01 Nov 09
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne...which speak to "God" and "theism" in general and are not specific to an OOO God.
It was specifically addressing your post where you said:
"The logical problem of evil, of course, would be an irrelevant argument if we assumed that God isn't omnibenevolent."
And in a larger context you keep making statements such as:
"Likewise, atheological arguments are just as weak; boiling down to "we can't think of any plausible reason why a go ...[text shortened]... ..which speak to "God" and "theism" in general and are not specific to an OOO God.
It's not obvious enough that we are defending an OOO God?
01 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasNot when you haven't established that you are specifically speaking to an 000 God only and keep making references to "God" and "theism" in general.
[b]...which speak to "God" and "theism" in general and are not specific to an OOO God.
It's not obvious enough that we are defending an OOO God?[/b]
Also, you should also consider that the truncated form of Plantinga's argument that you presented basically amounts to maybe an omnipotent God isn't fully omnipotent and maybe an omnibenevolent God isn't fully omnibenevolent.
Maybe I missed it, but it seems you've also failed to consider SG's points about "natural evils" and "heaven".
01 Nov 09
3 edits
Not when you haven't established that you are specifically speaking to an 000 God only and keep making references to "God" and "theism" in general.
Fair enough. We are speaking here of only an OOO God. Use of the term "theism" or "God" within the bounds of this thread, unless otherwise noted, will refer to only an OOO God. I hope that clears things up.
Also, you should also consider that the truncated form of Plantinga's argument that you presented basically amounts to maybe an omnipotent God isn't fully omnipotent and maybe an omnibenevolent God isn't fully omnibenevolent.
No, what Plantinga is arguing is that it is possible that God, even being omnipotent, could not create a world with free creatures who never choose evil. Furthermore, it is possible that God, even being omnibenevolent, would desire to create a world which contains evil if moral goodness requires free moral creatures.
Maybe I missed it, but it seems you've also failed to consider SG's points about "natural evils" and "heaven".
I'm curious, how do you know that I've failed to consider SG's points about "natural evils" and "heaven"? It is true that I haven't responded to any of SG's posts, however that does not necessarily mean that I haven't considered them at great length.
Further, if by "consider" you meant to say that I haven't responded to any of SG's posts, then I would take issue with your use of the term "failed" (i.e., I've failed to consider...). Failure implies a specified period of time has already elapsed in which to respond to SG's post. But the fact is there isn't a specified period of time in which I must respond to SG's posts. I haven't yet responded to his posts, that much is apparent; however, that doesn't mean I never will.
Wouldn't you agree?
__________
😉
01 Nov 09
Originally posted by epiphinehasNo, what Plantinga is arguing is that it is possible that God, even being omnipotent, could not create a world with free creatures who never choose evil. Furthermore, it is possible that God, even being omnibenevolent, would desire to create a world which contains evil if moral goodness requires free moral creatures.
[b]Not when you haven't established that you are specifically speaking to an 000 God only and keep making references to "God" and "theism" in general.
Fair enough. We are speaking here of only an OOO God. Use of the term "theism" or "God" within the bounds of this thread, unless otherwise noted, will refer to only an OOO God. I hope that clears ...[text shortened]... ever will.
Wouldn't you agree?
__________
😉[/b]
Hmmmm, basically you have an "omnipotent" God that is not powerful enough to create a world with "free creatures who never choose evil". Seems like such a God isn't fully omnipotent.
You have an "omnibenevolent" God that is not benevolent enough to create a world without "evil". Seems like such a God isn't fully omnibenevolent.
Interestingly enough, God does seem to have the power and benevolence to create a world, i.e., "heaven" presumably with "free will" and without "evil". Or is that not true of your conception of "heaven"?
I'm curious how you know that I've failed to consider SG's points about "natural evils" and "heaven". It is true that I haven't responded to any of SG's posts, however that does not necessarily mean that I haven't considered them at great length.
Note that I said "it seems you've also failed to consider".
01 Nov 09
4 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneHmmmm, basically you have an "omnipotent" God that is not powerful enough to create a world with "free creatures who never choose evil". Seems like such a God isn't fully omnipotent.
