2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAh...so now the Holocaust was NOT necessitated by the existence of free will. Get your story straight, Freaky.
Free will does not necessitate anything, one way or another. It makes it possible, however.
EDIT:
Freaky, day one: "The Holocaust was a necessary consequence of free will agents."
Freaky, day two: "Free will does not necessitate anything, one way or another."
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAre you not reading?
If you had read the doctrine of the divine decree, you would know how idiotic your assertion sounds. Not only is your assertion without support, you have yet to offer even one possible scenario wherein suffering could be avoided. So much for your faithfulness, eh?
ONE FEWER DEATH IN THE HOLOCAUST.
Originally posted by LemonJelloPredisposed? You mean God should create beings who have no choice in being good? Why shouldn't he just make mechanical beings who sit around his throne (if He has one) and worship Him all day, if that was what He needed.
If a person is to determine substantively his own actions (really, compatibilist free will is the only type of free will that makes sense here or anywhere), then there is a character that informs and predisposes his deliberations. What you are talking about may simply be the manifestation of character, intentions, and motivations, which in practice may b ...[text shortened]... ard benevolent acts -- and this is perfectly compatible with the existence of free will.
IMO this removes all meaning in doing good, since there is no alternative choice -- we just are what we are; predestined to soppy benevolence; incapable of hate; in a word life becomes meaningless. What meaning is there to love if we were incapable of the converse? What meaning is there to charity if we were incapable of selfishness? What meaning is there to humility if we were incapable of pride? Then we are merely the results of preprogrammed parameters.
I say the mere existence of evil is perfectly consistent with what man can become if he takes God from the equation of life (this includes those who "though" they were acting on behalf of God).
Just so we're clear. I reject the third "O" of the "OOO" definitions of God. His “omnibenevolence” ends with our free will.
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseHaving a more benevolent character does not in any way remove the existence of free will. It would not make everything 'meaningless' either. Moreover, this argument is not designed to show that OOO God would have created 'mechanical beings'. Rather, it is designed to show that a blanket appeal to free will is silly, since OOO God could have simply made even one person with even a slightly more benevolent character, thus reducing the amount of suffering and evil in the world while simultaneously achieving at least the same degree of good.
Predisposed? You mean God should create beings who have no choice in being good? Why shouldn't he just make mechanical beings who sit around his throne (if He has one) and worship Him all day, if that was what He needed.
IMO this removes all meaning in doing good, since there is no alternative choice -- we just are what we are; predestined to soppy ben hird "O" of the "OOO" definitions of God. His “omnibenevolence” ends with our free will.
Just so we're clear. I reject the third "O" of the "OOO" definitions of God. His “omnibenevolence” ends with our free will.
OK. So why do you always act like God is some eternal, unchanging source of morality? According to your view above, your God does not even practice moral perfection Himself. And why worship such a God at all?
I say the mere existence of evil is perfectly consistent with what man can become if he takes God from the equation of life
This is completely trivial, since evil is also perfectly consistent with what man can become if he keeps your God in the equation, too. According to your view of a morally imperfect God, even if someone were to attain God-like-ness, he would still be morally imperfect -- which, of course, is perfectly consistent with evil by definition.
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloRather, it is designed to show that a blanket appeal to free will is silly, since OOO God could have simply made even one person with even a slightly more benevolent character, thus reducing the amount of suffering and evil in the world while simultaneously achieving at least the same degree of good.
Having a more benevolent character does not in any way remove the existence of free will. It would not make everything 'meaningless' either. Moreover, this argument is not designed to show that OOO God would have created 'mechanical beings'. Rather, it is designed to show that a blanket appeal to free will is silly, since OOO God could have simply made morally imperfect -- which, of course, is perfectly consistent with evil by definition.
That's where we differ. You seem to expect that God would create a world to attain the maximum amount of unqualified good with the least amount of suffering. Then you would be absolutely correct in saying that such a “God” is incapable; since what we have today could have been better. I prefer the view that God still seeks maximum good, but within the parameters of complete moral freedom.
According to your view above, your God does not even practice moral perfection Himself.
Define moral perfection from God's perspective. Do you think that since He is omnipotent, He should stop every evil act at its inception?
Originally posted by HalitoseIt is not incompatible with complete moral freedom that God create us with slightly more benevolent characters. If so, then the fact that my sister is constitutionally more compassionate and understanding than I am indicates that she is less morally free than I am.
[b]Rather, it is designed to show that a blanket appeal to free will is silly, since OOO God could have simply made even one person with even a slightly more benevolent character, thus reducing the amount of suffering and evil in the world while simultaneously achieving at least the same degree of good.
That's where we differ. You seem to expect that ...[text shortened]... ive. Do you think that since He is omnipotent, He should stop every evil act at its inception?[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrI take character to be the part of our essence that is developed and honed with each choice and action we make. Benevolence is a moral “fitness”, rather than condition. Think of it like a road where each fork takes you either closer to or further from the destination. If this be true, our character is determined by our actions, i.e. it is a product of our will, not visa versa.
