"Case Against Faith" Response, Part I.
Offline Original Article: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_doland/strobel.html
This will probably be among one of my last threads here... I believe that I have found that which I came here to discover-- just have some loose ends to tie up. I appreciate all of you who helped me with my learning, it's definitly been an experience. So, here is my response to the Case Against Faith.
Granted, I am speaking from my own perspective, not from someone else's. I have been, what you might call a 'skeptic' for as long as I can remember, and it is in asking questions that I realized the point of making choices. The objective facts are the same for most everyone, what you choose to do with them.. is a different issue.
A few definitions before I start, feel free to cross reference them with the dictionary. Make sure to cross reference those words within the definition which might be important to understanding the first. So, here we go. I state these, because.. well-- if we all have our own definitions, that might be kind of hard. So I'll be using the language as prescribed by the dictionary. No descriptive linguistics here! (Maybe some).
Reason: 1) Basis for a belief
2) Statement given as justification
3) Sound Judgement; Good sense
Rational: 1) Having or exercising reason, sound judgement, or good sense
Irrational: 1) Not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical
Logic: 1) A particular method of reasoning
2) The system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study
Evidence: 1) Grounds for a belief
2) That which tends to prove or disprove something
Tends: 1) To move or extend in a certain direction
Prove: 1) To establish the truth or genuineness of
Semantics: 1) The study of meaning
Empirical: 1) Derived from or guided by experience or experiment
Necessary: 1) Being essential, indispensable, or requisite
Sufficient: 1) Adequate for the purpose; enough
Assumption: 1) Something taken for granted; a supposition
Assertion: 1) A positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason
Axiom: 1) Self evident truth that requires no proof
2) Logic, Mathematics: a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it
Fallacious: 1) Deceptive; misleading
2) Disappointing; delusive
3) Containing a fallacy
Fallacy: 1) A deceptive, misleading, or false notion
About the Author of "The Case Against Faith"
He seems very logical.
(What, you were expecting more? It was a well structured critique as well as fair in my view.)
He ask questions of the author and his interviewees. These questions appear to be valid for, in one way or another, the interviewee and the author just assume that all reading will accept just because they are given a response. Furthermore, some apparent, common sense, contradictions spawning from the statements that the book makes, are equally challenged. Both these methods of argument I consider valid, so I'm not going to be saying that they are not; I will address to all things I can. So, here I go, I will try to make my answers small, assertions simple, logic clean, and reason clear as I can. (Furthermore.. I will try summarize his arguments his quotes-- therefore I can address what I understand as the spirit of his argument). I do not necessarily write this response to give answers, merely ask more questions, that is.. after all, what I do many times. If you grow tired of not finding a straight answer to the original objection, for instance "Since Evil and Suffering Exist, A Loving God Cannot", then look at the end of each section.. there I will write my understanding of it, but I really feel as if my point by point response will give a more complete picture from which to understand my position. Whether representative of truth or not, this is a map of my reasoning at this point in my life.
Objection 1: Since Evil and Suffering Exist, A Loving God Cannot
(Interview with Dr. Peter John Kreeft, Ph.D.)
In fact, Templeton says that suffering was a major reason why he turned away from the Christian faith, noting a photograph of an African woman holding her dead baby, who had died of starvation due to severe drought, in her arms. God allowed all of this suffering when all that the woman needed was a little rain. How can there be a loving God if He won't even send a little rain? (p. 14).
For one, Kreeft says that finite humans are not capable of understanding the plans and reasoning of an infinite God. Kreeft illustrates his point with an analogy:
Imagine a bear in a trap and a hunter who, out of sympathy, wants to liberate him. He tries to win the bear's confidence, but he can't do it, so he has to shoot the bear full of drugs. The bear, however, thinks this is an attack and the hunter is trying to kill him. He doesn't realize this is being done out of compassion (p. 32).
This accurately sums up the argument of Strobel: God knows better than us, we cannot comprehend why these things happen.
God may well know better than I, and what appears to me to be injustice could all be a part of a greater plan. I am imperfect, and cannot know that which a perfect God may know. However, Kreeft's argument that I cannot know what eventual good may come from some suffering is a fallacious "argument from ignorance."
Agreed. While his answer may be correct, this argument does little to advance the debate since the answer to a valid question is that the answer cannot be comprehended. If this answer were multiplied and given for every question, you might see where this sort of response would lead to.
The bottom line is that if I am like the bear of Kreeft's analogy, unable to see the greater good to come from apparent injustice, then God should not be surprised that I see apparent injustice as genuine injustice.
Granted. He should not be 'surprised'.
For there is no reason to assume that there is a greater good to come from injustice.
Granted as well. While I tread lightly on any assertion that there is "no reason" for any assumption, I will accept this assertion because I can think of no counterexample. If one sees something that seems like "injustice" they will not automatically assume that is, in fact, "justifiable".
It may sound like Strobel, Kreeft, and I are using this woman as a debate tool[...]But these are real issues being raised, and they need to be discussed.
Agreed.
To explain how suffering can lead to a greater good, Kreeft offers the analogy of when his daughter pricked herself and suffered a small amount of pain, but learned from it (p. 41)[...]A valid explanation for a little pain doesn't explain extensive, intense, and apparently gratuitous pain.
This might be where I would lay down my first contention. If I give an example:
A person asks me, "Look at all this death in Iraq. How can the U.S. be justified in such a war?"
I would answer, "The death in Europe during World War II was 100 fold, would you ask this same question of that war?"
What is valid for one instance of pain is not necessarily valid for another, yet, the element of truth (if accepted in the first explanation) can be applied to the second that being:
Pain or suffering, no matter to what extent, is not reason enough to assume that pain and suffering are not without reason or justification; even as the number of death, no matter to what extent, is not reason enough to assume that war is not without reason or justification in a particular case.
Why have I been fortunate, while so many others have not? Arguing that there must be no God because of the suffering in the world is sometimes called an "argument from outrage." But should one not be "outraged" at the injustice of the world?
Indeed.
Yet, even as you pointed out something earlier as fallacious, so this thing would be fallacious if its purpose is to win an argument. It does not make a logical conclusion, merely that makes the assertion that one should be outraged at such injustice. In this I agree, but if the purpose of it was to imply that there cannot be justification for something that "should cause outrage", then for that I cannot agree.
Moreover, the fact that the poorest often suffer the most is, to me, very significant. In a debate with William Lane Craig, Corey Washington develops the point:
Significant?
Relatively speaking, people really didn't suffer.
