Mageth

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.

Assuming free will, consider humanity as an experiment in free will. What is our sample size? One, right? And according to the bible, what happened to that experiment? It resulted in evil, right? So the probability of evil resulting from free will, according to the data we have, is 1.0.

Or you could assume every human as a member of the set of free will experiments being examined. Say there's been 50 billion people. The bible says "all have sinned" and "there's no one righteous." So now we have a sample size of 50 billion "free will" experiments, all 50 billion of which resulted in evil. Estimated probability is still 1.0.

Again assuming free will, can you give an example where free will did not result in evil?

luvluv

Mageth:

Tell our friend K, who was asking me precisely that type of question about God.

Philosoft:

Philosoft, if it makes you feel better, there is a probabilty of God doing evil which consists of a line of zeros after the decimal point so long that if we would need to exponentially increase the lifespan of the universe by several trillion. Thus, it is for all intents and purposes mathematically impossible for God to do evil. Of course, there's absolutely no way of calculating this, and never was, so what's the big deal about the question. Even humans can have the capablity of doing something and never do it. If humans could live forever, that would be no less the case. Can you say of a dead person, who never engaged in homosexual sex, that he could not have engaged in homosexual sex? You are implying that if someone doesn't do something that means they are incapable of doing it. I don't see how that follows. We know from everyday experience that is not true.

We haven't established that it resulted in evil in God's case. And you're assuming free will and existence are the only variables. For instance, the Bible tells us that two thirds of the angels have not abused their free will, so perhaps evil is a function of three dimensions of space and time or of a fallen world, or of carbon, etc. (and incidentally according to Christian tradition angels supposedly greatly outnumber humanity, which would skew your statistical sampling considerably).

Mageth

I wouldn't count angels as a sample set, as we have no real evidence that angels actually exist, or that they have free will, or that their free will resulted in evil. I've even heard many christians argue that angels don't have free will.

(curious: Wasn't the whole "fallen angel" thing an invention of Dante or someone, or is there a solid biblical basis for this?)

And I would claim for god that, if he truly has free will, he used that to create this universe and us, and thus his free will resulted in evil. (I know, I know; you won't agree with this). In any case, god's such a "special case" that I'd assume even you wouldn't want to lump him in with humans).

K

luvluv:

I'd like to believe that the probability of me sexually abusing my children is zero. But then again, I'd say that means that it's not POSSIBLE for me to sexually abuse my children either - remember I don't believe that I have free will. I believe that everything I do is causal. That would mean that my decisions are based only on the inputs I receive from my environment acting on my brain structure. Although, as I said earlier, I'd like to believe that the probability of me abusing my kids is zero, realistically I know that there are probably a whole host of inputs to my brain that would cause me to do so. I just can't imagine what they would be (maybe a head trauma or brain affecting disease).

I guess that's my long way of saying, if the probability of me abusing my kids were actually zero, it would be impossible for me to abuse them.

By the way, I didn't find the quote offensive. I think I understand the point you were trying to make.

If this is what you believe then it does indeed invalidate my entire proof. But I'll answer the other challenges just for completeness.

Anything that won't happen has a zero probability of happening over every finite time interval, or else it has a probability that is not static. Infinity is an amazing thing. An infinite sequence of random alphanumeric characters will contain every finite sequence - including one that contains every book in the Library of Congress (and this string will be found an infinite number of times).

I wouldn't mind if others chose not to believe. After all, they have come to an atheist site. I wouldn't go to a Christian forum and present these scenarios. I also think a lot of claims about God and morality are made without thinking through the ramifications and I try to point some of them out. But I think the real reason is that it's just plain fun to work through logical arguments - especially when they involve difficult concepts like infinity.

I guess I was including the magical aspect usually associated with unicorns. If it is just a horse with a horn, then why would he assert that the probability of a unicorn ever existing is zero?


This post was turning into a dissertation and I had to ax about 3/4 of it to keep it from being unreadable. Sorry if I shortchanged some areas.

luvluv

That's what we are discussing here, whether God's free will holds with it the possibility for Him to be evil.

There is a little to support the fall of the angels in Isiah I believe. It tells about the light bringer (Lucifer) falling from heaven. It's an odd little passage because, theologically, it comes out of nowhere. I'm not sure anyone had constructed that whole scenario until then. At any rate, in Genesis I think there are some examples of fallen angels having sex with human women. Supposedly, this is where Goliath came from. But this might just have been a legend that grew up around Goliath because he was so big. Most of the hair on the fallen angel story is extrabiblical. All that is in the Bible is that Satan and a third of the angels rebelled and God gave them the boot out of heaven. These fallen angels now make up the demonic kingdom (whom Jesus obviously had quite a few run-ins with, so there's some more Biblical support for it right there).

Mageth

About how I understand it (though I don't think the Genesis account is clear that those were "fallen angels."

Whatever, I'd assert that, due to the uncertainties (plus it's a bit of "apples and oranges", as what we're really concerned with are humans), it'd be best to exclude angels and God.

K

luvluv:

That is exactly what I am implying.

For example, today at work I drank a Coke (shameless product placement). My brain was in a state that said, "I'm thirsty and could use some nourishing caffeine. A Coke sure would be good. I think I'll go get one."

Now we could go back to that same exact situation again and again with my brain in the same state. I contend that I would always get that Coke. I would be incapable of doing anything else. I really am a slave to the states of my brain and the inputs it receives from my senses.

We have never, ever seen a case where somebody showed they were capable of performing an act which they didn't. They may be physically capable (I don't really like this description because the brain is physical) of performing it, but if their brain state doesn't allow them to choose that action, they are incapable of performing it.

Philosoft

And you calculate this how?

<strong> I think the statistics are going to bite you in the ass, luv. The point is, I suppose, a non-zero probability that God does evil means there is a non-zero probability that God has already done evil. If you define your probability over total time (t), there is an equal likelihood that God's evil action(s) take(s) place at t1 as at tx, where x is any number in your set t. You can set your probability as arbitrarily low as you wish and it won't change this fact.

<strong> Of course, but this doesn't apply to God. According to standard apologetics, there is nothing that is done by God that he didn't want done. If his will is perfect, then his lack of want is a perfect limiting factor and the probability of his acting against his wants is zero. Thus, he is not capable of doing that action in any sense of the word.

<strong> Because our wills are not perfect, we cannot confer initial probabilites of zero (or 1) on any physically possible action. God does not suffer from this 'problem.' It cannot be the case that he does not act in accordance with his will. If his will is both preexisting and unchanging, there will necessarily be outcomes that he cannot bring about. QED.

luvluv

Philosoft, this looks to me like a train that ain't gonna stop, so I'm gonna jump off right here.

If you insist on equating unwillingness with inability and therefore you believe that God's (supposed)inability to do evil makes Him less than omnipotent, that's fine with me.

Philosoft

Not just yet...

<strong> So, all I have done is equate "unwillingness" with "inability? I haven't shown that your conception of "unwillingness" confers a zero probability outcome? I haven't shown that this "unwillingness" renders your conception of God's capabilities meaningless?

Look, if you wish to concede defeat, I accept. But I am a little annoyed that you think you can back out by painting me as a closed minded fundie and belittling my arguments. If you want me to understand how a being can be said to be capable of actions with zero probability outcomes, explain it to me. Don't just put words together and expect them to have instant meaning.