Freethought & Rationalism Archive

K · 10-22-2002, 02:14 PM

Vanderzyden:

Quote:

Sin and evil exist as a result of free-choice rebellion against the Creator.

So I assume you are saying that #4 is correct. That we humans create sin and evil through a free-choice rebellion against the Creator. Is this true?

If so, then we have created something and God is not unique in the ability to create.

Vanderzyden · 10-22-2002, 02:23 PM

K,

Can you point to sin or evil? Do you create your thoughts?

No, you can't say here it is or there it is. Again, you don't create anything. Sin and evil are not things, but conditions. We are corrupt persons upon the first wrong choice we make, but we do not create corruption, we do not create wrong. We are wrong.

John

K · 10-23-2002, 03:32 AM

Vanderzyden:

Quote:

Can you point to sin or evil? No, you can't say here it is or there it is.

I can't point to an electric field. That doesn't necessarily mean that it wasn't created - especially since I know how to create an electric field.

Quote:

Do you create your thoughts?

I do create my thoughts because my brain, through its structure, uses incoming stimulii to determine my next thought. However, I would be the first to admit that I create these thoughts passively, in a deterministic manner, and with no free-will. That doesn't remove the creation aspect.

Quote:

Again, you don't create anything. Sin and evil are not things, but conditions. We are corrupt persons upon the first wrong choice we make, but we do not create corruption, we do not create wrong. We are wrong.

That would mean that goodness, truth, forgiveness, and salvation were not created by God. They certainly are the same types of attributes as sin and evil - you can't point to them.

Keith Russell · 10-23-2002, 07:56 AM

Greetings:

'Sin' and 'evil' are not conditions, but evaluations: assessments, judgments.

Theists observe certain human actions and choose to label them as 'sinful' or 'evil'. Atheists might observe the same actions and label them 'unwise', 'incorrect', 'dangerous', 'immoral', 'evil', or perhaps 'criminal'.

Keith.

Xixax · 10-23-2002, 09:46 AM

VZ, I can think of one power equally as powerful as creation: Destruction.

A being with an equal ability to destroy what another being creates is equally 'powerful' by your reasoning. They could work into eternity nullifying each others power. Not to mention, at some point you could ask, could the being with the power to destroy, destroy the being with the power to create?

Also, absolute power is not relative. You're making the case that it is comparitive in some sense, but in no way is it, by ability, relative.

Vanderzyden · 10-23-2002, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith Russell:
<strong>Greetings:

'Sin' and 'evil' are not conditions, but evaluations: assessments, judgments.
</strong>

In general, I agree with you, Keith. However, we could discuss the equivalence of conditions and assessments and/or judgments. These are conditions, or states. We would not strictly speak of the existence of an assessment, or a judgment.

John

Vanderzyden · 10-23-2002, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Xixax:
<strong>

A being with an equal ability to destroy what another being creates is equally 'powerful' by your reasoning. They could work into eternity nullifying each others power. Not to mention, at some point you could ask, could the being with the power to destroy, destroy the being with the power to create?

Also, absolute power is not relative. You're making the case that it is comparitive in some sense, but in no way is it, by ability, relative.</strong>

X,

If you read some of the older posts, you will see that my definition includes creating/sustaining/destructive power. I am using creative power for convenience.

Creative power necessarily entails destructive power, since the creator knows the essence of each thing it creates. Therefore, nothing created could have creative power equal to the Creator, nor could it overpower the Creator. At any moment, the creature may be annilhilated if its essence is destroyed.

I think absolute power must necessarily be relative, IF at least one being has been created. In eternity past, when God was the only being, then his power was not relative (it was the only power in existence). His power became absolute upon creation of the first sentient creature. By comparison (i.e. relative), his absolute power was far greater than that possessed by the creature.