The disgust I find at one individual dying in a horrible way and another individual dying in a horrible way is not magnified by their socio-economic standing. I realize you may be saying, "as a whole" opposed to individually, and if this is what you meant, I would agree. The fact that their are nations of so much excess that they seem to burst at the seems while there remains nations in our world that are as they are, is a problem that I think needs addressing.
I cannot say I have an answer to correct this state of affairs.. but some day, perhaps I can help in some significant manner.
So you have to think about what Craig is saying. God's going to allow the innocent, the weak, and the poor to suffer, so the rich can show their colors, can be courageous, and develop themselves into moral beings. That sounds kind of sick to me actually. I think this is totally incompatible with Christianity as you read it. Remember the proverb was that, "The meek shall inherit the earth," not that they shall be destroyed by it.[1]
However.. this statement seems to imply something that I don't believe is relevant to the central question. Let me present it you this way:
If God allows a rich, successful man, to suffer at the hands of another man, so that the one man gets his head sawed off as he screams for the other to stop; would that god be more or less loving than one who would allow such a thing to happen to a man of less riches?
If you mean those instances of suffering apart from the direct actions of another individual-- such as famine, natural disaster, or the such-- then I would suggest that if you accept that letting a rich man be harmed by another is not more or less a reflection on ones character than if that character let a poor man be harmed by another, then I would only go to point to my even earlier statement. When it comes to suffering as a result of natural elements, it is only as an indirect result of the order than humans have set up themselves. It is not that there is not enough food or resources to support or move all individuals into certain areas of greater resources, it is that nations keep people in and others out. There is a unequal dispersal of resource and space because that is what people, as a whole, have created. One might counter, "there is no way that industrialized nations can take in all citizens of these other nations"-- and that might be true.. a sudden influx of a group of people skilled in only non-industrialized tasks, would most certainly put a large burden on the receiving nation. Yet.. once again, this system is as it is merely as a result of the man made system itself.
In my view, "Man" is as much responsible for a person who dies from famine as a man is responsible for killing another. Feel free to disagree. I am stating these things to present reasoning, not to give answers.
But God could solve the problem, or at least mitigate it a great deal, by sending more rain. Is this really too much to ask of a compassionate, miracle-working God?
I can only point to my earlier question. Would a god who mitigates pain by 'sending rain' be more or less loving even though, at the same time, he doesn't mitigate the pain of every other individual in a less general sense (murder, rape, torture, etc)? Both would be equally as easy for a God of infinite power? I have not stated my belief on God's personality.. or my understanding of the human condition, merely that these actions that you say increase your un-understanding of the possibility of an infinite are not necessarily the only rational conclusion to reach.
In my opinion it would be as hard to understand a god who 'allows' extreme suffering on the grand scale, then it would be as equally hard to believe in a god who 'allows' extreme suffering on the small scale.
Kreeft says he purposely let his daughter bleed a little, for the learning experience--the greater good to come.
I really do not understand this man if this story is actually true. I would hope that if I was a parent I would not 'let' my kid touch a stove and then follow that up by not tending to his wound just because he will 'learn better'. I would pull his hand away. I would consul him. For he trusts me and would let me tend to his wound.
The fact that a Christian would save the child if he could implies that Christians don't really believe that an apparently needless death serves any greater good.
Not necessarily.. As with the example of the father and their child: if harm is caused, I will tend to the harm for the harm is real and needs tending too. This would not change the fact that my child may have learned from the experience.
Whether or not their is "good that can comes from bad" exists independently (I would contend) from the "whether one should help to mitigate the bad."
Kreeft, of course, claims that injustice not rectified in this life will be rectified in the next. He quotes Mother Teresa, who said, "In light of heaven, the worst suffering on earth, a life full of the most atrocious tortures on earth, will be seen to be no more serious than one night in an inconvenient hotel" (p. 47).
This I think belittles pain.
In other words, in the grand scheme of eternity, the dead baby's needless death is "no biggie."
This I think belittles eternity. For mathematically.. finite life is insignificant next to infinite.
But doesn't that make this life on Earth rather pointless?
I believe even an atheist would agree with this statement: we are living now, in the present, whether or not mathematically the existence of this time is insignificant to the existence of time itself, does not change the fact that life is real, present, and significant in this one.
To defer to a person's unverifiable condition after death in order to find any resulting greater good appears remarkably forced--it is tantamount to admitting that there is no greater good to be found.
I must admit.. I always felt that in a moment of suffering, the statement "it's for the greater good" to be insensitive even as other: "it was there time", "you can't change life". In general, I feel, as though, in a moment of suffering, ones purpose should be to be there.. not to make sense of it.
We can now, living apart from it all, with the clarity of mind to look backwards and forwards with thought and deliberation, look at all things and find 'greater good' if we wish too.
For we have to take it entirely on faith that this otherwise seemingly needless suffering resulted in any greater good at all.
While I have not defined my concept of this 'greater good' yet, I will in time.
A related question concerns the existence of evil. Kreeft says that the complete elimination of evil would eliminate free will and the chance for true love, and claims that some evil and suffering is necessary to make us who we are:
This I think is a odd statement for him to make.
It's like that old Twilight Zone television show, where a gang of bank robbers gets shot and one of them wakes up walking on fluffy clouds at the golden gate of a celestial city. A kindly white-robed man offers him everything he wants. But soon he's bored with the gold since everything is free, and the beautiful girls who only laugh when he tries to hurt them, since he has a sadistic streak. So he summons the St. Peter figure. "There must be some mistake." "No, we make no mistakes here." "Can't you send me back to earth?" "Of course not, you're dead." "Well, then I must belong with my friends in the Other Place. Send me there." "Oh, no, we can't do that. Rules you know." "But I thought I was supposed to like heaven?" "Heaven? Who said anything about heaven. Heaven is the Other Place." The point is that a world without suffering appears more like hell than heaven....
This on the other hand.. is a great analogy but not used in the manner in which he did. I will refer to it later.
But you have to think of the consequences of everything you try to improve.
If God could have 'improved' anything, I think he would have. I think he uses this word rather haphazardly.
Every time you use force to prevent evil, you take away freedom.
This, however, I agree with.
If Kreeft believes that an Earth without pain and suffering would be like Hell, what exactly does Kreeft believe Heaven is like?
Once again. I don't agree with the way he used it... for this very reason. But.. I will refer to it later.
Kreeft also asserts that simply recognizing "evil" as being "evil" in and of itself is a good argument for the existence of God. If there is no God, then there is no absolute definition of what is evil and what is not evil (p. 34).
