Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is just another way of saying it is "the best possible world, given the constraints" and that flies in the face of omnipotence. If you are omnipotent, then you are not constrained by anything. You could create a universe with perfect liberty AND zero suffering. You could choose zero suffering over perfect liberty for that matter. Would even a potential miscreant truly suffer if prevented from harming others and therefore himself? Free will is not the unmitigated absolute good and requirement that it is made out to be.
You are also ignoring that the actors could have been created with perfect moral awareness and judgment, incapable of "sin" or "evil" to begin with. They could always freely choose to do right. They could be ABLE to choose harm, but would never do it.
Certainly -- in which case, you are arguing that from a sufficiently elevated perspective, the suffering and death of say a spouse or child, or the sexual abuse or enslavement of children or people starving is good and not bad at all. Which is just a way of saying that the hopes, dreams, aspirations, and needs of individuals are disposable in the face of some hypothetical Larger Purpose. Which effectively means that death, suffering and want are relative and not absolute. I can't morally, through inaction, allow you to die -- but god can, because he's god. I can't morally, through action, murder you -- but god can, because Mysterious Ways.
And there goes benevolence, much less omnibenevolence, right out the window.
It isn't a matter of constraints on omnipotence.
An omnipotent god could obviously create whatever world he wanted.
The theistic defense is that he valued a world in which at least some of the creatures with libertarian free will would choose communion with him because they valued good over evil.
The price of this was that some, perhaps most, would choose evil.
The maximal good defense is that what we observe is what an omnipotent god knew would achieve the most desirable results consistent with the above goal.
The notion of creatures with free will who always make good choices would be inconsistent with the goal of creatures who genuinely choose communion with god and good over evil.
It does seem to me that all you say in your last paragraph, which reflects an understandable but completely human perspective, may well fade into insignificance in the eternal plan of a transcendent god.
And the evil and good we see in thus world may be totally independent of the existence of any diety.
Be that as it may there is still the matter of addressing the claim some make is thst God is the creator of all things and he is good does not address the agrument that if God created everything did he not also create evil.
To have this discussion requires no belief in a God or any denial of a God. The entire premise of the discussion is that some claim that God made everything bur man created evil.
We have no way to preceive how a diety preceives evil or even recognizes evil. The conceot has been used to excuse what reads like evil commands by a God in a Holy Book. Again one does not need to believe or not believe in a God to debate that stand. I think itis helpful for believers to understand that discussing concepts does not mean we needto believe in those concepts or any dieties.
I just don't see the dilemma.
A omnipotent, omnibenevolent god could create a reality that was entirely good.
This god could then fill this reality with creatures having libertarian free will.
Some of those creatures could choose to use god's good creation for evil purposes.
God would not thereby become the source or author of evil.
By allowing creatures to have free will, god would simply have accepted the potential for evil in order to achieve the goal of at least some of them choosing the good and communion with him.
I'm not promoting this version of theism, but I do understand enough of the philosophy to know the sort of objections raised here are not considered insurmountable.
I don't see evidence for metaphysical libertarianism. The invocations of quantum indeterminism are grasping at straws to save the idea of free will. To prove this you would need to show some connection between quanta and conscious decision making. It's far-fetched. And you aren't even beginning to contend with how human psychology circumscribes the choices we see before us, even those that are possible.
It seems you are putting the cart before the horse. You are trying to save free will and take it as an axiom, then use that as justification for a god whose omniscience and omnipotence make free will impossible. The panglossian defense of the world as-is, is just as paper-thin as it was when Leibniz formulated it. And as for your appeals to authority, Leibniz discovered calculus and was the last "universal genius" who still came up with a patently silly theodicy. It says more about where he started than where he ended up, grounded as he was in the early modern period. I think that's still true of all those scholars whom you cite as armor.
I get it. Giving up on free will, and to a lesser extent god, is hard. Not only are we just acting out a script we have no control over, we are playing to an empty theater. What's the point? Indeed. That's the hard part to accept.