Vanderzyden

Johnny Destiny · 10-23-2002, 11:48 AM

I have been reading these posts and would have to agree with the general contradictions that the theologians fall into when they posit the existence of the first principle. For this first principle, which they call God cannot be good because there is manifest evil, in the world. So there is your first contradiction. If this first principle is not good, certainly the first principle isn't evil, since there is evident good in the world. Then since there is a first principle, as most philosophers agree, perhaps we should used the tool that Aristotle discovered in his "Nicomechian Ethics" that is to say, adopt the principle of the mean. If this doesn't solve the contradiction, we should do away with the concept of good and evil, utterly! This seems to be the best solution. People imagine that there is good and evil in the world because of the emotion of joy and sorrow. Things which naturally bring joy like family, money, peace, health, love, etc, etc, they naturally love because of the emotion of joy. This is what they imagine is good. Conversely, things that bring sorrow, like death, disease, war, poverty, hunger, and the like, they naturally hate because of the emotion of sorrow. This they think is evil. Consequently, since the dominant ideology is the ideology of Good and Evil, the task comes to changing this ideology of Good and Evil, promulgated must insolently by theologians, to the ideology that there is no good nor evil. Peoples thinking is conditioned by this metaphysical dogma of good and evil and it corrupts their view of reality. So every decision they make whether conscious or unconscious can be boiled down to this central doctrine. Before every doctrine promulgated, be it conservative or liberal, is behind it this doctrine of good or evil. Consequentely, this doctrine must be destroyed, and the true nature of good and evil revealed, which,I have suggested is the nature of our emotions.

Philip Osborne · 10-23-2002, 03:37 PM

I think it is fairly obvious how the free will defense is connected with the argument, for if the free will defense is successful, then obviously, God can bring about the state of affairs in which some freely chooses evil.

I think we face a real problem when we define "omnipotent" such that (almost) no essential properties could conflict with it. For if God happened not to be able to tie His shoes, neither Sam nor God could bring about the state of affairs "God ties His shoes." It would be logically impossible.

What is wrong with the consequence you enumerate? What is wrong with it being impossible for both God and Sam to be unable to tie God's shoes? Presumably, God cannot do so, for He cannot wear shoes; I see nothing wrong with asserting both this and the premise that Sam cannot tie God's shoes. What exactly is wrong with this?

As for necessary moral perfection, I agree that theists may choose not to believe God's moral perfection is not one of His essential properties. But even if God is only morally perfect in the actual....

I am arguing on the thread "If God has free will, why can he not do evil?" that being true 100% of the time is not equivalent with being necessarily true. At any rate, we still cannot predict God's actions with 100% accuracy due to our ignorance of the full range of possible values, our ignorance of what is possible and what is necessary, etc. Also, in many instances there may be two choices of equal moral value; in such a case, God is free to choose from either of them.

Sincerely,

Philip

Thomas Metcalf · 10-23-2002, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by Philip Osborne:

"I think it is fairly obvious how the free will defense is connected with the argument, for if the free will defense is successful, then obviously, God can bring about the state of affairs in which some freely chooses evil."

Really? Even if we're talking strongly actualize? This is only the case if God is not necessarily morally perfect (which is under discussion below).

"What is wrong with the consequence you enumerate?"

God cannot bring about the state of affairs "someone or other learns under his or her own power." Sam can bring about this state of affairs. If God were to cause me (or Sam) to learn, it would not be under my own power. So it just looks as if we have a logically possible bring-about-able state of affairs that God can't bring about, but other beings can.

"At any rate, we still cannot predict God's actions with 100% accuracy due to our ignorance of the full range of possible values, our ignorance of what is possible and what is necessary, etc. Also, in many instances there may be two choices of equal moral value; in such a case, God is free to choose from either of them."

That's an interesting response. But I think it might help to think of Leibniz's "infinitely analytic" situation here. The "full" concept of God includes His moral perfection, and if we possessed infinite knowledge, we would indeed know what He would do in any situation, except if there are two equally morally good choices. But this situation seems rare, and if it's not always the case, it suggests not all of God's decisions are the product of free will.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-22-2002, 02:23 PM	#172
Vanderzyden Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: California Posts: 694	K, Can you point to sin or evil? Do you create your thoughts? No, you can't say here it is or there it is. Again, you don't create anything. Sin and evil are not things, but conditions. We are corrupt persons upon the first wrong choice we make, but we do not create corruption, we do not create wrong. We are wrong. John

10-23-2002, 07:56 AM	#174
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Greetings: 'Sin' and 'evil' are not conditions, but evaluations: assessments, judgments. Theists observe certain human actions and choose to label them as 'sinful' or 'evil'. Atheists might observe the same actions and label them 'unwise', 'incorrect', 'dangerous', 'immoral', 'evil', or perhaps 'criminal'. Keith.

10-23-2002, 09:46 AM	#175
Xixax Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 2,101	VZ, I can think of one power equally as powerful as creation: Destruction. A being with an equal ability to destroy what another being creates is equally 'powerful' by your reasoning. They could work into eternity nullifying each others power. Not to mention, at some point you could ask, could the being with the power to destroy, destroy the being with the power to create? Also, absolute power is not relative. You're making the case that it is comparitive in some sense, but in no way is it, by ability, relative.

