Makai

During my vast expanse of boredom that is AP Envio. Science, I was pondering on the Argument from Evil while the teacher droned on about pine cones. I began to think about the Free Will Defense, and something hopped into my mind. While it’s so often said that a God wouldn’t intervene because it wishes to preserve free will, it seems to me that (the Xian God at least), has every intent of intervening, but decides not to. Here’s what I was thinking...

I’m going to be attempting to show, I think, that the Xian FWD defense isn’t compatible with most versions of Christianity, as it causes a conflict with a very important concept, that of the ‘Second Coming’.

Ok, a few premises to start with:

P1) Jesus will come again to Earth, and create a Paradise.

This is based both upon my own reading of revelation, and some discussion I have had with various Xians I know.

P2) This event can be classified as the ‘greatest good’, or a good to which there is
nothing superior.

I’m basing this, again, upon my reading of the book, and upon discussion with Xians regarding the topic.

P3) This ‘Second Coming’ (SC) cannot be dependent upon the actions of humans.

The actions of a omnipotent deity cannot, obviously, be dependent upon the actions of mortal men. It only completely by God’s whim as to when the SC occurs.

P4) The SC does not constitute the ‘greatest evil’, or entail a ‘greatest evil’.

This seem fairly obvious...the idea of the SC being the ‘greatest evil’ is conflicting with the position which would be trying to defend the FWD.

P5) The SC eliminates/prevents either all (or most) evil.

This follows from P2 above. As well as from my understanding of Revelation, there will be the whole holy-peace-over-all-the-Earth going. Thus, the SC does away with(or used as a prophylactic, prevents) evil.


My reasoning begins to work itself out, I think. It, to me at least, is fairly clear that God would be making a very big step into human events here. Whether he is ‘disrupting actual free will’ seems to be a equivocation...people no longer have the free will to go about their lives according the world that they knew. Humanity is plunged into a now-supernatural world, against their wills or desires. To me, this is where the FWD begins to fail. God is clearly going to intervene with humanity at some point, and it is by his whim only as to when this intervention occurs (P3). This is where I apply my above premises to the pre-existing premises of AE:

AE P1) There exist instances of evil which could have been prevented without losing
a greater good, or allowing a greater evil.
P1) Jesus will come again to Earth, and create a Paradise.
P2) This event can be classified as the ‘greatest good’, or a good to which there is nothing superior.
P4) The SC does not constitute the ‘greatest evil’, or entail a ‘greatest evil’.
P5) The SC eliminates/prevents either all (or most) evil.

AE P2) A omnibenevolent, or ‘good’ God would not allow instances of evil which could have been prevented without losing the greater good, or allowing a greater evil.


AE C1) An omnibenevolent, or ‘good’ God does not exist.

Now, this would seem be, quite clearly, not what Xian defenders of the FWD would want to reach as a conclusion. So, the Xian defense of the FWD seems untenable. Not only does God intend to intervene directly at some point, but there seems to be no adequate reason to explain why this intervention has not already occurred. For example, why didn’t
he just have the SC before the outbreak of both the World Wars? Since he was able to prevent all that, and didn’t, it seems God would be in many ways responsible for the bloodletting. Free will can’t be an objection, because the event is supposedly going to happen, at least so says Revelation.

(Quite a thought for second period AP E.S. class, huh?). Now...before I start getting torn to shreds by people...I’m trying to get some constructive input here =). I’m only 17, and a
novice at this stuff, so if I’m making some really dumb logical error (which I probably am, and many of them), try to explain it so I can get what I did wrong =p. I’d also appreciate any comments
on making this argument better (if anyone happens to find any value in it). Thanks all!

-Makai

*Ducks under his flame-retardant blanket and puts on a hardhat*

Fire in the hole!!

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

Interesting, and another reason that you should never choose christianity.

An interesting counter-argument would be to state that it already HAS occurred, and those of us on earth are in actuality in Hell-put here at that instant, with no knowledge of it occurance. Now, no christian will argue that, but...

David Gould

A possible starting point to an argument against this would be that the second coming is contingent on humans in some way. This would not actually mean that God is being controlled by human actions; just that the 2nd Coming, as the Greatest Good, can only occur once certain conditions have been satisfied if it is to be the Greatest Good.

