luvluv

Thomas, I've seen you present this argument before and I'll say again I believe this is a category mistake.

What you are describing is not a limitation of WILL but a limitation of POWER. This position ultimately leads us to the conclusion that unless a person is omnipotent he is not completely free. Is this what you are saying, that omnipotence is necessary for true freedom?

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by luvluv :

Then you have to answer my seven points against FWD, I think.

It doesn't seem plausible that God would value souls of quality X that results from experience E, when souls of quality X that do not result from experience E would be, well, of the same quality. Souls are something inside us, I presume, and while they have a causal history, the causal history doesn't seem to be as valuable as the soul's characteristics themselves.

Right. I call it "freedom of action" rather than "freedom of will."

I don't believe that. Here's my position. Either the presence of some limitations on our freedom of action precludes our freedom, or it doesn't. If it does, then we're not free as it stands, because there are limitations on our freedom of action. If it doesn't, then it's not clear why God doesn't institute a couple more prohibitions, which would be additions to an already lengthy list, one that contains some rather minor prohibitions.

Zadok001

Quick post to clarify my last post.

ReasonableDoubt:

I was aware of what you were saying. In response to it, I was asking myself why the HELL I didn't use that argument. I rapidly reached the conclusion that I was a fornicating moron, and stated that in my post. I certainly meant no disrespect to you, I just wish I'd had that idea. I'm rather put-out that it didn't occur to me.

luvluv

Some of them do not apply. That is my point. Like number 1 could be inexplicable through the FWD but explicable through the soul-making defense, by which it could be argued that dealing with natural disasters develops character. There's no reason to assume that God would only have one reason for allowing ALL evil. He could have different reasoons for different forms of evil. So it is unnecessary that the FWD cover all instances of evil, only those instances that arise out of the decisions of free-willed agents.

It is important that the quality of the soul is attained by the choice of the agent. (A chosen virtue is of a different quality than an unchosen virtue, IMO.)

I can't help you there. There is no "freedom of action" defense from a theistic standpoint that I know of. Are you making up your own defenses just to shoot them down at this point?

At any rate, the "freedom of action" argument has no bearing on the FWD, so what is the point? Unless you find a theist arguing for the free action defense...

Well, it is hardly surprising that some of the motivations of an omniscient mind should be unclear to you. Getting beyond that, it could be that more prohibitions could prohibit soul-making/ character development.

And if you are trying to promote the argument of evil, it is up to you to show that God definitely could get just as much character development out of a world with less moral choices available. I don't know how a body would do that.

rainbow walking

Z: I'm not sure I understand the question. A man does not have a wife before he marries, hence distinguishing his wife from the masses seems like a non-functional attribute. Assume, for the law we end up with, the second law I stated above: "'Any attached individual is disallowed from feeling desire towards anyone who is not his or her consort.'" Under this law, our current (note I'm functioning under American prosuppositions here, this law would have to be different for other folks) system of dating and marriage would continue to function in EXACTLY the manner it functions today. The difference would be that while someone is in a relationship, they are incapable of cheating.

It could be argued that this would create issues with the ability to break up a relationship. I would hold steady and claim that, while some breakups may not occur, the ones caused by differences between the two individuals involved in the relationship (the most common sort, in my experience) would continue.


rw: Along with the resultant emotional suffering that’s engendered when these personalities begin to clash. Suffering that often leads to erratic behavior and often evil consequences stemming from things like anger, jealousy and the such. Dating is such a complex issue. Cause and effect, Zadok…cause and effect. But wait! You’ve got an answer…Observe


Z: I can't support it w/o God's attributes. That's because God's attributes are the whole argument.


rw: (chuckle) My point exactly. Are you certain you want to invoke god’s “anythingness” to create loopholes in the law of cause and effect? I can imagine all sorts of unpleasantries under these conditions. Not the least of which it would breed mass confusion, the total eradication of science and abject apathy towards any action whatsoever, (seeing how one could never be sure his labors, the cause, would insure him any results, the effect). I guess you’d leave it up to god when to utilize the loopholes and when not to, right…right?

Z: You seem to now be pushing a normative value on a naturalistic phenomenon. I always viewed the laws of nature as neutral, morally.

rw: That’s because you’ve always enjoyed the benefits of their inviolate universal application.