I think you give a good enough response to this one. "The fact that many concepts don't have an ultimate meaning in a godless universe does not mean that they are without meaning to our biological nature." That is not to say that I don't believe there to be a validity in the concept he touches on, but more on that later.
Why, then, is it necessary for us to lack absolute proof of God's existence? And what about Satan? Satan, when he chose to rebel against God, had absolute proof of God's existence. And yet he was still free to choose not to follow God. Again, why is it necessary for humans to lack absolute proof of God's existence?
More on this in my section response.
God is often called our "Heavenly Father." If somebody's earthly father moved to another country and left no forwarding address, but left a few clues lying around as to where to find him, would we consider this earthly father worthy of seeking?
No. More on this in my section response.
And during this quest, at times beliefs that were held as unquestionable by the majority have been proven false.
Yup.
And Kreeft must, of course, also realize that 90% of all human beings that have ever lived have not believed in his God. Kreeft seems likely to believe that the followers of Buddhism, Hinduism, pagan religions, and so on are completely wrong, but he is happy to accept their members just for the moment to "prove" how "snobbish" atheism is.
In his defense.. I believe it would have been "snobbish" for a person to come along during the time when 90% of the world believed the world was flat and proceeded to tell them it was round, and that they were irrational, and that only those claiming the world was round were rational.
Because.. the concepts necessary for proving the world was round were not understood, therefore not accepted, at that time. To call someone irrational because they don't understand that mathematics posited the world was round before sailing or space travel 'saw' it, does seem terribly 'snobbish'.
I am not saying that Atheist are like this, merely pointing out that if an Atheist proposed to 'prove' to a theist that they are stupid for not understanding, or accepting, theories that have not been 'proven' themselves.. they would be equally as snobbish.
"To be an atheist", however, is no more "snobbish" then "to be a Christian".. one is just "being". So yes, I would agree with you in some respects that Kreeft is a bit "snobbish" himself, because this is the very thing I think he meant for people to accept.
RESPONSE: Theist choose to address this issue in many ways. Each way would seem to contain a bit of ambiguity sown into the fabric of its position. I will try, the best I can, to relate my position. As much as some might say that my positions are inherently contradictory to the writings of the Bible, I do not believe them to be. I believe them to be supported by the Bible, even as others understand their understandings to be. The question might come up, well then how do you know which is right? And truth be told, I do not. I merely have made the choice to live by those things I have chosen to live by through reasoning-- even as you do.
If you would like to argue the points of the Bible, If you feel that they are inherently contradictory, then I will read your contention and respond; however, you must give the one verse you feel to be most clear in its contradiction to the position I state. This is the only way I can see it be done.. otherwise people will just say: "Look at bibleiscontradictory.com." And I will.. but, how could I get around to all of it? I might be able to address all the questions of the site, but to transport those questions here would grow this thread exponentially.. as well as, even then, not satisfy the one who contested first.
Would it not be more efficient to just take one of your choice to present?
SUMMARY (Objection 1: Since Evil and Suffering Exist, A Loving God Cannot): I have accepted the Bible as truth. I have accepted that the God written of in its pages, is a real God. As such, I must address this objection within the context of that God, and not any other.
The words used very frequently to describe the Christian God by Christians are: loving, creator, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent.
I would agree these are our perceptions of him. As a Christian I accept that he is loving, for if he were any other than there would be no reason, that I can think of other than fear, to care for such a God. As a Christian I accept that he created all things, for if he did not then he is not God. As a Christian I accept that he has the capacity to do everything logically possible, for logically impossible things are logically impossible... while one might like to think a "square circle" could be created, it cannot logically be so since both the square and the circle are words designating concepts solely in the human mind. As a function of omnipotence, I, as a Christian, accept that he has the capacity to know all things, for omnipotence designates capacity for anything. As a Christian, I accept that existence, in all forms, is only sustained by his presence, and therefore, he is present (in some sense) in all things existent.
These are things I have chosen to believe in. So how do I make such concepts agree with the existence of suffering and evil in our world?
Here is my reasoning:
I believe the biggest problem within this debate is that both sides seem to automatically assume, or concede, the proposition that evil is a direct result from God, or in some way related to his wanting for it to go on longer, I do not believe this to be the case. I do believe it to be a reasonable argument to say that 'love' could not have existed without 'choice'. God, being a loving God, wanted that which he created to have to ability to love him back. Thus, freewill was placed into that which he created.
I further believe it to be a reasonable argument that, as a function of freewill, as a function of our heightened stated of consciousness, we are curious beings. We are. I do not believe history would give an example of a "non curious" being, for curiosity is the means by which we live.. it is the reason we attempt to crawl, taste food, walk, and so many other things. I am not discounting the possibility that these could be things as instinctual as a reflex.. yet I believe them both to be equally improvable or untestable theories. Furthermore, I am not saying that free will is curiosity, just that it is a necessary result of freewill. We wish to experience what we have not experienced.
And here is where I move to analogy to present my position:
If a father watches over his son, giving him all those things which are good for him, does this mean that the son will not wants those things which the father cannot give? Of course not. One asks the question.. one wants an answer. Yet, even as a parent cannot explain the experience of being burned by fire, so God could not explain the experience of being apart from him; for the very words used in the descriptions of burning and apartness, would require experience to understand. Or is one born with the innate ability to understand the concept of 'hot', 'burn', 'sting'.
The concept of sin is not one that brings about punishment from God but of de facto separation. Even as one must leave a house to try and live life on his own, so one must leave god to try and live on his. This is how I interpret the seemingly decreasing, direct interaction, interaction that God did with regards from the beginning of the Bible, where it was God having a direct conversation to Cain or the fire cloud above the Hebrews, and the end, where God had to become man to interact.
While many would like to think that we are more civilized now than thousands of years ago, it does not change the fact that we are perhaps even more barbarous now than then. Is killing someone because they are of a different race more or less barbarous than killing indiscriminately?
As a whole, humanity has long since continued on its journey to explore the experience of life as is. I know this might sound like I'm saying, "If only we would all serve God perfectly, then everything would be fine", I do not believe so. It is possible that I could be wrong however, I believe that it is so far removed from where we are that it does not seem a realistic goal. You, even I, explore those things we should not, and do those things we don't feel as if we should do. "I do what I do not want to do.." as Paul once wrote. All evil in the world is a direct result of our actions (as a whole), not of God's. God means only to sustain us until our curiosity runs out and our final choices are made.
