A General Argument from Evil.

Originally posted by nicknomo


++++++++++++++++++++++++++
___________________________________________________________
PART IV: (Neo)Mr wizard, I need an exit!
___________________________________________________________
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So you've decided to try to find a way around my proof. Here are some commong objections which have already been shown to be illog ...[text shortened]... is was the only intention of this proof (to prove such beliefs in god and religion illogical).

You should examine this claim of yours:

IF god is omnipotent THEN god could have created a universe with Any possible Predetermined Path.
[POTE->APP]
--------------------
(EXPLANATION: Since god is all powerful, he could have done anything he wanted...including create any universe imaginable.)

The problem is that this is inconsistent with the very line you've been pushing regarding omniscience. If God is omniscient, and hence knows the truth-values of all propositions (including those concerning the future), then God knew prior to creating the world which world he would end up creating. But if he knew this, then it could not have been otherwise (a claim you yourself make repeatedly in your argument). Hence, there was only one option available to God, and that was to create the world he in fact created. Hence, he could not have made any universe imaginable. Similar arguments show that God himself has no free will (if you take 'free will' to refer to libertarian notions of freedom rather than compatibilist notions of freedom).

Originally posted by bbarr
Conceiving of the divine as a person is itself absurd and idolatrous, and this absurdity is only compounded by claiming that this person is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. In this respect, the absurdity of my definitions represents their faithfulness to the absurdity of traditional theism.

I agree.

I'm not even sure why I was looking so hard for inconsistencies in the argument when I already agreed with the conclusion of the argument. Regardless, I cannot find any such inconsistencies. I think it's a nice presentation, especially in regard to the fact that it makes no assumptions regarding ethical theory.

Originally posted by bbarr
You should examine this claim of yours:

[b]IF god is omnipotent THEN god could have created a universe with Any possible Predetermined Path.
[POTE->APP]
--------------------
(EXPLANATION: Since god is all powerful, he could have done ...[text shortened]... ns of freedom rather than compatibilist notions of freedom).
[/b]

Your objections are due to a misinterpretation of the intended meaning. When I said God could have chosen a different path, I'm saying he has the power to. He is not limited by his abilities to only make it one way. The whole point of that section of the proof was to show the dichotomy between his WILL and his POWER.

That's all I meant to imply. That God was not limited to one choice by lack of ability. So, he had the power and could have *potentially* made any universe imaginable, he had just chosen to do it one way. It doesn't matter if his WILL made those alternatives impossible, his powers did not. Your objections are actually making the same point I am, but differing as to which is important for that part of the proof. I WANT to show that God's WILL was the only reason it ended up the way it did, and prevented it from happening any other way.

To show that his WILL determined all the event in the universe, through the end of time... that was my point. Power wise, he was in no way restricted, correct? If so, then God chose the universe from start to end based on choice alone.

I might consider changing the wording so that others do not make the same mistake. The difficult part is, that the word "could" takes on a slightly different meaning when the future is decided. I take it by now that you probably understand what I mean, so if you have any ideas on how I could reword it... I think "potential" is a better word because it has nothing to do with causality, just capability.

Originally posted by nicknomo
Your objections are due to a misinterpretation of the intended meaning. When I said God [b]could have chosen a different path, I'm saying he has the power to. He is not limited by his abilities to only make it one way. ...[text shortened]... because it has nothing to do with causality, just capability.

[/b]

You claim that we can't have free will because everything is predestined. Predestination rules out free will because free will requires the capacity to have done otherwise, and predestination entails that it is never the case that the world could be otherwise than that way it in fact is. Predestination, you claim, follows from God's omniscience.

So:

If God is omniscient, then everything is predestined.

If everything is predestined, then nobody can do otherwise than that which they in fact do.

Hence, God could not have done otherwise than that which he in fact does.

If God could not have done otherwise than that which he in fact does, then God could not have created a world different from the one he in fact created.

So, if we are not responsible for what we do because there is no free will, then God is not responsible for what he does because there is no free will.

The general point is that you must apply the same reasoning you are applying to humans to God as well. If God's omniscience precludes free will, then it precludes any creature from having free will, God included.

