mike_decock

Agreed. Let me point out that to an omnipotent being, creating a universe is no less trivial than creating a toaster.

So you're arguing that the process of this universe is also a goal, not just the end result?

This goes back to the fact that a benevolent God would not create more suffering than joy. This is a very basic, universally accepted moral principle. According to Christian doctrine and the number of believers (without considering the small subset of "true believers"), the number of damned souls far exceeds the number of saved souls.

This universe was not essential to God's existence. The end result of is also non-essential. If Christian doctrine is correct, God created more suffering than joy for His own pleasure. It excludes the possibility that God is benevolent.

You're underestimating the power of infinite choices. The number of free will choices caused by Hitler's choice is finite. Since there was an infinite number of choices God had when creating the world, it is a statistical certainty that C' could have been achieved without Hitler's actions. An infinite number of choices is infinitely larger than a finite number of choices, regardless of the number of finite choices there are.

-Mike...

The_Ist

Fine.

I think I could agree with that, although I think a better way of putting it is that the ultimate purpose(s) of God creating this universe necessitate the process of this universe.

Granting you the fact that, quantitatively speaking, there is more suffering than joy (though I don't think such a calculation is that easy), I do not agree that the attribute of benevolence entails what you say it does. All benevolence tells us is that if God performs an action with some goal in mind, he will do it in a way that produces minimal suffering and maximal joy. So if he created this universe with certain goals/purposes in mind, then it follows that he chose the one that at least fulfilled his other purposes and goals (aside from minimal suffering) as well as the others, while also minimizing suffering. But it does not follow from this notion that there will be less quantifiable suffering in the universe than joy.

No, this is false. I don't see how you can base benevolence on the quantifications of abstract concepts such as suffering and evil, when also considering the fact that the ones responsible for this suffering are the human beings who, through their exercise of free will, chose evil and brought the suffering upon themselves. Though the universe is not essential for God's existence, it is an unwarranted logical leap to then say that he finds pleasure in the existence of more suffering than joy. It may be the case that such a relationship is necessary to fulfill his goals and purposes of his creation; this in no way detracts from his benevolence.

I don't think you are understanding C'. Take Hitler himself, for example. If, in accordance with the definition of C', he would not have chosen to attempt to exterminate the Jews, then he would not have been in certain situations later in his life where he freely ordered their placement in concentration camps, etc. So right there you have another difference between C' and C, which invalidates the possibility of C', because it was defined as a world exactly like C in all ways except for Hitler's choice to exterminate the Jews. Though it is true that the number of free will choices altered/negated/caused by Hitler's decision is finite, it is ALWAYS greater than 0, thus making the set of of free will choices in C', in which the number of free will choices altered/negated/caused by Hitler's decision is supposed to be 0, non-compossible. I don't think I can explain this any better.

mike_decock

I can work with that premise.

I'm thinking in line with the following definition of Benevolent :

Having a disposition to do good; possessing or manifesting love to mankind, and a desire to promote their prosperity and happiness; disposed to give to good objects; kind; charitable.

I don't think it's a leap to assume that there should be less quantifiable suffering. Would you call me benevolent if I tortured 4 people for the sake of making 2 people happy? I hope not!

The fault still lies with the creator who chose to create the universe in which humans would choose evil. If the design is self-destructive, the fault lies with the designer.

For what other purpose than God's pleasure would He create the world? If He is acting on behalf of a higher purpose, then He isn't God. If He is acting out of a need, then He isn't God.

If the world was created for our pleasure, then there should be no suffering.

If your personal goals cause less joy than suffering, it's not benevolence, it's hedonism.

I don't think you are understanding infinity. C' in which Hitler does not attempt to exterminate the Jews, yet orders their placement in concentration camps is possible.

Now you're actually arguing against free will . If free will decisions are necessarily caused by other "free will" decisions, then those decision aren't really free. You're arguing that decisions are simply the causal effects of previous events.

-Mike...

Radorth

The issue is obedience to God. The very fact that you think you can decide for yourself what is good and evil means you are in open rebellion. Whaterver "mistakes" you might think God made, he has more than taken responsiblity for them via the atonement, and salvation of those who merely "will to do his will."