Who knows when that might be. When it does come, and the story has been told, one will have made the choice, explicitly or implicitly through their life, which thing he cherishes more. If it his independence, then so be it, God will grant them their independence. If it be dependence, then so be it, God will bring them home. The desire to experience life away from God will no longer be existent, even as a child who has burnt himself enough will not longer wish to explore the curiosity of touching fire.
Hell.. you might say, is an apparent, common sense, contradiction to the concept of a loving God. I would probably agree with you on this point. I cannot imagine that if Man, to live, needs God to sustain him, how God, who is all-loving, can sustain an individual for the purpose of eternal torment/torture.
Yet, the belief in hell (of this sense) is not necessitated by scripture. Yes, there is a concept of "hell"-- but not necessarily one of eternal torment/torture. Feel free to disagree with me, and point out the particular part of scripture you feel to be most obvious on your point.
As I have stated before, when the time comes that our curiosity has been fulfilled, our choices will have been made, the story complete, we will live forever or die forever, wiped from existent by "eternal fire".
These are my thoughts. Part II will come, in time.
- Login to post comments
Offline I do not understand how you make this jump. Omnipotent only refers to capacity.
Here's the error: who 'decides the capacity' in the first place?
"god"
So you're argument fails.
While God "could" directly control everything.. he does not,
Sorry, but you're just not paying attention. This 'god' creates all the parameters of existence, and this alone dicates all possible outcomes.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Offline
It's easy to say that "God is omnipotent.. he could have done anything.. including freewill without the possibility of evil."
Now that.. is contradictory.
No, it is not, because your leaving out that our free will is already limited. Your argument, again and again, commits the Panglossian error of implicitly assuming our world is a set of necessary givens. But this is false if there is an omnipotent omniscient creator.
The 'christian' 'god' created the nature of free will, and all parameters of existnece, ergo this god 'limits' free will as it is...
Also, your argument commits a second error - why does the theist hold that we have 'free will'? Because the theist claims we need the freedom to love god or follow god, or the like.
Well, none of this necessitates the existence of rape or murder, ergo the free will argument cannot even justify such actions even potentially. If all that free will is required for is a freedom to 'choose god' then there is no need to allow for rape or murder. And since our will must already be limited by the parameters of existence, as created by this 'god' with full forthought, to those who say "well, this limits our actions' - they merely leave out that this must already take place.
So the free will defense doesn't even work, provided the theist could argue for free will in a divine system. And he can't do this anyway. So theist is back at square zero, with the problem of evil still at his feet, waitng to be dealt with.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Offline And so, like the human that presses on the gas pedal of a car, God is BY DEFINITION in control of everything He does. If He isn't, then he isn't omniscient and omnipotent. So, when you say: "he created the system, we do the rest" -- that is incorrect. By creating the system, he necessarily does the rest.
Precisely.
'God' the ironworker, and why the free will (theodicy) defense for evil fails
In brief: If there is an omnipotent, omniscient creator, then this creator must be perfectly responsible for creating every parameter of existence. Anything that exists, or could potentially exist, only exists contingent upon the fiat of an omnipotent, omniscient creator.
Most theists can agree to this, but few can follow the ramifications (other than Calvinists), for it follows from this logic that the free will defense for the problem of evil fails, for it cannot absolve an omnipotent/omniscient creator for the ultimate responsibility for evil - as this creator's perfect responsibility for creating every parameter of existence precisely as it is, would necessarily obviate free will. Whatever is responsible for free will would be precisely as it is, because of this god's fiat.
Note: This is not solely an argument from omniscience, it is primarly an argument from perfect responsibility.
Let's review:
Many may still balk at the fact that an omnipotent, omniscient creator must have perfect responsibility for 'his' creation, so it may help to follow along more concretely:
It necessarily follows that such a creator is
1) is responsible for creating the concept of free will,
2) responsible for its nature, which means responsible for creating its limits/parameters
3) responsible for granting it to his creation (when he need not have done so, despite the possible deleterious outcomes it might cause for his creation) and
4) completely responsible for the creating every aspect of the nature of humans precisely as they are, as well as their their enviroment that influences their 'choices', precisely as it is, with full ability to make any change, anywhere, at any time.
5) Of this is is done without any 'limit' upon this god's fiat, for any limit must be contingent upon this 'god's' fiat in the first place!
To hold that this 'god' must do X is to commit the Panglossian error.
All of this means that 'free will' cannot coexist in a universe entirely contingent upon the fiat of an omnipotent, omniscient creator. It must follow that anything that occurs necessarily ocurrs as a ramification of an entity that this god is perfectly responsible for, because this creator is not only perfectly responsible for every aspect of the person's character that makes the decision, not only responsible for every aspect of the environment that influences the decision, but also responsible for the very parameters of existence that would lead to the situation in the first place! I.e. not only the nature of the chooser, but the nature of what the chooser can choose and not choose!
Here's a nice follow up on this point written by Knight of Baawam, concernig how theists fail to respond to the argument:
Which is why all the xer sects save Calvinism (with their doctrine of predestination) are dishonest on this point. I have yet to meet an xer who will deal with their god being both omniscient, omnipotent, and the creator of everything at the same time in an argument. They always leave a part out while making their claims, e.g. "Just because god knows everything doesn't mean he forces you to act in a certainway", leaving out of course the notion that god created everything.
They simply can't deal with all the concepts at once, so they leave one out and imagine that they've taken care of everything. And when called on it, they scream at you and retreat into "it's just god's will/god works in mysterious ways", in essence conceding the point.
Such is the problem with mutually-exclusive and self-contradictory concepts trying to be shoehorned onto a tribal phallic symbol.
Now, here is an example that helps illustrate the point:
Inagine you want to stress test a pieceof metal that is going to be used in a building. You need it to bear up a certain weight, or it will prove to be unsafe for construction.
So you stress test it..., because you don't know what load it can bear. You apply a chosen amount of weight per square inch that you hold to be required to keep the building up, and if the metal cracks, you realize you need a better metal.
Now, imagine god is making the building. Let's tune in and watch:
God the Iron Worker 
One day, god decides to make a building. He decides that the metal must be able to bear 2000 pounds per square inch. He decides this based entirely on fiat, of course, as god can never do anything out of necessity, as he is unlimited in what he does, because any limit can only exist contingent upon omnipotence.
So 'he' 'makes' a metal. This metal can bear 1900 pounds per square inch. 'He' then tests the metal, and it shatters. "No good", 'he' says, and makes another, this time, able to bear 1900 pounds per square inch.
'He' tests it again. It shatters. "Damn" he says, "No good again." 'God' conjures up another piece. This one can bear 1900 pounds per square inch.....
