The Problem Of Evil?

[Alien]

Errm - I didn't mention God. One being, with no attributes beyond existence stipulated. No teachings about the nature or activity of that one being stipulated, but creation of the universe implied.

But you have to supply enough information about this being to make the act of creation feasible. Otherwise you not really proposing anything. That's a criterion you would impose on the naturalistic explanation, is it not?

[seer]

Where it is known before the task is assigned that he will not assent, that remains a failure - assigning a devout Jew or Muslim the task of taste testing a pork dish would be mild by comparison.

It remains a failure even if God only thought it was possible that Adam would fail. And You said that Adam couldn't do the required task. I say he could - whether God knew the outcome or not (whether with certainty or probability).

What are the odds at the time of creation? Assume that they are 50/50 (or any ratio other than 100/0). Day to day, the odds might swing in either direction but with an overall trend toward one or the other. Eventually the odds reach 100/0: that might happen moments or years in advance of the crunch itself. A major part of foretelling prophecy involves intervention to prevent the odds from reaching an unfavourable 100. Why does God plead with people to repent? Is it because he has always known that they won't?

I don't know how that applies to Adam. And God pleads with men because He knows they have the ability to repent, even though He knows they will refuse.

[Stoic]

Kind of like the case with materialism...

Very much so.

Of course, with materialism you aren't being held responsible for your actions by a being who is responsible for your actions.

[seer]

Very much so.

Of course, with materialism you aren't being held responsible for your actions by a being who is responsible for your actions.

On the other hand, with a God, literally billions of human beings will escape death and find everlasting life. So no matter what happens to this present universe (heat death?) humanity survives... So you agree that you had no choice in writing the above?

[Stoic]

On the other hand, with a God, literally billions of human beings will escape death and find everlasting life. So no matter what happens to this present universe (heat death?) humanity survives...

True, IF the God you believe in exists.

So you agree that you had no choice in writing the above?

No. I'm a compatibilist.

"A compatibilist can believe that a person can choose between many choices, but the choice is always determined by external factors."

[seer]

True, IF the God you believe in exists.


No. I'm a compatibilist.

"A compatibilist can believe that a person can choose between many choices, but the choice is always determined by external factors."

That is determinism by another name. You still don't have the ability to do otherwise. And from your link:

Compatibilism was championed by the ancient Stoics^[6] and some medieval scholastics (such as Thomas Aquinas). More specifically, scholastics like Thomas Aquinas and later Thomists (such as ) are often interpreted as holding that a human action can be free, even though an agent in some strong sense could not do otherwise than what they did

Compatibilists often define an instance of "free will" as one in which the agent had freedom to act according to their own motivation.

If you could not do otherwise in any given situation, then you are not free in any real sense. And yes we are free to act on our own motivations - but so is a dog.

[Sparko]

I think the argument is that he could have created you differently, with full knowledge of everything you would "freely choose" to do differently. So what you "freely choose" to do is what he wanted you to "freely choose".

Kind of like a puppet who says, "I'm perfectly free. These strings are just taking me where I want to go."

But that's assuming the conclusion that he is predetermining everything we do. I am saying he created us with free will and each decision we make in time can only happen once, which might look like the decision is fixed, but it is fixed because that is what we freely chose to do at that particular time. God just knows what it is. It is no different than us looking back on the past. Everything that happened in the past appears "fixed" and unchangeable to us, but just because everything in the past can't be changed but is still known, doesn't mean it didn't all happen because of free will decisions. To us next month is "the future" but to us in 2025 next month is the past. If your future self knows what you will do next week that doesn't mean your decision next week is not because of free will. It just means you chose to do whatever your future self knows what you will do.

[Stoic]

If you could not do otherwise in any given situation, then you are not free in any real sense.

I think you have put your finger on the difference between compatibilists and non-compatibilists. Compatibilists disagree with you here. I believe that being able to do what you want to do, without any interference from other agents, is all the freedom that matters. Being able to do otherwise (i.e. being able to do what you don't want to do) is not necessary.

[Stoic]

But that's assuming the conclusion that he is predetermining everything we do. I am saying he created us with free will and each decision we make in time can only happen once, which might look like the decision is fixed, but it is fixed because that is what we freely chose to do at that particular time. God just knows what it is. It is no different than us looking back on the past. Everything that happened in the past appears "fixed" and unchangeable to us, but just because everything in the past can't be changed but is still known, doesn't mean it didn't all happen because of free will decisions. To us next month is "the future" but to us in 2025 next month is the past. If your future self knows what you will do next week that doesn't mean your decision next week is not because of free will. It just means you chose to do whatever your future self knows what you will do.

I think there are many ways to get away from the idea that God is responsible for our actions. One could claim that God is not THAT omnipotent, or not THAT omniscient, or perhaps that God doesn't care what actions we take.