Z: I don't see how 'breaking' the law of gravity would be inherently evil, hence, I don't see how breaking the law of cause and effect would be inherently evil.


rw: And that seems to be the problem we’re dealing with here, your inability to see their relationship, not only to man, but to one another. Judging from your arguments, you seem to have no problem with invoking this god’s omnipotence to break, change and violate them at will but you haven’t faired so well at invoking this god’s omni-SCIENCE to determine the residual effect and impact this would have on man under any imaginable condition or universe. You would have to change man. Is that consistent with freewill? And this brings us right back around to why not have this god just poof a new creature into existence incapable of doing wrong? Of course, that doesn’t respond to what would become of us…but hey, it’s certainly an option for his doanythingness…yes.

Z: Furthermore, I'm not recommending 'changing' the natural laws. I'm recommending whole new ones!


rw: Well, bring it up at the next board meeting and we’ll vote on it.

Z: Also, note my earlier disclaimer: New universe, new rules. If we existed in a universe wherein causation was violated occasionally, WE WOULDN'T HAVE A LAW OF CAUSE AND EFFECT.


Rw: O’tay…and this would address the problem of evil…how? Oh wait, I get it, not knowing for sure that anything we caused to happen would actually happen, being humans, we’d just stop trying to cause anything, so evil would just go away. Then we can infer from this that apathy is a good thing while productiveness is evil. Presto! A brand new law! Anyone caught doing anything will be shot on sight. But then somebody would have to do the catching and the shooting. Without cause and effect they would have to be supercops.

Z: Remember, we're making natural laws, here. No 'message' is sent when God violates causality, owing mainly to the fact that causality in our bizzaro world is violated regularly.


rw: I can certainly see why no message would be sent, seeing how there’s no assurance it would Ever find a recipient or cause anyone to respond, seeing how everyone would be too apathetic to make the effort anyway, seeing how there’s no assurance such efforts would have any results whatsoever…why bother? Just wondering though…who’s gonna feed, cloth and house all these apathetic people? Omnipotent god? And that would be a “not evil” condition for humans?

Z: We would have a general rule of cause and effect, and we would probably figure out in short order the exceptions to that rule. (Today we have the finite "rule" that matter has a finite density. Exceptions are black holes. We don't call it a 'law' because there are exceptions to it.)


rw: And tomorrow we have the infinite rule that matter has no density, so everyone be sure and wear your snowshoes when you walk on concrete sidewalks.
Well, with cause and effect being so wishy washy, are you sure finding the exceptions would be within the job parameters of the “short order” scientist? Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

Z: I think it's safe to say that, as long as I'm not recommending alterations to THIS universe, and advocating a whole new one, changing the laws of nature isn't inherently evil.



rw: That’s an easy boast to make but I’m going to have to insist you support it by making some effort to describe these new laws, how they work and especially, how they provide for the existence of freewill without evil and suffering. Un-autonomous man is not good. Gravity, for instance, would have to go because, undr the right conditions it can do great harm.


Z: it begs the question: When the universe was initially created, was it an evil act? After all, God was breaking a 'law' of sorts: There is no universe.)

rw: There’s a law against creating a universe?


Z:Again, you seem to be assigning a normative property to natural laws. I contend that it's not inherently evil to make different natural laws. The attributes I'm assiging our deity for the purpose of this discussion are:

1. Omnipotence: Capable of doing anything.
2. Omniscience: Knows everything that can be known.
3. Omnibenevolent: Is perfectly loving.

Nothing else. My assertion is that such a deity cannot have created this universe and govern it still. (Note: It's possible to swing around the 'and govern it still' clause. I'll explain that a little better later.)

Rw: Does the FWD specifically include “governance” in its propositions? You can’t work from an inference…well, you could, but only as a technicality. Anywho, I insist you substantiate this re-direction of PoE before you initiate an argument from this proposition.


Z:Again, it's important to note a key difference here. While I feel I can safely say God can violate any natural law if he wants to, that's not actually what I'm recommending. I'm claiming God should have created a different universe, sans evil by judicially applying natural laws. 'Changing' laws is a secondary issue.

Rw: Yabut…Zadok, all of these propositional re-directs are not helping your argument. These fanciful changes you’re championing only reach for a justification of” could”. God could do X. PoE is based on the proposition that the presence of evil along with specific non-defined attributes NECESSITATE that this god SHOULD do X. You’re still assuming that the “SHOULD” is justified by the presence of evil and suffering in the world. I don’t think the presence of evil and suffering, on its own merits negates the possible existence of an omni-max deity.