[b]No, what Plantinga is arguing is that it is possible that God, even being omnipotent, could not create a world with free creatures who never choose evil. Furthermore, it is possible that God, even being omnibenevolent, would desire to create a world which contains evil if moral goodness requires free moral creatures.
Hmmmm, basically you have a ote that I said "it seems you've also failed to consider".[/b]
Again, I will note your use of "seems". Yes, Plantinga is alluding to the possibility that God, even being omnipotent, could not create a free creature who is also incapable of choosing a certain behavior (in this case, evil). In the same way God, even being omnipotent, could not create a square that is also a circle.
You have an "omnibenevolent" God that is not benevolent enough to create a world without "evil". Seems like such a God isn't fully omnibenevolent.
Yes, "seems". If moral goodness requires free moral creatures, then it is possible that God, even being omnibenevolent, would desire to create a world which contains evil.
Interestingly enough, God does seem to have the power and benevolence to create a world, i.e., "heaven" presumably with "free will" and without "evil". Or is that not true of your conception of "heaven"?
The freedom to sin exists in heaven. Satan was cast out of heaven, after all. Humans, according to the Bible, have suffered a similar fate and are in need of redemption.
Further, those who eventually are redeemed are those who have willingly sacrificed their own free will in order to received the Spirit of Christ (the Spirit Who henceforth controls their actions, "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God" (Rom. 8:14)). We can assume that only those who are controlled by the Holy Spirit will end up in heaven. Therefore, the freedom to sin exists in heaven, though only for those heavenly beings who have not chosen to sacrifice their will to the controlling influence of the Spirit of Christ. In other words, the will of those who are redeemed in Christ are in perfect agreement with the will of God.
God created human beings with free will because he created them in his own image. Violating the sanctity of an individual's free will would be contrary to God's own commandment, "love your neighbor as yourself." Therefore, it is conceivable that God would not force anyone to make the necessary sacrifice eternal life in heaven requires. And so it is a moral imperative for God, being good and just, to provide the sinner with a "grace period" wherein the sinner is provided with an opportunity to repent (i.e., turn from sin and return to God).
The future heaven where the children of God abide is populated only by those controlled by the Spirit of Christ. Thus, it is wrong to conclude, based on our assumptions about what the Bible says about heaven and given the said restrictions on violating an individual's free will, that God is capable of creating a heaven where the inhabiting creatures have both free will and the capacity of not sinning.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
01 Nov 09
Originally posted by epiphinehasPossible, but plausible? I don't think it passes the giggle test....
[b]Hmmmm, basically you have an "omnipotent" God that is not powerful enough to create a world with "free creatures who never choose evil". Seems like such a God isn't fully omnipotent.
Again, I will note your use of "seems". Yes, Plantinga is alluding to the possibility that God, even being omnipotent, could not create a free creature who ...[text shortened]... tures have both free will and the capacity of not sinning.[/b]
01 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasThis is unsatisfactory, to say the least. If it is desirable that we forfeit our own free will to enter heaven, then we never should have been given any in the first place. If the point was to have people freely choose to forfeit their own free will, then only those enlightened enough to make the right choice should have been created.
Further, those who eventually are redeemed are those who have willingly sacrificed their own free will in order to received the Spirit of Christ (the Spirit Who henceforth controls their actions, "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God" (Rom. 8:14)). We can assume that only those who are controlled by the Holy Spirit w ...[text shortened]... s, the will of those who are redeemed in Christ are in perfect agreement with the will of God.
Edit: Shark's objection above is also excellent. God purportedly has free will, yet commits no evil. So, it's possible for an agent to have free will and never sin.
01 Nov 09
Originally posted by Lord SharkThe only evil, according to the Bible, is disobedience to the will of God.
Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]God created human beings with free will because he created them in his own image.
This plot is full of holes. Does god do evil? God has free will after all.[/b]
01 Nov 09
Originally posted by SwissGambitIf it is desirable that we forfeit our own free will to enter heaven, then we never should have been given any in the first place.
This is unsatisfactory, to say the least. If it is desirable that we forfeit our own free will to enter heaven, then we never should have been given any in the first place. If the point was to have people freely choose to forfeit their own free will, then only those enlightened enough to make the right choice should have been created.
Edit: Shark's ob ...[text shortened]... ree will, yet commits no evil. So, it's possible for an agent to have free will and never sin.