Getting the point yet? An omnipotent, omniscient metal worker need not test the metal, for perfect metal worker is responsible for the fact that the metal passes or fails the test in the first place. Whatever 'is', is, by this creator's fiat. There can be no 'necessity' that this 'god' must adhere to or obey... for every 'fact' that 'exists' itself exists solely through the fiat of this 'creator in the first place.
So the test is arbitrary, and necessarily so, because 'fact' that the metal must be able to bear 2000 pounds itself is arbitrary. This 'creator' could make ANY level of stress pass, or fail the test, for the test itself is necessarily arbitrary!
This simple exercise helps us grasp that an omnipotent, omniscient creator must, necessarily, be perfectly responsible for every aspect of existence that in turn must dictate every outcome, because there can be nothing that is not itself contingent upon this 'god's' fiat.
It therefore follows that 'god' cannot be all powerful/all knowing AND the creator of the universe AND create beings with free will AND then find them guilty for their behaviors, because such a god must also be perfectly responsible for every single solitary aspect of existence that determines their guilt, in the first place. An omnipotent, omniscient iron worker is perfectly responsible for his metal, just as a omnipotent, omniscient creator is perfectly responsible for every factor within his creation that would produce 'sin' including the concept of 'sin' itself.
'God' creates ALL the parameters of existence - all of them... he decides the parameters of the metal, AND the test! 'God' could make the metal stronger or reduce the stress bearing ability required, or do away with the concept of needing to bear stress altogether.... or, to get more abstract, 'he' could do away with the metal or even do away with the CONCEPTS of "metal", and "test" altogether and just make a building without them.... so the free will argument makes no sense, and fails in it's true goal - to absolve god from the true guilt for "sin", if it did exist.
To hold that there can be any necessity in a universe created by an omnipotent omniscient creator is known as the Panglossian error. It is the presumption that elements in our lives are givens, yet, that there is a god upon which all is contingent! And this is the error that the free will argument relies upon.
When considering human behavior and morality, consider that god would have to be responsible for creating the very concepts of existence, behavior, humanity, morality, choice, 'good', "evil', and so on, with none of them being necessary parts of existence. Ergo, this god would have to control every aspect of a "choice', including human character, prediliction and every single solitary other aspect that shapes the choice!
Poof goes free will in such a universe. Even if it existed, it would be moot.
Parameters of existence
What do I mean when I use the term 'parameter of existence'?
What I mean is any aspect of reality, all of which would be under the purview of an omnipotent being. And, an omnipotent, omniscient creator is necessarily perfectly responsible for his own creation. This is so because this creator is responsible for creating all the parameters of existence, which in turn determine all outcomes.
Any and all of the parameters could have been different, so this god is responsible for them being as they actually are. Ergo this omnipotent being is perfectly responsible for his creation being precisely as it is, this includes the existence of free will, and it's limits. If there is an omnipotent, omniscient creator, the universe didn't have to work the way it currently works, it could exist without any of these things.
When I say 'parameter of existence', I mean every single aspect of existence, including the fact that existence exists. This 'god" would be responsible for the following: existence itself, the existence of our universe, the various'laws of physics - i.e. basic cosmology of our universe. To continue, this god would be responsible for the existence of concepts, or ideas, as well as the particular concepts and ideas that do exist, including ideas like 'good' and 'bad' and 'right' and "wrong'.
This god would be responsible for creating matter and energy, as well as responsible for the forms matter takes in the universe. This god would be responsible for creating the concept of life, of biology, and psychology. This god would be responsible for creating the concept of humanity, character, personality, temperament, as well as perfectly responsible for the particular personalities and temperaments that exist in humans.
This god would then be responsible for creating concepts like free will, and choice, including the existence of the idea of choice itself! As this god is also responsible for creating character and the environments within which people live, every possible factor that influences a free will choice, it necessarily follows that an omnipotent, omniscient creator necessarily obviates free will. After all, this god creates not only 'free will' but the parameters of free will. ... he decides what the limits are! He also decided the penalties for 'infractions', including the the very idea of a need for infractions and penalties!
A theist ought to ask:
Does he (god) create and control the environment we live in?
Does he create and control the possible range of human temperament, personal, character?
Does this god control the possible range of experiences we can experience?
Is he perfectly responsible for creating the universe as he "wills" it to be?
Is he resposible for creating every parameter of existence?
If so, how can this god not be perfectly responsible for his own creation, and thusly, every event that occurs within it?
Or, to make things even more direct:
How can there be any necessity in a universe where everything exists contingently upon the fiat of an omnipotent, omniscient creator?
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Offline Nice to see you again Tod
RhadTheGizmo wrote:
It's easy to say that "God is omnipotent.. he could have done anything.. including freewill without the possibility of evil."
Now that.. is contradictory.Quote:No, it is not, because your leaving out that our free will is already limited. Your argument, again and again, commits the Panglossian error of implicitly assuming our world is a set of necessary givens. But this is false if there is an omnipotent omniscient creator.
The 'christian' 'god' created the nature of free will, and all parameters of existnece, ergo this god 'limits' free will as it is...
Granted.. but we created the concept of "freewill", not God. I don't think God created a "circle".. we did. I don't think that God created "freewill". It's mans attempt to describe existence.. nothing more. I use the word because it we would have a very difficult time talking within words and without coherent concepts. So I accept it. And within our understanding of "freewill", we cannot have it if we do not have the ability to choose our own will.
But I gave you ground last time.. or at some time previously. I do believe that God could have created some alternative concept in which we would have nothing but the will to follow him.. and while we would not know that we were restricted in will, God would. Now.. why should God care? That's a different issue.. but thats not the argument you made.Quote:Also, your argument commits a second error - why does the theist hold that we have 'free will'? Because the theist claims we need the freedom to love god or follow god, or the like.
Well, none of this necessitates the existence of rape or murder, ergo the free will argument cannot even justify such actions even potentially. If all that free will is required for is a freedom to 'choose god' then there is no need to allow for rape or murder.
As we define freewill (at least.. I'm assuming you define it the same way) it merely allows for the ability of will over ourselves. no more limits exist. Within our concept.. how can you say "no need to allow" a particular direction of will?Quote:To those who say "well, this limits our actions' - again, our free will is already limited in that there are physically impossible actions. Hence this argument fails.
Ah.. I see where your going with this. I would have to contend, once again, in the concept of our freewill you have the ability of will over yourself.. not over nature. If "rape" "murder" were "natural concepts" then I would be contradicting myself.. but I do not believe them to be "natural concepts" even as I don't believe "gravity" to be a individual concept.Quote:So the free will defense doesn't even work, provided the theist could argue for free will in a divine system. And he can't do this anyway.