If you want to claim that you are using 'could' in some different sense, so that the claim 'God could have chosen to create a different world' is true despite it being the case that it was completely outside God's power to create a different world (because his will is not free), then fine. But if you do, then you give us no reason to think that God is actually responsible for what happens in the world. He is merely one link in a predestined causal chain, as are all of us.

Originally posted by bbarr
So, if we are not responsible for what we do because there is no free will,..

You were going along quite well until you got to this point. It is loaded with presupposition.

That we have no free will is evident because we have never chosen other than we have chosen. There are no alternate universe where we did anything other than what we did. That is only in our imaginations. So free will in itself is an illusion.

Your presupposition is that responsibility requires free will. While this seems intuitively true, it is not logical. In fact - there is no clear connection short of assuming them.

Originally posted by Coletti


Your presupposition is that responsibility requires free will. While this seems intuitively true, it is not logical. In fact - there is no clear connection short of assuming them.

What does responsibility mean here?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
What does responsibility mean here?

Another good question.

Originally posted by Coletti
Another good question.

It's one you should be able to answer if you are going to make a claim about the nature of responsibility, especially one that is so bizarre.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
It's one you should be able to answer if you are going to make a claim about the nature of responsibility, especially one that is so bizarre.

Well it bbarr's argument. I want him to make the connection. But you can give it a shot if you wish.

Originally posted by bbarr
Conceiving of the divine as a person is itself absurd and idolatrous, and this absurdity is only compounded by claiming that this person is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. In this respect, the absurdity of my definitions represents their faithfulness to the absurdity of traditional theism.

Bbarr: "Conceiving of the divine as a person is itself absurd and idolatrous, and this absurdity is only compounded by claiming that this person is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. In this respect, the absurdity of my definitions represents their faithfulness to the absurdity of traditional theism."

Your above claim is too losely formulated, too vague if you ask me .... and if you take a closer look, your statement does not apply to the God of Abraham who has revealed himself in the Old and the New Testament.

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the Triune God. Three Divine Persons in One, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, of which one Divine Person, the Son, incarnated in a human being called Jesus Christ or Jesus of Nazareth 2000 years ago and is 100% divine and 100% human. Only One of the Three divine Persons of the Triune God is human.

Of course you know this, but the question is whether the god of your dilemma is indeed the Triune God.

What makes you think you are not referring to Amun, Zeus, Apollo, Shiva or Allah for that matter ?

Originally posted by Coletti
Well it bbarr's argument. I want him to make the connection. But you can give it a shot if you wish.

I demand to know who recommended this nonsense. Ivanhoe, it was you, wasn't it?

Originally posted by Coletti
You were going along quite well until you got to this point. It is loaded with presupposition.

That we have no free will is evident because we have never chosen other than we have chosen. There are no alternate universe where we did a ...[text shortened]... In fact - there is no clear connection short of assuming them.

Again, you have failed to read my post with even a modicum of care. I was reconstructing nicknomo's argument in my post above, not presenting my own, as should have been readily apparent. You have mistaken my criticism of his position for a presentation of my own position. I accept, in advance, your apologies for (once again) misreading my posts.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Bbarr: "Conceiving of the divine as a person is itself absurd and idolatrous, and this absurdity is only compounded by claiming that this person is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. In this respect, the absurdity of my definitions represents their faithfulness to the absurdity of traditional theism."

Your above claim is too losely formulated ...[text shortened]... s you think you are not referring to Amun, Zeus, Apollo, Shiva or Allah for that matter ?

My argument applies to any god with with three relevant properties, regardless of whether they are conceived of as persons (or three persons, for that matter). If any of the other gods you mention are claimed to have these properties, then the argument applies to them as well.

Originally posted by Coletti
Well it bbarr's argument. I want him to make the connection. But you can give it a shot if you wish.

It is not my argument, it is nicknomo's. I was criticising his argument, for Christ's sake. Didn't you read my post. I don't know why I bother even responding to you. It isn't like you actually read the things I write.

Originally posted by bbarr
How is this relevant to the argument I've presented? Please stick to the argument at issue, and point out the premise of mine that you reject and the reason why you reject it. I thought you were rejecting premise (2), but your post above indicates that you actually agree with (2). So, which is it?

I do not, agree with 2, for the reasons I have given before.
Kelly