Originally posted by FreakyKBHThis is another point on which your own theory is contradictory. You must be forgetting that your God has decreed every occurrence that takes place. Somehow, you want to cling to a liberatarian notion of free will even though your God has perfect knowledge and has preordained human history. That doesn't work. If God knows perfectly the decree, then it is determined. Determination and libertarian free will are like oil and water. You still have free will of a compatibilist flavor to work with; so, yes, I agree that even in the face of determinism, Hitler still may have 'chosen freely'. But what you fail to understand is the role that your God plays. In particular, Hitler could not have done otherwise. Why is that? Well, because your God preordained his actions. In fact, it is an entailment of your theory that God planned/caused the Holocaust for His own glory (you could say He merely permitted it, but that creates a contradiction within your theory, as others here have already pointed out; plus it doesn't really exonerate your God to say that He was merely a willing accomplice, now does it?).
Again, in retrospect we can see the actions of free will agents involved in the Holocaust. Having a free will allows for any (almost) infinite number of actions to occur. Before those actions occur, as far as humans are concerned, nothing is set in stone.
Hitler was no more forced to his actions than the millions of Germans were forced to their ...[text shortened]... something which can no longer be affected, why not pick something occuring more contemporarily?
Maybe in Freakyville, you can pass words around and not care about whether they are used correctly or not. But you will not get away with it here. If your God is omnipotent, as you theory presupposes, then He can bring about any logically possible state affairs. Well, the following is certainly logically possible: namely, that each person, through and in full accord with his own free will, freely chooses to do only good or morally neutral acts.* Now, I want to know exactly why your God did not bring this state of affairs about. Let me be clear about this state of affairs: it is not a state in which God somehow mechanically forces good actions; rather, under this compatibilist account, each person freely chooses to do only good. Now, why didn't your God prefer this state to, say, the current state of the world? Why didn't He bring this logically possible state of affairs about, being that He has the power to do so? If He is all-good, then how is the current state of affairs better than this aforementioned state of affairs?
Keep in mind that your libertarian notion of free will is dog poo. If free will exists under your theory, it is of a compatibilist sort -- that much I am sure. So, under the current status, persons freely choose evil, but could not have done otherwise (it was decreed, after all). There is simply no way that it is compatible with an all-good God that He would decree that evil be unavoidable, particularly when better states of affairs are logically possible.
Your main problem is this, Freaky: you somehow think libertarian free will exists under your theory, when it clearly cannot. Once you understand this, I think you'll see how silly your idea of God really is, given our observations about the world.
---------------------------------
*If I were inclined to be a dick here, I could also stipulate that in this logically possible state of affairs, your God also refrain from savagely murdering helpless, innocent persons through all manners of natural evils (you know -- tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, and other 'acts of God'😉.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHEverything I have talked about is logically possible -- in contrast to the existence of a stone that an omnipotent being cannot lift.
Bound by absurdities, you're never going to come to an understanding of the doctrine. I told you as much prior to even posting it, but you and others always objected to Secret Decoder Ring conspiracies and whatnot. Here's the proof. Now you are arguing that God should (could) have made someone as equally perfect to Himself in every respect.
Can anyone say, "Can God make a rock bigger than He can pick up?"
Originally posted by HalitoseSimple question: is it a logically possible state of affairs that each moral agent freely choose, in full accord with his own free will (of a compatibilist sort), to do only good or morally neutral acts? If so, what implications does that carry?
His intended outcome was for moral agents to choose a better morality due to their own free choice, not because they were inclined to do so.
That being said, I fervently believe in a "moral law" which clearly dictates to the individual what the "gold standard" of morality is -- some people call it conscience; a clear directive which defines our moral ch ...[text shortened]... is the least amount possible -- man should be capable of discerning between good and evil.
Originally posted by HalitoseWhen did you shed your cocoon of sensibility and morph into powershaker? You ought to have left this fundy claptrap up the proverbial anus whence you unlodged it.
I defined exactly to what extent God is "benevolent". You seem to wanna dictate benevolent action from a momental, spatial perspective to an eternal, transcendent Being -- easier said than done. Since there is a start to this universe, there will also be an end, where complete justice will be served and evil destroyed.
Ergo, God will deal with evil, only in His time, not yours.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]According to you, God acts directly in matters all the time
Really? Never has this been posited by me. Read the doctrine again. There you will see that God sometimes acts directly, sometimes indirectly. At other times, other agents are the direct force of action. Not once have I ever asserted that God acts directly all the time.[/b]
I was being casual. God sometimes directly acts. And yet, He did not do so in the case
of Hitler. He could have done so in an effort to minimize suffering.
Your standard is better, it is assumed.
It can be demonstrated that my standard is ostensibly better. Now, if you want to posit that
the Holocaust was necessary to minimize suffering, then we return to the point of GAFE: your
'god' is a monster if the best he could do to minimize suffering is to not interfere to prevent the
Holocaust.