10-23-2002, 11:48 AM	#178
Johnny Destiny New Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: MSN Hotmail Posts: 1	I have been reading these posts and would have to agree with the general contradictions that the theologians fall into when they posit the existence of the first principle. For this first principle, which they call God cannot be good because there is manifest evil, in the world. So there is your first contradiction. If this first principle is not good, certainly the first principle isn't evil, since there is evident good in the world. Then since there is a first principle, as most philosophers agree, perhaps we should used the tool that Aristotle discovered in his "Nicomechian Ethics" that is to say, adopt the principle of the mean. If this doesn't solve the contradiction, we should do away with the concept of good and evil, utterly! This seems to be the best solution. People imagine that there is good and evil in the world because of the emotion of joy and sorrow. Things which naturally bring joy like family, money, peace, health, love, etc, etc, they naturally love because of the emotion of joy. This is what they imagine is good. Conversely, things that bring sorrow, like death, disease, war, poverty, hunger, and the like, they naturally hate because of the emotion of sorrow. This they think is evil. Consequently, since the dominant ideology is the ideology of Good and Evil, the task comes to changing this ideology of Good and Evil, promulgated must insolently by theologians, to the ideology that there is no good nor evil. Peoples thinking is conditioned by this metaphysical dogma of good and evil and it corrupts their view of reality. So every decision they make whether conscious or unconscious can be boiled down to this central doctrine. Before every doctrine promulgated, be it conservative or liberal, is behind it this doctrine of good or evil. Consequentely, this doctrine must be destroyed, and the true nature of good and evil revealed, which,I have suggested is the nature of our emotions.

10-23-2002, 03:37 PM	#179
Philip Osborne Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Cherry Hill, NJ Posts: 147	I think it is fairly obvious how the free will defense is connected with the argument, for if the free will defense is successful, then obviously, God can bring about the state of affairs in which some freely chooses evil. I think we face a real problem when we define "omnipotent" such that (almost) no essential properties could conflict with it. For if God happened not to be able to tie His shoes, neither Sam nor God could bring about the state of affairs "God ties His shoes." It would be logically impossible. What is wrong with the consequence you enumerate? What is wrong with it being impossible for both God and Sam to be unable to tie God's shoes? Presumably, God cannot do so, for He cannot wear shoes; I see nothing wrong with asserting both this and the premise that Sam cannot tie God's shoes. What exactly is wrong with this? As for necessary moral perfection, I agree that theists may choose not to believe God's moral perfection is not one of His essential properties. But even if God is only morally perfect in the actual.... I am arguing on the thread "If God has free will, why can he not do evil?" that being true 100% of the time is not equivalent with being necessarily true. At any rate, we still cannot predict God's actions with 100% accuracy due to our ignorance of the full range of possible values, our ignorance of what is possible and what is necessary, etc. Also, in many instances there may be two choices of equal moral value; in such a case, God is free to choose from either of them. Sincerely, Philip

10-23-2002, 07:48 PM	#180
Thomas Metcalf Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 1,009	Originally posted by Philip Osborne: "I think it is fairly obvious how the free will defense is connected with the argument, for if the free will defense is successful, then obviously, God can bring about the state of affairs in which some freely chooses evil." Really? Even if we're talking strongly actualize? This is only the case if God is not necessarily morally perfect (which is under discussion below). "What is wrong with the consequence you enumerate?" God cannot bring about the state of affairs "someone or other learns under his or her own power." Sam can bring about this state of affairs. If God were to cause me (or Sam) to learn, it would not be under my own power. So it just looks as if we have a logically possible bring-about-able state of affairs that God can't bring about, but other beings can. "At any rate, we still cannot predict God's actions with 100% accuracy due to our ignorance of the full range of possible values, our ignorance of what is possible and what is necessary, etc. Also, in many instances there may be two choices of equal moral value; in such a case, God is free to choose from either of them." That's an interesting response. But I think it might help to think of Leibniz's "infinitely analytic" situation here. The "full" concept of God includes His moral perfection, and if we possessed infinite knowledge, we would indeed know what He would do in any situation, except if there are two equally morally good choices. But this situation seems rare, and if it's not always the case, it suggests not all of God's decisions are the product of free will.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.