ManM

Jobar,
I find it hard to answer this because the question itself makes no sense. Why isn't God suffering the consequences of moving away from God? We are not choosing between some mysterious 'good' and 'evil' that are seperate from God. Rather we are choosing to be like or unlike God. God is God; how can He be unlike Himself?

babelfish

Yeah, that's a good example. The Bible is simply crammed with many such examples of God's unchanging, absolute standards....

Jamie_L

Okay. In a way, we agree. If God is real, and if God does not desire evil, and if there is evil, God must be unable to eliminate evil.

However, I thought (and maybe I'm wrong) that God was really the be-all and end-all. All things flow from God. There is nothing above God - no laws that God must obey. To say he is restricted seems to me to imply there are rules God must follow, rules that exist apart from him. This seems in conflict.

If the rules that restrict God are not apart from him or his creation, then they are subject to his will, I would think.

Of course, now we're straying even farther from the OP.

Jamie

Philip Osborne

Now here's the scary part. If it truly is possible for God to do evil (ie. the probability of it happening is finite), then given an infinity of time, it is guaranteed that He will do evil! Even more amazing, given an infinite amount of time, God will perform every act that is possible for Him to perform no matter how heinous. Are you sure you want to agree that "with God all things are possible?" (I know you never said you subscribed to that statement, it just seemed to fit really well).

There is no need that every possibility must be actualized given an infinite amount of time. There is nothing wrong in a scenario where P is possible, Q is possible, and yet P always happens and Q never happens. For example, unicorns have probably never existed in our universe, and probably never will, but they are nonetheless possible.

Sincerely,

Philip

K

Here's where I'm going to admit that I made an incomplete assertion. I should have included a reference to time. In other words,

If it is assumed that what is possible for God does not change over time and given an infinite amount of time, God will perform every act that it is possible for Him to perform in a finite amount of time. Any act that is possible for God to perform in a finite amount of time has non-zero probability of occuring over that time interval. Since there are an infinite number of these intervals, and a finite probability in each one, the act is guaranteed.

K

Philip:

On what grounds do you say that unicorns are possible?

luvluv

K:

Well, I think we can make a distinction between possibility and probability. A person may never do something, but that doesn't mean that person is not ABLE to do it.

What is the probability that you will sexually abuse your children? Would you say it is greater than zero? (And I'm speaking about you specifically, not the probability of any male American father). I'm not trying to be insulting, but I'm trying to make a distinction between being restrained from an action by ability and being restrained from an action by character.

It's possible that an omnipotent being could have total control over his own character to the point that he is zero possibility of commiting an act he is throroughly capable of doing.

a)God doesn't have "an infinite amount of time" He lives beyond time. According to Christian theology, in eternity all times are one. So God gets out of your scary little scenario here.

b) I agree with Phillip Osbourne. I've never bought that infinite time line. If I could live forever, there's just no way that everything possible could happen to me. I'd never spontaneously transform into Pamela Anderson or have my nipples turn into a full-sized Ferris Wheel. Some things just ain't gonna happen, I don't care how long you wait around for them.

c)K, what's your aim? You already don't believe. Are you trying to get others to disbelieve? Why do you come up with these scenarios?

bablefish:

I don't see how that can be really true, from a historical perspective. Christians have disagreed with each other about what was wrong and have made significant strides towards reforming their religion from within. If your scenario were correct then the Church would have no capacity for change, yet clearly it has. Churches wrestle all the time with what is right, and collectively our understanding of God and of what is right is always growing and being challenged from within as much (if not more) as from without.

Jobar:

I don't think anyone said that evil is an inevitable result of free will, only that free will opens up the possibility of evil.

I don't know exactly what you're getting at here, but perfection (subjective a concept as it is) is often a function of purpose. A rock would make a perfect paperweight but a lousy breathmint. I don't think we can say that anything God has made is less than perfect unless we know the purpose for it's design. Your definition of perfect might entail beings who lived forever without disease or death, but God might want beings who are capable of contemplating their mortality and therefore being able to make choices they would not have otherwise made.

Jaimie L:

It would seem the free will defense would be enough to invalidate this premise?

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

luvluv

K:

Rhino's have horns, other animals throughout time have had horns sticking out of their head. What would be the big deal about such a mutation happening to a horse?

Mageth

What is the probability that you will sexually abuse your children? Would you say it is greater than zero? (And I'm speaking about you specifically, not the probability of any male American father).

Aside from the tackiness of this, it makes no sense. You can't establish the probability of an event for a particular object like you request (ignoring statistics for a group of similar objects).

It'd be like asking "what is the probability of you being killed in a car accident this year, and I mean you in particular, not any male American?" How could I estimate the probability without examining death statistics?

Philosoft

Okay so far.

<strong> It has to be greater than zero, by the very nature of statistics. If it is a logically possible action, there is necessarily a non-zero probability that it will occur. Understand, this is a prediction. You will not get far trying to conclude a zero probability from, "I would never abuse my kids because it's not in my nature." That, essentially, is the extent of your reasoning.

<strong> That's your entire problem. You can't remotely say anything concrete about 'character' that would give you the predictive power you think you have.

<strong> Here is a common definition of capable: Having the ability required for a specific task or accomplishment. Please explain how zero-probability character limitations do not remove the ability to do a task, thereby rendering your "capability" plea meaningless.