Without Hitler, as though his person was the pivot, as opposed to his position. [b]This is crap. Hitler was demon possessed. Any unbeliever can be demon possessed, regardless of talents or ambitions. Without the demon possession, Hitler would have died in obscurity, as was his station in life.[/b]
Demon possession? This gets a big ROTFLMFAO. I'm glad that your argument is so pitiful that
you have to bring in supernatural elements in order to bolster it.
Demon possession. That's rich.
Let me ask this: does demon possession entail the loss of free will? (I can't believe I'm even
entertaining this.)
EVEN if this absurdity were true, God could have prevented said demon from inflicting its harm
on humankind (just like Jesus exorcized demons). So, whether the 'Hitler Demon' infected Hitler
or Hans Scheidt or Bernard Schoentag or whoever, it was still in God's capacity to prevent the
'possession' yet, He did not do so. Why do you assert that is?
As for the rest of your argument, you are either conceding what has been established or you are arguing it. Which is it going to be?
What is the referent to 'it?' What do you think I am conceding and arguing?
Nemesio
Originally posted by LemonJelloSomehow, you want to cling to a liberatarian notion of free will even though your God has perfect knowledge and has preordained human history. That doesn't work.
This is another point on which your own theory is contradictory. You must be forgetting that your God has decreed every occurrence that takes place. Somehow, you want to cling to a liberatarian notion of free will even though your God has perfect knowledge and has preordained human history. That doesn't work. If God knows perfectly the decree, then it ...[text shortened]... vils (you know -- tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, and other 'acts of God'😉.
Not sure what you mean by preordained, but I don't like the sound of it. Care to define it?
If God knows perfectly the decree, then it is determined. Determination and libertarian free will are like oil and water.
There's a rut forming here. There is something holding the atom together. There is something real behind this shadow we call life, something that makes this present reality possible. It is causing it in the same sense as your mind can imagine all manner of scenarios with striking detail.
But what your mind cannot make real are the decisions of another. While you may imagine intended or desired outcomes of a scenario involving another person, your power is limited to your ability to persuade them or force them into certain actions, assuming that contact is even possible. In your scheming, you might execute everything possible in order to set the stage to match your imagination of the scenario, but you are still at the mercy of their decision. In the same manner--- despite knowing the end from the beginning, and everything in between--- God is 'at the mercy' of the decisions of all agents of free will.
When this doctrine discusses decree, it does not claim that action is preordained/predetermined, it merely acknowledges the actual.
it is an entailment of your theory that God planned/caused the Holocaust for His own glory
Any and all action on the part of all agents of free will--- including Satan's rebellion--- are part of the plan of God, and will ultimately reveal for all His glory. I say "will ultimately reveal for all," because not all sees or understands how even the ultimate sin of arrogance against the character of righteousness of God could bring Him glory... yet some now do see.
There are those who rest comfortably in their ignorance of these issues which we discuss, and one can almost excuse their bliss on account of such ignorance. They are not troubled in the least, not because of their faith but because of their refusal to see the reality of the arguments of evil, suffering, etc. Not overly good at math, they have decided to forego any formulas outside of "God + me + belief = Heaven." Pity, that. Although there is nothing attractive about evil or suffering, when viewed with a proper frame of reference the one so inclinded to consider is blown away by the genius of God and His plan.
each person, through and in full accord with his own free will, freely chooses to do only good or morally neutral acts...
Hey! I know of a scenario that fits this exactly. It was in the Garden of Eden, wherein Adam and the woman freely chose to refrain from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Too bad that didn't last forever, huh. Good thing God allowed it to happen, however, otherwise Time For Chess would have lost out on some of the best converstations ever.
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioAnd yet, He did not do so in the case of Hitler
Really? How do you know? While we do not live in an age of miracles, Jesus Christ still controls history, and will not allow man to destroy himself. God keeps the ball in play, so to speak.
It can be demonstrated that my standard is ostensibly better.
From a very, very limited perspective, I suppose you could demonstrate any number of scenarios are "better." If you don't mind, I wouldn't object to one which involved me winning the largest lottery jackpot in history. While you're at it, make me better looking and give me a rapist wit.
I'm glad that your argument is so pitiful that you have to bring in supernatural elements in order to bolster it.
Hitler is not part of the argument. This is merely a point of fact.
does demon possession entail the loss of free will?
In varying degrees, yes. Does the influence of PCP entail the loss of free will?
Originally posted by LemonJelloPossible? Yes. Probable? Not really.
Simple question: is it a logically possible state of affairs that each moral agent freely choose, in full accord with his own free will (of a compatibilist sort), to do only good or morally neutral acts? If so, what implications does that carry?
Implications? If given a free moral will, there is a high probability of evil. On the positive side, God cannot be blamed for stacking the cards.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI like the demon possession angle.
LIS. Apparently, professor of history that you are, you can explain what combination of Hitler's personal characteristics and societal factors led to his absolute sway over Germany. I'm curious to hear it.
Was Stalin also demon possessed?