For example, it may be that the prevention of the 2 World Wars by the 2nd Coming occuring in 1910 may have prevented various unspecified goods that outweighed the suffering caused by the next 90 years. Thus, the 2nd Coming at that point would not have been the greatest good - it would actually have eliminated some net good from human experience.

Thus, the 2nd Coming has to come at a point in time beyond which no net good human experience is possible in order for it to be the Greatest Good. This seems to fit with the idea that the end times will be a time of great and growing suffering, beyond which there is no hope of a growing good.

David

Makai

David-

Ah, interesting. I discounted that approach because I figured that if you were counting 'net good', then the SC would never come, because it would always prevent some good from being added. However, if there ever were a time from which no more good could come...that would be interesting, although it seems somewhat odd. If no more good could come from period X on earth, then there would have to be no 'good' people on earth during that period X. (Because 'good' people would add some amount of 'good' to the Earth, however minute) And if everyone was either indifferent or flat-out evil...the SC wouldn't seem to have much purpose. Like a man walking into a vegetarian camp and saying, "Hey, who wants beef? "

-Makai

Skeptix2

I am sympathetic with your argument but will try to play the devil's advocate.

Makai stated:
During my protestant upbringing I was taught that the second coming is definitely dependant upon the actions of humans.

"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." Matthew 24:14

This is taken by some theists to mean that they (the theists) are responsible for teaching, quite literally, everybody in the whole world the "gospel" before the second coming will occur. That way everybody will have at least heard the good news and had the chance to make a choice. What happens to the millions who die without hearing the gospel? Who knows.

Skeptix2

David Gould

I think you have mistaken what I mean by net good here.

If there are 2 humans on an island and one will commit a total evil of 100 over his life time and a total good of 90 and the other will commit a total evil of 110 and a total good of 115, then the net result is 5 evil.

As God can see the whole of time, He knows when the point will be reached beyond which evil will always end up in front, whatever time he picks.

For example, let us say that the second coming is tomorrow. The reason that it is tommorrow is that at any point beyond tomorrow that you pick, from plus 1 day to plus infinity, the net evil in the world will increase. That does not mean that people cease to do good things are that there are not people who will do a personal net good.

God may have looked at 1910 as a good point for the second coming. After all, a lot of evil was going to happen in the next 90 years - indeed, maybe even the net was going to be evil at every point in that 90 years.

However, God knew that by 91 years time the net good would have increased. In that case, holding the second coming in 1910 wouls not make it the greatest good.

Hope that explains it better - I am not much good at logic.

David

Makai

Skeptix2-

I wasn't aware of that passage, and that does certianly put a new twist to it. Although, I'd still ask the question, "Why set that requirement in the first place? A more easily attainable standard could have reduced the time it takes for the SC to come, and because of that, reduced the amount of suffering the world undergoes."

-Makai

David Gould

But does it reduce net suffering? If happiness is the opposite to suffering, then having a positive net happiness for the world is a greater good than simply having no suffering and no happiness.

David

David Gould

I have seen a flaw in my counter argument.

If time flows the same after the second coming and each passing moment in the paradise under Jesus' rule is incredibly happy for everyone, the net happiness gained is greater (and therefore a greater good) than if they Earth was left as it is now.

In other words, net happiness increases at a faster rate after the 2nd coming than before. In which case, the earlier the 2nd coming occurs, the better.

My counter argument fails.

David

edited to add: unless there is a type of happiness that can only be obtained prior to the 2nd coming and which cannot be separated from the Greatest Good. I do not quite see how this could be, however...

[ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: David Gould ]</p>

Makai

David-

Oh, ok, you meant net good like that. I wasn't sure whether you meant the way I said, or what you just mentioned. Although this is dancing with numbers to some degree, if you accept the SC as the 'greatest good', which by definition would mean no 'good value' could possibly exceed the value assigned to the SC, then wouldn't the SC have a 'good value' of infinity, and make pointless a 'point of no further good'?
Just a thought.

-Makai

EDITED: Ya just posted before I dropped this one =p Yea, that's somewhat like what I said in here, as to why the Paradise would have an infinite 'good' value.

[ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: Makai ]</p>