian Reflection

A common objection to Christianity is the claim that it is unfair for human beings to be held responsible for Adam’s sin, or to be judged for not loving a God who set up such a system in the first place. The concern feels intuitive; how can the actions of someone who lived so long ago truly represent me? However, the Christian story is far more nuanced and far more hopeful than this objection assumes. Adam as Representative: A Historical Figure and a Type of Humanity In Scripture, Adam functions both as the first human being and as a representative of humanity as a whole. His very name Adam, simply means man or humanity (Genesis 5:2). This dual role suggests that Adam is both: 1. Historically significant — the ancestral starting point of humanity. 2. Typologically significant, a picture of what any human being is like when faced with moral choice. Paul explicitly develops this representative role in Romans 5: “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death throug...
Read more

Can Non-resistant Non-belief be compatible with Atheism?

 In my rebuttal of Schellenberg’s Divine Hiddenness argument  I show that:  1. His ultimism doesn't logically entail perfect love. 2. That general (natural theology) and special (the evidence for Jesus Christ) revelation are sufficient for a belief in God. 3. Temporary hiddenness is compatible even within Schellenberg’s framework and only perpetual hiddenness is incompatible with God. My contention in this post is to suggest that the claim, no God exists or it is unlikely God exists, better known as atheism is incompatible with the claim they are a non-resistant non-believer (NRNB). A NRNB is Schellenberg’s notion for those who would believe, had they sufficient evidence to believe such a proposition. He (Schellenberg) gives numerous cases of apparent NRN-Belief; such as those who never even heard of Jesus or a personal God, say for instance 10,000 years ago, or individuals that are truly seeking, yet for no lack of trying, do not believe. I do not want to go over the sam...
Read more