Z:Not quite. My claim is that the deity in question would have been REQUIRED to imbue any universe with different rules. Since our universe exists, we can reasonably assume that Das Uber Deity doesn't. Changing the rules isn't really related.


Rw: O’kay…


Let’s play, “How does one REQUIRE an omnimax deity to change the rules”. Since “REQUIRE” is a derivative of cause and effect, and as you’ve already demonstrated an omnipotent god can suspend, change, violate or break this rule at will, why don’t we just ask him to do so right here at this point such that he is no longer REQUIRED to imbue anything. Since you are positing that evil and suffering are the EFFECT of this god’s failure to CAUSE a universe, imbued with different laws, to exist, ( you’re basically arguing that the presence of evil and suffering in this universe represents a failure on the part of one or more of god’s attributes, sans, he doesn’t exist) if we suspend cause and effect at just this point and in just this one instance PoE ceases to exist as a viable argument. Unable to tie the EFFECT of evil and suffering to the failure of a god to CAUSE different circumstances where evil and suffering would not attain, you can no longer REQUIRE this god to un-do what he did not CAUSE in the first place. God and his attributes remain, evil and suffering continue, freewill is unblemished PoE is no MoE.



Z:Aside:Actually, this is one of my favorite philosophical playthings. What happens if God decides he wants to be a vengeful bastard? What happens if God cuts off his own omniscience? (Does he have the ability to put it BACK, without any knowledge, most notably the knowledge of HOW?) What does the resulting universe look like?

rw: Yep, yep…intriguing.

[quote] rw:I mean, out of your own imagination you have declared that god can do anything so let’s just see how far you’re willing to let this go. I submit that god can alter his attribute of omnibenevolence without contradiction to his “doanythingness” and leave the current universe as is. Freedom of will remains in tact, evil continues and god changes.

Z:! Sure can! And this is where that "and govern it still" clause comes back.

rw: Provided, of course, you justify its insertion in the first place.

Z: A few important things to note.

First, omniscience. If God knows everything, he knows the future - And specifically, he knows his OWN future. He knew he would eliminate his omnibenevolence. Problem is, when he found this out, he was omnibenevolent. He would see that his choice would create suffering. This doesn't change his choice to remove his omnibenevolence. However, if we assume God was still omnibenevolent when he created the universe, HE WOULD HAVE STILL LAID LAWS THAT PREVENT EVIL. (You could claim he threw out omnibenevolence pre-Creation. That works. But it also means that an omnimax deity doesn't exist, and didn't exist in the beginning; hence, the PoE is satisfied, and the question is moot.)

rw: First resolution: omnipotence. God can do anything…including create a universe with evil and suffering in spite of his omni-benevolence. If he can’t, he’s not omnipotent.
The question to be resolved is whether omnipotence is guided by omni-science or omni-benevolence. If this god knows something that we don’t…there’s an excellent probability that his omnipotence would be guided by his omni-science such that his omni-maxiness remains along side a world of evil and suffering. To frame it more succinctly, is this god guided by his heart or his head?




Z:Second, that pesky "and govern it still" line. Now, I already explained how it would be a problem for our deity to take away this power without allowing the PoE to work. Even so, if our deity removed his omnibenevolence at ANY point, the 'and govern it still' clause kicks in and the PoE is again satisfied.

Rw: See first resolution above.


Z:I'm aware I didn't mention the 'and govern it still' clause earlier in this argument. That's because (at least in my mind) it's usually completely secondary to the issue. However, I would feel comfortable conceding the prior argument ENTIRELY to you, and simply saying that I'm now altering the PoE to see if I can win that way. Is that an acceptable notion? Call this new statement the Revised Problem of Evil: RPoE.


rw: Carry on my friend and let’s see where it leads.



Z: (Note my revised PoE.)

Absolute. But the FWD didn't really 'win' in a traditional sense. It moved the goalposts, and the PoE sans "and govern it still" clause has a problem scoring. It's still possible, note my first objection to your last passage. But in general, this is just the same thing as your last post: We changed one of the PoE's required attributes. The PoE doesn't disprove the existance of God. It disproves an omnimax deity. If we're changing God's attributes, we've got no omnimax deity, now do we?


rw: For the record, I was quite content to leave the goalposts in the stadium of logic and reason but my worthy opponent left me no choice with his arguments leaning so heavily on this god’s “anythingness” that he was pushing us all into another realm. So, if anyone’s having second thoughts about taking loosely defined attributes into the twilight zone, now would be a good time to address them. As they say, “what’s good for the goose…”

rainbow walking

RW:

According to the Old Testament, God violated natural laws right and left- when he allowed snakes and donkeys to speak, when he stopped the sun in the sky to allow Joshua to win a battle, when he took Elijah up into heaven...

and the New Testament- when Jesus raised people from the dead, healed them, walked on water and had Peter walk on water.