Um.. why can't he do this?
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:I do not understand how you make this jump. Omnipotent only refers to capacity.
Here's the error: who 'decides the capacity' in the first place?
"god"
So you're argument fails.
Heh. Capacity refers to the ability... not the other definition of capacity which refers to a limit. God has the 'ability' to do anything, does not necessarily mean he 'does' everything. Is that more clear?
While God "could" directly control everything.. he does not,
Sorry, but you're just not paying attention. This 'god' creates all the parameters of existence, and this alone dicates all possible outcomes.
I create a car. I give it to a person.. he smashes it with a sledge hammer and then drives it around.
I did that?
"Dictating all possible outcomes" and "directly controlling everything" are two distinctly different things. If you cannot see this.. I will try and think of an example.
- Login to post comments
an action like murder deprives the free will choices of another.
. Seriously, this makes no sense at all to me. Thoughts are physical, but the "complexity" of thought isn't? Does this have any meaning at all? Ya got me... 
RhadTheGizmo,
Thanks for reading my paper, and taking the time to respond to at least the first section. As you might imagine, I don't find your counter-arguments compelling, and here is my counter-response:
Perhaps. But, you had agreed with me that to assume that some greater good it to come without a reason to is a fallacious argument from ignorance.
And, one issue that I didn't get into in my article is, the implausibility of a perfect diety needing any sort of "bad" to enact his "good". How can perfection require imperfection in order to bring about a delayed perfection?
Remember that you are responding to something that I myself didn't say, I was quoting someone else. If I had said it myself, I think I would have tried to clarify it the way you seem to realize it really means. While anybody directly impacted by the San Francisco quake might have sufferred as much as anybody directly impacted by the Armenian quake. But, the real point was, there were lots fewer of the later than the former. And, the reason there were lots more of the later is directly related to the economic statuses. Which shows that God doesn't protect the poor, they get screwed. Take New Orleans for example...
Or perhaps you won't. More argument from ignorance.
Well, for one, God made humans imperfect, right? So how can we be faulted for coming up with imperfect systems? Second of all, let's pretend, for discussion purposes, that man were to create a pretty fair system, where most everybody has reasonably good standard of living. People would still die in natural disasters. There would be fewer people to die, if all housing was well made. But it isn't practical or even possible to build every house to withstand every earthquake, tornado, tsunami, etc.
Also, what you are not dealing with is the fact that regardless of what humans *could* do to protect ourselves from natural disasters, it is STILL (allegedly) God's system that there are natural disasters to have to deal with at all. And, aparantly, such a system is really necessary, as there aren't natural disasters in heaven, as I understand it anyway.
You can contend that if you wish, but it is contradictory. If "bad" can result in eventual "good," then removing the "bad" would remove the eventual "good. " Basically, you are saying, whether you realize it or not, that you really can't know what eventual "good" might come, but you can see the "bad" now, so it makes sense to alleviate the "bad" now and not assume there will be a "good" later. Which means, essentially, you agree with me that there is not a good reason to assume that eventual good always come from bad. If it did, then it wouldn't make sense to help mitgate the bad.
True, but that makes all life on earth insignificant. The entire life of the whole universe, is insignificant next to infinite.
Then why was God such a vindictive, unloving SOB in the OT? Did you know that one of the very early schools of Christian thought, before "orthodox" became orthodox, was the Jesus was a *different God* than Yehweh, and Jesus came to save us from the bad Yehweh!
I don't believe that "freewill" can really exist, either with or without God. If God created me, he created my personality, my instincts, my needs and desires. For example, as a heterosexual male, I'm biologically wired to desire females. On the other hand, if I was castrated, I would no longer have hormones and no longer have sexual desire.
What part of creation is *not* under the direct control of an omniscient, omnipotent being? Nothing.
www.caseagainstfaith.com
My intent was just to leave this thead as is.. but my respect for you as a sincere person, as well as the original writer of this article, draw me into debate. There will be 7 other threads coming in time, once I finish some work here, that will address the 7 more parts of your article-- but, until then, I'm still here.
Before you being.. I'd like to state something, something I try to say over and over again in very post I do.
I believe the only thing you can know for sure is that you are here. "I think therefore I am." Everything else.. are things you just take for granted.. none of it is "objective" in the purest sense... everything is an "argument of ignorance" however, in most cases, people just accept what you have accepted and therefore both individuals go on their merry way.
This is not to say that any is any more or less ignorant than the other.
All function rests on the unfounded assertion that "If I see something, and a sufficient amount of other people see the same thing, then it is real."
So when someone tries to put themselves higher than me because they are somehow.. "more knowledgeable" "are more rational because they only accept things which have "reason"".. then I take it with a grain of salt.
Because if each one of these individuals applied the same measure of "reason" to everything.. then there acceptance of that earlier assertion has no more reason than mine, a belief in God. They are accepted because individuals believe them to aid in functioning.. not for any reason beyond that.
What you do.. from that point on.. however, is a different issue. People are "irrational" or "rational" because they claim to believe something then to not act in accordance, either because of ignorance or because of contradictory beliefs.
So once again.. I write my thoughts down, this is my reasoning.. the "reason" is the Bible. That is where Christian Theology is supposedly based of.. so I will type from that perspective.
A counter-response to a counter-response.. so what does this make this?
All things being equal.. yes, I did agree. But all things are not equal.. we have thousands of years of philosophy, history, and science; so much so that I would venture to say that every perception of every event, is influenced by some external stimuli.
Even as one accepts a science book as reason to believe that the earth revolves around the sun, so I accept I state that the bible is reason to believe that there is more than just what we see.
They are choices we make.. choices of where to put our trust. I don't mean to say that the bible and a science book are contradictory.. merely that one chooses to trust the content as well as the writers. Why do I choose the Christian idea of a God over others? I have my reasons... but thats not for this thread.
Furthermore, I am not saying that either the science book or the bible are infalliably true... merely that they influence ones perception of things.
If there was no science book, no outside influence, there would be no reason to believe the earth revolves the sun; even as if there was no book (of any type), no outside influence, then there would be no reason to believe that perhaps there is more to suffering then just the instance of suffering.
I have conversations with my cousin all the time.. whenever he goes through a rough spot. Years later he'll tell me.. "God wanted me to go through that hell so that I could come to this point"-- I reply: "Maybe.. or maybe you just took the long route to where you would have been anyway."
