babelfish

luvluv -

I said:

then you said:

Are you saying here that morality has changed throughout history? Then why is an understanding of some imaginary god's morality even necessary? Your statement makes it obvious that morality is a purely human fabrication.

As I said earlier in this thread, to K:

The bible is the best proof that I can think of if you want to show that morality is a human invention.

(Sorry, I realize this is veering a bit off the original topic.)

luvluv

Philo, my bottome line is that I don't see how you can infer from someone's never doing something that they do not have the ability to do that said thing. This seems really obvious from everyday life. I really don't care about laws of probability. Laws of probability are abstractions of human thought that would probably have no bearing on God, should He exist. I'm basically backing away because I'm realizing the whole question is silly and not worth debating. Are you trying to say that God is not omnipotent because He cannot do evil? Or are you just piling on to my lack of mathematical training? I'm not sure just what your stake is in this argument other than to show my understanding of probability is off. I could have told you that. Beyond that I don't see how this is a conversation worth having. Maybe you can tell me what you are trying to establish and then this might be worth continuing?

Philip Osborne

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.

Actually, this is not the case. Robert C. Koons gives the following example: Suppose there is a spinner in which every point of that spinner corresponds to some unique real number between 0 and 1. If we spin a spinner which is precise to a single point at the center, the probability of it landing on an irrational number is 1, while the probability of it landing on a rational number is 0. Nonetheless, that does not mean it is absolutely impossible for the spinner to land on a rational number. Since your crucial assumption to your argument is that possibility entails a non-zero probability, your argument appears unsuccessful.

Note that when I say something is "possible," I mean it in the sense of the concepts which modal logic deals with. That is, there are possible worlds in which God performs an evil action. This is the sense in which I think the theist can assert God to be capable of evil.

Sincerely,

Philip

[ October 12, 2002: Message edited by: Philip Osborne ]</p>

Jobar

Me: "If God is ultimately free- with omnipotence, there are no limits on his possible choices- and if evil is the (or one of the) cost(s) of free will, why is God not also paying that cost? "

Luvluv: "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."

Aha, but if evil is *not* inevitably linked to free will, then how is it that an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God could not tweak our free will so that no evil resulted, and yet we still had free will?

Luvluv, surely you are aware that many apologists at least imply that evil is inevitable, given free will. I know you have discussed the possibility that God is not omnibenevolent; yet you seem to be arguing that God could but would not do evil. May I take it from this you have decided that omnibenevolence is indeed a characteristic of God?

Philosoft

It's not that difficult. There is either a zero probability or there is a non-zero probability.

<strong> Naturally. If it's too difficult to reconcile, it must not apply to God.

<strong> It actually refers to the OP. If there are preexisting limiting factors that confer a zero probability that God will do evil, it cannot be said that he is capable of doing evil. If your version of free will requires the capability to do evil, it cannot be said that God has free will.

<strong> I'm not trying to make you look stupid. I'm trying to show you the flaws in your reasoning. If that requires me to demonstrate your incomplete knowledge of probability, so be it. Probability appears to be an integral part of many free will defenses, and it is certainly relevant here.

<strong> See above.

Philosoft

Are there a finite number of points?

<strong> I can't tell from your summary, but does this thought experiment hold only for an infinite number of points? Actually, I'd like to read this if you can provide a link. Koons seems like a rather adamant teleologist. He references more than a few suspect hypotheses in his online writings.

K

Philip:

Since for every rational number there are an infinite number of irrational numbers, the odds of picking a rational number at random is (1 / infinity). If you want to say that's not absolutely impossible, then you don't evaluate (1 / infinity) to zero. That's all there is to it.

Normally it's evaluated as the limit of (1 / x) as x goes to infinity which equals zero. That means that it is absolutely impossible for a rational number to be chosen at random.

Whoever gave you that little example is playing fast and loose with probablilities. Possible means probability greater than zero period.

Philip Osborne

Are there a finite number of points?

From the example, I inferred that the spinner is a circle, and every circle has an infinite number of points. I don't think the example would hold for a finite number.

Here's the link:

<a href="http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/356/lec10.html" target="_blank">http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/356/lec10.html</a>

Normally it's evaluated as the limit of (1 / x) as x goes to infinity which equals zero. That means that it is absolutely impossible for a rational number to be chosen at random.

Whoever gave you that little example is playing fast and loose with probablilities. Possible means probability greater than zero period.

You insist on using the statistical meanings of "possibility" and "impossibility." I am saying that it is possible for God to do evil in the modal sense of logical possibility and impossibility ("possible worlds," if you will). I am saying that possible means true in a possible world, period. A zero probability does not entail logical impossibility; it is still logically or conceptually possible for the spinner to land on a rational number. It simply means that for every possible world in which the spinner lands on a rational number, there are an infinite number of worlds in which it doesn't.

Sincerely,

Philip

[ October 13, 2002: Message edited by: Philip Osborne ]</p>

K

Philip:

I really don't believe this new formulation buys you anything. Here's why using the possible worlds approach.

1. There is a possible world in which God performs no evil acts.

2. There is a possible world in which God performs one evil act.

3. There is a possible world in which God performs two evil acts.

4. There is a possible world in which God performs n evil acts, where n can be any number.

Since there are an infinite number of worlds where God perform evil acts for the one where He doesn't, the odds of us existing in the world where He does no evil are (1 / infinity) or zero. This again shows that if it is possible for God to do evil, He will.

HRG

Spinners are real objects. Thus they don't land "on a number", but on a particular interval whose size may be extremely small, but still finite. As such, it has a positive probability.

Regards,
HRG.