If that's not altering the natural physical law I don't know what is.

That, my friend, is not a violation of natural law. It is a violation of taking a literal interpretation from allegorical renderings. Such renderings are poetically sanctioned by mythological accounts of this god’s intervention in the course of human history.

Zadok001

Eh, first of all, Rainbow, please format your posts consistantly. It's rather difficult to respond if I can't really figure out what statements are newly added, and which ones are earlier quotations.

rw: (chuckle) My point exactly. Are you certain you want to invoke god’s “anythingness” to create loopholes in the law of cause and effect? I can imagine all sorts of unpleasantries under these conditions. Not the least of which it would breed mass confusion, the total eradication of science and abject apathy towards any action whatsoever, (seeing how one could never be sure his labors, the cause, would insure him any results, the effect). I guess you’d leave it up to god when to utilize the loopholes and when not to, right…right?


OM. NI. PO. TE. NT. Don't tell me "It would breed horrible, horrible things! That's simply not possible if we have an omnipotent being at the helm. It won't breed ANYTHING if God doesn't want it to.

That basically sums up the VAST majority of the arguments you presented this time around. 'But if God did X, Y would result' is erroneous and illogical. Such rules can't BIND an omnipotent deity. And as soon as you make the claim such rules DO bind an omnipotent deity, he ain't omnipotent, and the PoE ends up winning.

rw: That’s an easy boast to make but I’m going to have to insist you support it by making some effort to describe these new laws, how they work and especially, how they provide for the existence of freewill without evil and suffering. Un-autonomous man is not good. Gravity, for instance, would have to go because, under the right conditions it can do great harm.


And under the right conditions, gravity would have to go. You're (AGAIN) applying universality to the changes that would need to be made by an omnimax deity. Gravity as a whole doesn't have to go.

Rw: Does the FWD specifically include “governance” in its propositions? You can’t work from an inference…well, you could, but only as a technicality. Anywho, I insist you substantiate this re-direction of PoE before you initiate an argument from this proposition.


Substaniate? As I said, I usually consider it a part of the PoE. Otherwise, wierd little loopholes arise like "God has since imagined himself out of existance." If you don't like that addendum, that's fine: Treat it as a whole new argument. As I said, the RPoE. So consider this my initiation: I'm now arguing from the RPoE, rather than the initial (unspecified) PoE.

rw: First resolution: omnipotence. God can do anything…including create a universe with evil and suffering in spite of his omni-benevolence. If he can’t, he’s not omnipotent.
The question to be resolved is whether omnipotence is guided by omni-science or omni-benevolence. If this god knows something that we don’t…there’s an excellent probability that his omnipotence would be guided by his omni-science such that his omni-maxiness remains along side a world of evil and suffering. To frame it more succinctly, is this god guided by his heart or his head?


First things first: Omniscience cannot guide. Omniscience is knowledge. Knowledge does not guide our actions. If we allow it to, we commit a naturalistic fallacy ("should" from "does").

Next up: It appears I've screwed up, but not in the way you think. Once again, we're defining terms differently. This time, it's entirely my fault. I didn't complete the definition of omnipotence, as I assumed you were aware of it. Omnipotence isn't, technically speaking, the ability to do anything. It's the ability to do anything that doesn't entail a contradiction. God can't drop a square circle onto the floor next to me, nor a triangular elipse. He can't make two sets of two items be fifteen items, while remaining two sets of two.

Likewise, an omnibenevolent being, a being who BY DEFINITION commits all acts out of love, cannot commit an act not out of love. It's a direct contradiction in terms, knowledge a priori, if you will. Have you read Hume's "Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding?" There are two types of knowledge, a posteriori, and a priori. (There may be other types, but only those two matter.) The first type entails statements like "The world is round." By negating the statement, I end up with "The world is not round." That does not entail a contradiction. The statement is FALSE, but it's not inherently contradictory. A priori knowledge, however, includes statements such as "All single men who are not widowers are bachelors." If I negate the statement "All single men who are not widowers are not bachelors," I've created a contradiction in terms, an impossibility.