God, (and I'm speaking from a theological standpoint once again), gave us everything good... we wanted the bad. I do not believe God is enacting "better" then before, merely trying to get us back to where we started.
I believe them to be two different concepts.
This is complicated.. in my mind at least. I don't believe God "protects" anyone.. I do believe that all things come from him.. de facto. Life, love, hope.. abstract concepts.. are from him. Food, shelter, levies, these are things under man's control.
Perhaps.. one could make the argument that at one time God did have a hand in these other things (OT).. but I addressed my reasoning behind this growing separation in my first post.
Heh.. I don't mean about God. This was a statement from a separate viewpoint.. at some point.. I wish to do help people of poor nations in a more significant manner than I can now. This was all I was saying.
No.
I don't believe the system of freewill to be anything but what it was meant to be.
If this ever happens.. we will discuss it then. I could simple contend that all people could be concentrated into areas where such sorts of natural disasters do not occur. Until this happens.. or until some study is done.. neither of us will have evidence to back up our claims.
Earthquakes are caused as a result from our liquid inner core, if I understand the earths plates correctly, hurricanes the result of moving pressure systems, etc. While I would imagine a counter argument would be, "Why would not God create such a system where these things did not have to occur?" Possibly so.. I would imagine some natural laws would have to be changed, but nothing is outside of his hand, right?
Possibly. Then I would only refer to my previous statement. These things are not "bad" in and of themselves.. neither do people need to die as a direct result from them.
Who says that? Of course.. they probably wouldn't be called "disasters" anymore. What would they be called? Natural?
Here.. they are called disasters because people die and billions of dollars of damage are created. I would imagine.. in some other place.. they would just be called.. "really big storm".. "twirling black cloud".. "giant wave".
We can't keep on moving between the "cosmic" and the "finite". "Cosmically", on some bigger stage, perhaps some "good" will come from the "bad", even as a burn takes away the desire to touch fire, but on the individual level.. why would I not tend to the burn?
Once again.. I think you're mixing up concepts-- I do not believe purposefully. One can easily alleviate the affects of "bad" now and still assume that there will be "good", experentially, latter. Why can I not tend to my sons burn, yet still be able to say, "Well, now you've learned."
I think this confusion might come from many Christians who would like to say.. "God made you sick so that you will confess your sins and come back to him". Or perhaps on a grander scale, "God killed all those people as punishment to their country for the evil they have done."
I do not believe this to be the case.. and I thought I made that clear earlier. Evil is done by man.. nobody else. A person is hurt by another person.. and thus I help alleviate the pain.. and I will always do so until my death. But my belief, based off outside influence, still lets me believe that there is more than just this.
Mixing up concepts again. I made it very clear these years, the 60 or more years I live, are insignificant when placed next to cosmic eternity itself.. that does not mean that it is not significant to me, now.
If you remember.. this response was in response to something you and Strobel stated, he belittled pain, you belittled eternity (in my opinion). I was just drawing up a point of contention.
Hmm.. if earth is mans experiment into evil.. an experiment that must run it's course.. I would contest that God was doing all that was necessary to sustain us. Whether in foresight or in an eye-for-eye manner, he sustains us.
I'm sure you've heard this one before.. but, even a doctor knocks out a patient and pulls out an arm to sustain the body as a whole.
I know that might seem cold, comparing people to an arm, but analogies are all the same in that they are ambiguous.
The idea however, is only that sometimes someone must do something gruesome to make sure everyone does not die.
Because if everyone died before we, as a people, lived long enough.. then everything would have to start over.. God would create a new pair, and then, freewill and curiosity would lead them to the same place.
I did. Did you know that scientist once thought that the sun revolved the earth? Many times people have the same facts, same words, and yet they come to different conclusions.
God created Man, your parents created you.
I do not understand how you make this jump. Omnipotent only refers to capacity. While God "could" directly control everything.. he does not, he created the system, we do the rest.
I did not take as much time in this response as I did my last.. but hopefully it addresses some things.
Precisely. How cany an omnipotent being rely on any contrivance.
The theist error here is that his thinking is necessarily backwards. He does not start with first principles - 'god's omnipotence and omniscience', instead, he works backwards, from our world, and tries to link it back to omnipotence and omniscience
But if there is an omnipotent, omniscient creator, then nothing in our world can be necessary! So the theist has no right to assume that our parameters of existence must be the parameters of existence. Given omnipotence/omniscience, we would not expect our world at all, and this is precisely why the arguent for evil, or pain, or for contrivance ought to shake theistic belief.
We can call this error the Panglossian error.
Excellent point.
Yes. The argument goes: there are things that people have not known, that they later learned. Ergo, this thing I currently don't know has an answer.
The fact of the matter is, if you don't know, you can't use the fact that there are some cases where ignorance is overcome as a reason why you should still hold to your position! All you can say is at the present time, this argument is a reason why you should reconsider your opinion.
Yes, there's an infantile wish* hidden in the theist argument - that we can all live happily ever after. Human existence seems to belay that notion - there is always some suffering no matter how hard we try.
(Infantile wish is a freudian term, not meant as an insult, we ALL have such wishes - i.e. wishes that go against reality!)
Excellent point. The entire situation is akin to putting an infant in a room with a rattle snake and a stick, and saying 'well, I gave the kid a chance". The question that should arise is: Why the snake? But the theist focuses on the stick.
If there is an omnipotent, omniscient 'god' that loves the infant, it staggers reason to hold that such a being would create such a situation.
If you had total control over every facet of your own child's life, would you give him leprosy? Sounds ridiculous, but a theist must answer "YES, I WOULD!" if he wishes to be consistent, for this is precisely what he believes his 'ever flowing fountain of moral goodness' does to some of his beloved creation.
Yes, the entire enterprise seems for naught.... if you look at it from the point of view of first principles .
So the theist must avoid this, and work backwards again.
The outcome for the theist is that he can no longer decide what is really good or what is really bad! He is forced to admit that bad might be good, good might be bad.
He is forced to concede that he no longer has a moral system, as he can no longer evaluate any action as good or bad... anything good may ultimately prove bad, and vice versa.
The theist must then concede that he relies on a secular moral system.
Belittilng human life for a delusion of grandeur is truly an evil action.
This god must be responsible for every parameter of existence that would affect any choice you make. He must be perfectly responsible for everything being precisely as it is... ergo omnipotent/omniscient creation obviates free will.
Even if this 'god' were to 'abdicate' and remove himself from the process, this would fail, as this god would make this choice knowing fully well what would happen, and this 'god' would still be responsible for every parameter of the being that made the choice.