This depends on whether or not free will is inseparable from self-consciousness. If not, perhaps it would have been more desirable for us to have been made stones instead of human beings. It seems rather undesirable, though, to be unselfconscious, considering the experiential heights to which conscious beings are capable of rising. The possibility that some might choose evil rather than good is not a sufficient reason to never have created human beings in the first place.
If the point was to have people freely choose to forfeit their own free will, then only those enlightened enough to make the right choice should have been created.
You forget, it is also desirable to sin. Even if everyone were enlightened enough to make the right choice, there is no guarantee that everyone will choose it.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
01 Nov 09
Originally posted by epiphinehasSo god cannot do evil by definition. the solution is simple then. If god created us in its image, we should also be incapable of doing evil, because it would be against our nature...
The only evil, according to the Bible, is disobedience to the will of God.
Do you see the problem with lifting arguments from Plantinga without thinking for yourself?
01 Nov 09
Originally posted by epiphinehasOkay, so you can't logically "create a square that is also a circle".
[b]Hmmmm, basically you have an "omnipotent" God that is not powerful enough to create a world with "free creatures who never choose evil". Seems like such a God isn't fully omnipotent.
Again, I will note your use of "seems". Yes, Plantinga is alluding to the possibility that God, even being omnipotent, could not create a free creature who ...[text shortened]... tures have both free will and the capacity of not sinning.[/b]
I've seen nothing that shows that an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God could not logically create a world that does not contain "evil". It's really not difficult to imagine such a world. Plantinga can allude to all the possibilites he wants, but it doesn't constitute a compelling argument that such a world is not logically possible.
01 Nov 09
Originally posted by epiphinehasFurther, those who eventually are redeemed are those who have willingly sacrificed their own free will in order to received the Spirit of Christ (the Spirit Who henceforth controls their actions, "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God" (Rom. 8:14)). We can assume that only those who are controlled by the Holy Spirit will end up in heaven.
[b]Hmmmm, basically you have an "omnipotent" God that is not powerful enough to create a world with "free creatures who never choose evil". Seems like such a God isn't fully omnipotent.
Again, I will note your use of "seems". Yes, Plantinga is alluding to the possibility that God, even being omnipotent, could not create a free creature who ...[text shortened]... tures have both free will and the capacity of not sinning.[/b]
I thought that you are one of those who believe it impossible for humans to stop committing sin. If an individual has in fact "sacrificed [his] own free will...and [is] controlled by the Holy Spirit", then he should no longer commit sin. If he continues to commit sin, then he has not "sacrificed" his own free will.
01 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Lord SharkSo god cannot do evil by definition. the solution is simple then. If god created us in its image, we should also be incapable of doing evil, because it would be against our nature...
So god cannot do evil by definition. the solution is simple then. If god created us in its image, we should also be incapable of doing evil, because it would be against our nature...
Do you see the problem with lifting arguments from Plantinga without thinking for yourself?
If it were possible for a being other than God to possess all of God's attributes, then, yes, it would be possible for God to create human beings incapable of doing evil.
Do you see the problem with lifting arguments from Plantinga without thinking for yourself?
Every aspiring artist must study the masters, right? Regardless, please spare me these disparaging remarks in the future, and simply offer up your counter-arguments. Thank you.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
01 Nov 09
Originally posted by epiphinehasOriginally posted by epiphinehas
[b]So god cannot do evil by definition. the solution is simple then. If god created us in its image, we should also be incapable of doing evil, because it would be against our nature...
If it were possible for a being other than God to possess all of God's attributes, then, yes, it would be possible for God to create human beings incapable of doin ...[text shortened]... hese disparaging remarks in the future, and simply offer up your counter-arguments. Thank you.[/b]
If it were possible for a being other than God to possess all of God's attributes, then, yes, it would be possible for God to create human beings incapable of doing evil.
Why does it need to be all of god's attributes? Why is it not possible for god just to create other gods to solve the loneliness problem? Wouldn't that have been better? No massive arbitrary suffering in the context of the ultimate uneven power relationship. So many questions unanswered...
Every aspiring artist must study the masters, right?
Yes, but not necessarily in public.
Regardless, please spare me these disparaging remarks in the future,
Please spare me recycled Plantinga without citation and you've got a deal.