But if there is some action that we take that God cares enough about to punish us for, and he could foresee that we would take that action, and he could have easily created us so that we wouldn't take that action, then it's hard to explain why he didn't just create us differently.

[Sparko]

I think there are many ways to get away from the idea that God is responsible for our actions. One could claim that God is not THAT omnipotent, or not THAT omniscient, or perhaps that God doesn't care what actions we take.

But if there is some action that we take that God cares enough about to punish us for, and he could foresee that we would take that action, and he could have easily created us so that we wouldn't take that action, then it's hard to explain why he didn't just create us differently.

I don't think he could have created us to not take some action, because that indeed would take away our free will. But there is nothing in knowing our actions that eliminates free will.

But let me throw another monkey wrench into the fire, to mix metaphors. What if the many worlds theory is true and that for every decision you can make, you make them all and each decision creates an alternate time line? And God knows them all?
[cue twilight zone theme]

[tabibito]

I don't think he could have created us to not take some action, because that indeed would take away our free will. But there is nothing in knowing our actions that eliminates free will.

But let me throw another monkey wrench into the fire, to mix metaphors. What if the many worlds theory is true and that for every decision you can make, you make them all and each decision creates an alternate time line? And God knows them all?
[cue twilight zone theme]

Perhaps not an impossible thought, but that would mean each and every option creates the matter needed for its own whole universe, and the amount of decisions taken would already have become infinite

But that's assuming the conclusion that he is predetermining everything we do. I am saying he created us with free will and each decision we make in time can only happen once, which might look like the decision is fixed, but it is fixed because that is what we freely chose to do at that particular time. God just knows what it is. It is no different than us looking back on the past. Everything that happened in the past appears "fixed" and unchangeable to us, but just because everything in the past can't be changed but is still known, doesn't mean it didn't all happen because of free will decisions. To us next month is "the future" but to us in 2025 next month is the past. If your future self knows what you will do next week that doesn't mean your decision next week is not because of free will. It just means you chose to do whatever your future self knows what you will do.

Your scenario does not admit the existence of a present or future - everything is already past.

[Sparko]

Perhaps not an impossible thought, but that would mean each and every option creates its own whole universe of matter.

But if the future doesn't exist yet as you seem to believe, then a whole new universe is created every moment of time that comes into being too, right? And one is destroyed since the past doesn't exist.

[seer]

I think you have put your finger on the difference between compatibilists and non-compatibilists. Compatibilists disagree with you here. I believe that being able to do what you want to do, without any interference from other agents, is all the freedom that matters. Being able to do otherwise (i.e. being able to do what you don't want to do) is not necessary.

But you are determined by your nature, just like a dog. Do dogs have free will?

[tabibito]

But if the future doesn't exist yet as you seem to believe, then a whole new universe is created every moment of time that comes into being too, right? And one is destroyed since the past doesn't exist.

I had until the last few days assumed that the future did not exist, simply because I could not envisage a process by which an existing future could eliminate predetermination*. A non existent future was never a comfortable fit with other aspects of the Biblical record that seemed to point to the possibility that a future that does exist. So I had hypothesised the idea of the future existing only in potentia, an untidy and therefore unsatisfactory resolution. The concept of a future in which everything is super-positioned is somewhat more integrated. Not that it has ever been an issue for me, but a super-positioned future** doesn't mess with the concept of an omniscient God. It just means that the universe was created with a future that was and is inherently unknowable.

(* No, that is not the same thing as Biblical predestination, though some churches' concepts do use predestination in the sense of predetermination.)
(** to the nit-pickers: yes, it isn't a scientifically accurate use of the term)

[Sparko]

I had until the last few days assumed that the future did not exist, simply because I could not envisage a process by which an existing future could eliminate predetermination*. A non existent future was never a comfortable fit with other aspects of the Biblical record that seemed to point to the possibility that a future that does exist. So I had hypothesised the idea of the future existing only in potentia, an untidy and therefore unsatisfactory resolution. The concept of a future in which everything is super-positioned is somewhat more integrated. Not that it has ever been an issue for me, but a super-positioned future** doesn't mess with the concept of an omniscient God. It just means that the universe was created with a future that was and is inherently unknowable.

(* No, that is not the same thing as Biblical predestination, though some churches' concepts do use predestination in the sense of predetermination.)
(** to the nit-pickers: yes, it isn't a scientifically accurate use of the term)

I just figured I would add infinite confusion by bringing up infinite branching universes

But what if say God does actualize a universe that he wants out of all of the possibilities. In one possible universe you freely choose to eat a cheeseburger for dinner, and in another you decided to eat tacos, and another fish, etc. If out of all those possible universes God chooses to actualize the one where you ate tacos, it was still your free will choice to eat tacos, wasn't it? If he actualized any of your choices it would still be your choice, since they were all your choices. He just picked one to make "real" - how's that for confusing? You would have free will and predeterminism in one fell swoop. Predetermined free will.