So the free will defense for theodicy must fail, unless the theist special pleads to omnipotence as truly unlimited even by 'logical' restrictions.
Precisely
To answer that X is not under the control of "god' is to deny his role as the creator.
To answer "nothing" is to concede to the problem.
Checkmate. Nicely played, Case. Always enjoy seeing you on this site, I give out your web adress every time one of the apologists you deconstruct is mentioned here.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
I need to write a paper just on this topic, as it comes up frequently. I want to respond to just this point in this response, and maybe use it as a basis for a future paper.
I know analogies are imperfect tools, but, I hope this one will have some explanitory power. Say I were to run someone over with my car, and I get arrested for manslaughter. And I respond, "I didn't do nothing, I just pressed that little lever thingy on the floorboard, and this carrige thing I was sitting in lurched and killed the man." You wouldn't buy that defense because 1. I took a specific action and 2. I knew what would happen by taking that action. Even though I had nothing to do with the engineering of the vehicle, or the production of the gasoline, etc., I still knew what would happen when I pressed the gas pedal. Direct cause and effect, right?
Of course, if I was a native that had never seen a car before in my life, and somehow stumbled upon civilization, got in a vehicle, started to investigate the nobs, well, then my defense would be reasonable. I would have no way to have known that pressing the gas pedal while moving the gearshift into drive would do anything. I should not be held accountable for having killed the person. But God, being omniscient and omnipotent, could never be like the native, not knowing what the outcome of His actions would be.
And so, like the human that presses on the gas pedal of a car, God is BY DEFINITION in control of everything He does. If He isn't, then he isn't omniscient and omnipotent. So, when you say: "he created the system, we do the rest" -- that is incorrect. By creating the system, he necessarily does the rest.
www.caseagainstfaith.com
I would very much like to read that paper.
If you want to accuse the Christian God of Manslaughter under the rational of the US system of laws.. I have no problems with this. I don't think you would win however, not with this analogy (I mean.. the guy in the analogy).
Just to use the analogy in my favor.. and how I understand it. My view of the system is.. "God created the car.. man pressed the gas and put himself underneath the tire."
But regardless, there is however, a big jump between Manslaughter and Murder, 1st or 2nd degree.
To create or not to create.. that is the question. If God created us, then it was only a matter of time before we fell, if he did not, then we would not have fallen but, yet, we wouldn't exist either.
Granted.. only within the construct of the belief. I'm just giving my understanding of it.
Tod, responded before you and I'd just like to address something: Everyone.. works backwards Tod, not just religious folk. Scientist do not work forward.. they are just trying to understand what has always been. If they someday "figure out all there is to know" and don't find God.. so be it. However, they may find him as well. At which point he'll put out his hand and say.. "Here you go.. I'm made up of Hydrogen."
In any case.. was just pointing out: Religion fits the world to a thought, Science fits the world to nothing (it has no goal but the pursuit of knowledge).
God is in control of everything He does.. agreed. How would I not agree with that?
I'm not omniscient or omnipotent.. I'm in control of what I do.
Analogies are imperfect tools indeed.. but this one was all over the place. It tries to make me concede that God created the car, presses the gas, knows a man to be underneath, and is therefore "doing" as much as me "killing" a person intentionally...
If I know all.. and I'm all powerful.. I created something.. "E=MC2".. valid.. in and of itself.. can be used for great things.. and I know this.. I also know that it can be used for horrible things.. yet the great things far outweigh any bad. And so I use it to create a system of energy from matter to wipe away the need for all fossil fuel.. with a single providing the world with a source of energy that can heat them at night and cool them during the day.. as well as every other benefit that comes about through limitless energy. Are you trying to tell me I'm as directly responsible for the creation of the atom bomb, not only the atom bomb but every instance of its use, as I am for these other things?
That wont' work in the court of the law.. and I probably wont' accept it here either.
Because if it were the case.. the owner of any gun used in the "accidental shooting" of anyone, even if it wasn't the original own, would be charged and put in prison.. for he "knew" when he bought it that it could be used to kill people.
I think the big thing here would be the distinction between "could" and "would".. God knew it "would" happen.. humans only know things "could" happen. But nevertheless, in the sense of God, if I could try and reason this out again-- there were two choices.. either create or don't. If he created.. "this" would happen... and if didn't.. "nothing" would. I do not see how this is negligent.
It's not only "knowing".. it's also "negligence" as well.. was God "negligent"? Well.. thats a different issue. Some may say he is.. I.. on the other hand.. much prefer existence to non-existence.
Once again.. not saying that god is necessarily the source of everything.. I realize that there are other plausible explanations to how we came to be.
What you aren't getting is, God wouldn't merely know that x *could* be used for evil, he would know exactly when and where it *would* be used for evil.
If I gave you a gun, I might know that it could be used for evil. If I gave it to you just after you said, "man, I wish I had a gun to blow away my two-timin' spouse", I think I would have at least some responsibility if you indeed used it to kill your spouse. Now, if I also created YOU, and your personality, such that you would kill your wife if she cheated on you; and created her, such that she would cheat on you; and created the people who made guns with personlities to make guns; and the physics to make guns work; and the earth with the compounds to make guns, etc., how am I not responsible for all of this?
What theists seem to think is that personality, desires, instincts, etc., create themselves, and so God is "off the hook". But that is simply not true. I didn't create my own personality any more than I created my own DNA. Do you think I created my own DNA?
www.caseagainstfaith.com
I responded to this. So.. either you're not reading.. or your just ignoring.
When it comes to the "would" question.. it's a matter of "negligence".. since we're debating as if this were the court of law. If it is proven that I absolutely know someone will die as a result of my actions.. then the question becomes whether there was any other action I could have taken.
It's easy to say that "God is omnipotent.. he could have done anything.. including freewill without the possibility of evil."
Now that.. is contradictory.
I believe.. yes.. evil was a result of freewill (one that is temporary.. but still.. a result).. yet could God have done anything else? As I stated before... to create.. or not to create.. or perhaps create without freewill.. I'm not sure there is rational middle ground when it comes to christian theology.
Heh.. You stated before that theist believe that God created everything. I believe everything existent (concrete.. not abstract. Actions are abstract.. they do not exist apart from the person doing them.) exists because of him. You, me, the tree, etc etc etc. I do not believe that he "creates" everything-- that would seem foolish to me, for he does not "create you".. he merely created the things that make you possible.
[quote[ But that is simply not true. I didn't create my own personality any more than I created my own DNA. Do you think I created my own DNA?
Yes... yes I do.. I believe you created your own DNA. I realize this question was rhetorical in nature..