Rad

Bree

So it is your opinion that Christ's death on the cross was "more than" enough atonement for the mistakes God has made?

Doesn't that statement mean you acknowledge that God has made mistakes?

mike_decock

The real issue is that without knowledge of good and evil, you can't be held morally accountable for not knowing that obedience to God is good or that disobedience is evil.

Should a dandelion be held morally accountable for growing in your nice, grassy lawn?

-Mike...

The_Ist

That's fine; I don't see any incompatibility between that definition of benevolence and the God I'm describing. This God would fit all of these descriptions of benevolence. The fact that there exists suffering/evil for which he was not responsible (human free will), even if he foreknew that it would occur, does not lead to the conclusion that he does not want human beings to do good, or that he does not love human beings, or that he himself is not good.

If those four people deserved to be punished, I would not hold that you, acting as punisher, are less benevolent simply because your actions cause suffering. Such a punishment would be just; would you consider a judge less benevolent if he sentenced a convicted murderer to life in prison? Certainly the convicted man will suffer greatly during incarceration, but from this fact it does not follow that the judge who gave the punishment is less benevolent.

What is the fault? How is it a fault if this universe is the one that fulfills his purposes/goals to the max? How can the design be "self-destructive" if it DOES fulfill these purposes? Wouldn't it be quite constructive?

God created the universe to fulfill some goals/purposes/wants. It wasn't out of need, and it wasn't on behalf of some "higher purpose," because these goals/purposes/wants derived from himself.

No. There are certainly cases where the presence of suffering is necessary for pleasure to be obtained. I do not see how the concept of "pleasure" does not lose all meaning in a world devoid of suffering.

But since humans possess free will, THEY are the primary cause of their own suffering, becaues they choose evil. God's foreknowledge is not causative.

Let me be more specific, then. C' in which Hitler does not attempt to exterminate the Jews, yet orders their placement in concentration camps because he wants to exterminate the Jews (as is the case in C) is not possible. It is self-contradictory. Therefore, as I've already explained, C' fails to represent a logically possible world, because it differs in some fashion from C other than Hiter's decision to exterminate the Jews.

Do you honestly hold that C', in which there are absolutely no alterations from C except for the one difference in Hitler's decision to exterminate the Jews, is logically possible?

No, you misunderstand. All I am saying is that any possible world in which Hitler decides not to attempt an extermination of the Jews will necessarily produce either new free will choices, or negate the existence of free will choices that existed in C, or change the circumstances that can influence (note: not "cause") free will choices. If any of these three occur, C' is shown to be logically impossible. I am not saying that specific free will choices themselves are caused, however, but only that they may cease to exist altogether in C', or that new ones may come into existence in C', or that ones in both C and C' may have drastically different circumstances and influences surrounding them. This latter possibility does not negate them from being free.

Vitalij

Purely “voluntarily” choice of spiritual path of the development - is a usual sepulchral humor of The Creator of The Universes for “penitent sinners” of all systems. Which “Free Will” programmed for all cases of his life can a biorobot have? “Free Will” – is one of the examples of the human Stupidity. This technical term implies the amplitude of the oscillations from plus to minus, when a man can choose the lesser evil out of the two. And he can decide in “here and now” how he should further live: following the laws of either evolution or involution.

Vitalij
shock-site "Earth - the planet of biorobots"

Radorth

No I don't. Please note the quotation marks and the use of "you think."

Rad

Radorth

Until you become so corrupt that you can't tell the difference, become lost in sin and rebellion and God has to wash you clean HIMSELF before he can even begin to work with you. The Christian marvels at how lost s/he was, whether s/he was a "good" person or not. God had to go from warning us not to dispbey, to warning us not to steal because we were too far gone even to know that.

Just as the law and self-effort is useless for changing the human heart, so is the knowledge of good and evil per se. Law is for the lawless. No Law is needed where God rules the heart. Thus it is that a remarkable double standard has to be applied to find fault with the Christians here.

The issue remains obedience to God. Without disobedience to his original command, there would be no sin.

Rad