Marz Blak

I am a relatively recent visitor and this is my first topic, so I hope this is not a question which the more studied members of the group find irritatingly facile.

There is an apologetic argument that, as I understand it, goes something like this: God, being the omniscient omnipotent Creator of the universe, might have made us morally pure, intrinsically good. But this wouldn't have suited His purpose. His purpose in creating us as moral free agents and, in turn, creating a universe in which moral choices had real consequences to us (leading to the conditions which atheists, lacking understanding, describe as *the problem of pain/evil*) was to allow us to come to Him as free moral agents. Only by choosing Him as free moral agents would our choice to come to Him have any meaning.

To borrow from another thread (luvluv in "I'm not sure omnibenevolence exists," dated 2002 September 10) in which I thought a very apt analogy was made:

"...Let's say you had the power to create a robot which was physically in all ways totally indistinguishable from a woman. You could program this robot-woman to love you and only you, and to be just the type of woman you've always wanted to be in a relationship with. Now, on the other hand, you have a real woman, who has a mind of her own, her own interests, her own likes and dislikes, who you could not control.

Which would you rather be in a relationship with...?"

Firstly, being new to this field of thought, I would of course appreciate any corrections, clarifications, etc., which anyone might feel my statement of this argument requires.

Assuming that this is a fair characterization of the argument, though, it seems pretty apparent to me that, assuming that there is an omnimax Creator, the argument fails, because *from such a being's perspective we have no free will.* We ARE, from such a being's perspective, nothing more than robots, and He programmed us all, and knows what choice each of us is going to make.

This seems so apparent to me that I feel that I must be missing something big. Can anyone tell me what I am missing?

[edited for syntax/punctuation]

[ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: Marz Blak ]</p>

luvluv

Well, I have argued that the fact that God knows what we are going to do does not mean that we did not freely choose what we are going to do.

Lets say you had a video tape documentary. You watched the whole thing from begining to end, so you knew what was going to happen: A man ponders whether or not to rob the bank, and then decides to go through with it. Let's then say that you can go back through time before the documentary started, knowing everything you knew. Does the fact that you have seen the tape have any bearing on whether or not the man actually had a choice in robbing the bank? Does your observance of the future cause the future?

The Christian position is that God's powers of observation are omnitemporal: He is not only everywhere, he is everywhen. He is present in all times simeltaneously. God knows the future because he can see it, but his observance of it does not cause it to happen. He can only see our future actions because we do them, we do not do them because He sees them.

Secondly, most Christians would disagree with you that God "pre-programs" us. Christians distinguish primary from secondary causes. God primarily created the necessary conditions for you to exist (the universe, humanity, etc). He did not, primarily, create you. Your creation and your personality was the result of secondary causes. (Your mother and father's choice to procreate, your environment, etc)

Of course, no atheist on this site agrees with me on these points, but then they probably wouldn't.

luvluv

P.S.

Your name wouldn't be in reference to my main man, Mars Blackmon, would it?

hinduwoman

Luvluv if God was only a passive observer it would not be I think such a problem. But the problem is that God in Bible interferes too much --- giving direct commands, doing miracles and sending down his son to die to save us.
so why does he take such an active role, particularly when he knows what is going to happen?

luvluv

I don't think I understand the question...

The active role He takes is part of what He sees. He works in creation to bring about what He wants. Why wouldn't He act in creation?

Jobar

luvluv, your movie analogy fails because moviegoers aren't omnipotent. If they were, and they all tried to reduce the evil they see in all movies they watch, then no evil will exist in movies! Only if an omnipotent moviegoer were malevolent or uncaring would evil ever be seen on the screen.

Marz, it's a real problem for those of us with much experience on these boards, that a really new argument is rare. But the boards are not just for us experienced ones; they are for anyone with an intense curiousity about these things men call gods. (And your question, while not new to the boards, is far from stupid!)

Now, to show you how well I know the course of arguments like this, I will predict that luvluv will now invoke God's "unknown purpose" to excuse him for allowing evil. (Come on luvluv, surprise me with something new!)

luvluv

Jobar there are at least two POE threads going on right now, I'm not really interested in starting a third.

But your objection has nothing to do with his question, which pertains to whether or not God's seeing our actions means that God caused our actions.

And who said that God's goal was the absence of evil? I'd argue that it was primarily the presence of good. Otherwise, he wouldn't have created at all. Problem of evil solved. But I'd love to hear everybody's replys on the "I'm not sure omnibenevolence exists" thread and the new, freshly minted, stable environment thread.

Marz Blak

luvluv--

Yes, Mars Blackmon from "She's Gotta Have It." Just always liked the character, the whole faux-B-Boy thing.

With all due respect, I don't think you are getting my point.

In response to Jobar you said, "...But your objection has nothing to do with his question, which pertains to whether or not God's seeing our actions means that God caused our actions...." Your approach to this would seem to imply that the answer to this question is that God *doesn't* cause our actions, ultimately--we do. How can this be? It seems to me to be playing it both ways--God is omnimax, so made (is making?) everything throughout all time, but God isn't responsible for what we do--we are. I can't get my mind around this distinction, it seems logically contradictory to me.

Secondly, I would hold that to an omnimax God there would be no distinction to be made between primary and secondary causes, as you posit.

[ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: Marz Blak ]

[ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: Marz Blak ]</p>

Ojuice5001

I think if there is a supreme God, he must view his creations as mere pawns. Here's the story of how I came to be convinced of this.

For a time before being a Roman pagan, I did believe in a supreme God. Now I asked myself, what purposes would the creator of this world have? The answer: All the purposes that exist in the world. After all, I didn't think a human or non-supreme spirit could create new purposes any more than they can create new colors. It doesn't make sense that God created the world to have one purpose, and then, without any influence from something uncreated-by-God, it started fulfilling a radically different purpose.

In creator-god monotheism, nothing exists without God creating it. But evil desires, like the tendency to be a bully, are something. Therefore God must have created them. Otherwise we have to allow that Lucifer or humans do have the power to create an evil desire.

So monotheism cannot account for the existence of several mutually opposed value systems. Naturalism also fails because values cannot be investigated naturalistically, yet they exist. Polytheism is the way to go, I'm telling you.

Marz Blak

Elric--

You might be onto something. At the least, a polytheology avoids some of the problems I see with theologies based on benevolent monotheism.

If I am going to adopt the Roman pantheon, then...hail Mars!

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

[ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: Marz Blak ]</p>