It is not incompatible with complete moral freedom that God create us with slightly more benevolent characters. If so, then the fact that my sister is constitutionally more compassionate and understanding than I am indicates that she is less morally free than I am.
Originally posted by HalitoseBut you have not demonstrated why having a slightly more benevolent character would preclude complete moral freedom. Jesus, for example, had a more benevolent character than he could have had in some alternate world. Does that mean that Jesus did not have complete moral freedom?
[b]Rather, it is designed to show that a blanket appeal to free will is silly, since OOO God could have simply made even one person with even a slightly more benevolent character, thus reducing the amount of suffering and evil in the world while simultaneously achieving at least the same degree of good.
That's where we differ. You seem to expect that ...[text shortened]... ive. Do you think that since He is omnipotent, He should stop every evil act at its inception?[/b]
Define moral perfection from God's perspective.
You mean God's definition of moral perfection necessarily differs from yours or mine? At any rate, how am I supposed to define some concept from an imaginary perspective? You said that your God is omnipotent and omniscient, but not omnibenevolent. How exacly am I supposed to interpret that, if not by interpreting it as entailing that your God is not morally perfect? What did you mean to say? That He is callous?
Originally posted by HalitoseFine. Given your notion of 'character' the point may be rephrased:
I take character to be the part of our essence that is developed and honed with each choice and action we make. Benevolence is a moral “fitness”, rather than condition. Think of it like a road where each fork takes you either closer to or further from the destination. If this be true, our character is determined by our actions, i.e. it is a product of our will, not visa versa.
It is not incompatible with complete moral freedom that God create us with essences that disposed us to act in ways that would shape our characters so that we would, in general, be more benevolent than we are currently.
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseForget the word 'character'. God is omnipotent. Surely, He could have created a world in which moral agents choose, to at least some greater degree, benevolent acts in accordance with their own free will. Now, why wouldn't He do that?
I take character to be the part of our essence that is developed and honed with each choice and action we make. Benevolence is a moral “fitness”, rather than condition. Think of it like a road where each fork takes you either closer to or further from the destination. If this be true, our character is determined by our actions, i.e. it is a product of our will, not visa versa.
Originally posted by LemonJelloOne is before, one is after. The "story" is straight. It is your understanding that requires the adjustment. Free will makes possible all kinds of actions. In retrospect, we see the Holocaust as the result of some people's free will.
Ah...so now the Holocaust was NOT necessitated by the existence of free will. Get your story straight, Freaky.
EDIT:
Freaky, day one: "The Holocaust was a necessary consequence of free will agents."
Freaky, day two: "Free will does not necessitate anything, one way or another."
Originally posted by NemesioI am reading. You seem to have a problem comprehending the ramifications of what you are suggesting. The deaths in that scenario were the result of free will agents. You are suggesting that God should have stopped a free will agent from acting on their intentions. Why that one agent? Why that one act?
Are you not reading?
ONE FEWER DEATH IN THE HOLOCAUST.
The ironic thing with the arguments here is that they place the wrong actions of man on par with the right actions of God. This is clearly not the case. What the Lord Jesus Christ did on the cross far outweighs anything man could do to cancel out the works of God. The person of Jesus Christ--- His uniqueness in the universe, His position in all of history--- makes Him the pivotal Person of all time, eternity past and future.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI'm not sure why you spout this typical, tired dogma in an alleged debate. The only reaction you'll get from atheists and agnostics is:
The ironic thing with the arguments here is that they place the wrong actions of man on par with the right actions of God. This is clearly not the case. What the Lord Jesus Christ did on the cross far outweighs anything man could do to cancel out the works of God. The person of Jesus Christ--- His uniqueness in the universe, His position in all of history--- makes Him the pivotal Person of all time, eternity past and future.
🙄
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWell, then you've stacked the deck. You have created a scenario wherein any modification entails
I am reading. You seem to have a problem comprehending the ramifications of what you are suggesting. The deaths in that scenario were the result of free will agents. You are suggesting that God should have stopped a free will agent from acting on their intentions. Why that one agent? Why that one act?
a violation of free will. But that isn't the case at all, unless you believe that all people have
identical predispositions for behaviors (which we know to be untrue).
Or, we know that debilitating congenital diseases strike in the womb. Unless you feel that these
diseases impact free will (which, obviously, you can't), your 'god' could easily select that Hitler would
have gotten one of these in order to minimize what would be future suffering (had he decreed it).
Or your 'god' could have made him prohibitively ugly, or be deaf, or have a stutter, or have a
bigger wang so he wouldn't feel the need to kill other people, or any number of things which
wouldn't have affected his free will.
As I said, there are a multiplicity of ways in which your 'god' could have decreed things such that
suffering would be minimized. Obviously, your 'god' is a pervert, relishing human suffering as per
his decree.
Nemesio