My apologies for not clarifying this, I thought it was generally understood and committed a fallacy in that regard.

My argument stands. There is no contradiction inherent in the concept of a world in which no evil exists. (We can prove this by showing that it is possible to create a space in which no evil exists. That space can be expanded. Hence, it is possible.) Therefore, such a world would have been created by any omnimax deity. Such a world does not exist. (Does anyone else feel like they need a smilie for three dots arranged in a triangle?) Therefore, an omnimax deity does not exist.

Again, I apologize for my lack of clarity on both this matter and the matter of the governance clause. This is the first time I've seriously participated in a debate of this sort, and I figure I'm allowed one or two mistakes.

7thangel

Thomas,

It is nice to hear that you have the heart to seek the truth. Hoping my post will help you examine further the Bible, by focusing about your knowledge of FREE WILL.

In my search of understanding the Bible, I really had a problem with these three things:

1. Why was the three of knowledge of good and evil disallowed unto Adam and Eve when it was the tool itself that made both of them in the image of God.
2. Why was it that when we see God we will die.
3. How come that when I was saved I died, and that Christ will be the one living in me.

Let me make it short. At the very first, I believed number 3 on the thought that God is using me, and that he guides me on my steps. As I dug dipper, I learned of Predestination. It made a clear presentation unto me that I have no free will, and that man’s being is all given of God. I really have a hard time being convinced that I have no free will. Then I learned of Determinism, yeah, and understanding more of science, I come to understand that I am dead as the corpse. I come to understand number 1 that the “knowledge of good and evil” had made me in the image of God, the image of knowing good and evil. Now that I am convinced that I see God, rather I know him, being the one who Predestinated me to have eternal life from the Deterministic physical body, I indeed died. I learned that everything that comes into being is actually subject unto the power of God. So I am convinced because I have understood number 2 had happened unto me.

Going back to number 1, I study much the atheists reasoning who believe much of their knowledge. Knowledge on which they give equal value to everything existing. I saw the consequences that adhering to it actually voids the meaning of good and evil. I knew they are logical, for logic came from their knowledge of the physical things. And so I found out that from the very things that I got the knowledge of good and evil could not really give me the better peace I have in God. And so I said, it is not really good for man to live in his knowledge of good and evil, and thus, I realized why it was disallowed of God.. I realized that in God, I speak of overpowering nature itself. That I find good by trying to change the flow of natural laws.

I went back to study myself if I have a free will, well, I am stuck on the will to believing in God.

Just in case you don’t see the point of my post. The implication is that from understanding the things that are created you come to understand one truth, that in God we have no free will. And thus, the Bible agrees with your understanding.

tw1tch

Rimstalker,
R-i-g-h-t. We actually agree.

However, it is this brunt of your 'argument' is really just unverifiable, biased opinion in that you interpret:

'God's willingness for us to have our own freedom'
as
If you wish to think this...by all means go ahead. However, you have no rational basis to do so. At least you haven't provided any to this forum.








Uh no...re-read my posts.

I said that:

IF YOU CLAIM: (not me...I'm not making a claim)
'God could have made the universe so we couldn't do evil' THEN you hamper freedom.


IF YOU CLAIM: (not me...I'm not making a claim)
'God could have made a world where there was less evil' THEN you are forced to conclude that He did...because He could have made a world with mental genocide...but He didn't.

These are true statements about YOUR claims...not mine.

And this is why both you and Thomas are in a 'box' as it were.

On one hand you whine that God should have made a universe where evil is difficult to commit. Then when confronted by the fact that He did make a universe where we can't kill each other by mere thought...you complain that we are 'robots'.




Both you and Thomas really need to figure out which side your on and just stick with it.

Either...
A-you think we are robots because we can't kill entire populations with a single thought, but God should have made us truly free so we could kill by thought.

OR

B-you think we are aren't robots, but that God should have made us robots so there would be less evil.


Which one is it?



Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Zadok001

tw1tch:

You said:

"IF YOU CLAIM: (not me...I'm not making a claim)
'God could have made the universe so we couldn't do evil' THEN you hamper freedom."

You are misvaluing this claim. It limits our free will to prevent us from committing as many acts of evil. It does NOT make us robots. This is where you commit a fallacy: You want our claim to include the idea that we become robots when our freedom to do evil is limited, but we are not stating that.

The rest of your argument is entirely incoherent if you actually use the claims we're making, rather than adding your own addendums to them.