All the scholars I've cited as armor?
Have I cited any scholars?
I believe I simply said that even most secular philosophers no longer consider Epicurus' dilemma a valid objection to deism or theism.
Certainly, the notion of free will is axiomatic to most theistic religions and even non-theistic ones.
Why would anyone accept that we have no free will and are just acting out a script in an empty theater?
I believe most people intuitively reject such a notion, and I know of nothing in philosophy or science that would require us to accept it.
It may be true, of course, but between those alternatives I find libertarian free will in a theistic creation more plausible for any number of reasons.
From my vantage point, I don't have to provide evidence to anyone. It is my personal journey over a lifetime. Its not a quantitative matter. As other have stated, do we need to prove integrity? Prove character? Must I prove my love for another or a flower?
I will just focus on this, as I agree with the rest of your post. You are correct, you do not need to provide evidence for your personal journey. I was referring to when you make a claim, such as on the internet.
If humans have libertarian free will, anything and everything can be used for good or evil.
To avoid this reality would require god to step in and block all evil choices, but then free will would be an illusion.
No, you would still have free will to do different good things, or neutral things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonked
An omniscient god might have foreknowledge of the evil choices that will be made but accept this as the price of giving humans libertarian free will.
This is basically the maximal good defense: awful as it may seem, this is the world that accomplishes the most good while allowing free will.
No, most good would be achieved if you were punished immediately for doing evil. You would still have the free will to do evil, but there would be a price.
Also, allowing evil means less good will be accomplished, because the happiness of the victims would be reduced.
An omnipotent god could obviously create whatever world he wanted.
The theistic defense is that he valued a world in which at least some of the creatures with libertarian free will would choose communion with him because they valued good over evil.
The price of this was that some, perhaps most, would choose evil.
The maximal good defense is that what we observe is what an omnipotent god knew would achieve the most desirable results consistent with the above goal.
The notion of creatures with free will who always make good choices would be inconsistent with the goal of creatures who genuinely choose communion with god and good over evil.
It does seem to me that all you say in your last paragraph, which reflects an understandable but completely human perspective, may well fade into insignificance in the eternal plan of a transcendent god.
You are basically saying the holocaust may be a good thing for a god. You can not justify this claim, only say it may be a possibility because humans do not know everything. But what if there can be no other reason? Simply saying there may be a reason does not answer the question, it is an ad hoc attempt that evades it.
No, you would still have free will to do different good things, or neutral things.
No, most good would be achieved if you were punished immediately for doing evil. You would still have the free will to do evil, but there would be a price.
Also, allowing evil means less good will be accomplished, because the happiness of the victims would be reduced.
It appears to me that you're simply substituting your idea of what god's plan should have been for what theistic religions like Christianity believe it actually was.
The fly in the ointment is that none of us can ever rise above a finite, entirely human perspective on the way things ought to be.
You are basically saying the holocaust may be a good thing for a god. You can not justify this claim, only say it may be a possibility because humans do not know everything. But what if there can be no other reason? Simply saying there may be a reason does not answer the question, it is an ad hoc attempt that evades it.
Certainly, a theistic religion like Christianity must posit that allowing human evil of the magnitude of the Holocaust is a price god is willing to pay.
This doesn't mean it's a good thing for god.
It may be a horrendous thing for god, but nevertheless be a price god was willing to pay achieve the maximal good.
It appears to me that you may misunderstand the theistic argument.
A omnipotent, omnibenevolent god could create a reality that was entirely evil.
This god could then fill this reality with creatures having libertarian free will.
Some of those creatures could choose to use god's evil creation for good purposes.
God would not thereby become the source or author of good.
Well, OK, but so what?
You're simply giving the antithesis of the theistic argument.
In your antithesis, god would not be the god of any existing theistic religion.
What is it you would like me to think about that I haven't thought about?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
