Atheism And Moral Progress

[carpedm9587]

Again Carp, having a reference to right or wrong has nothing to with ability (to do or not do). God knows what both good and evil are. Again the definition has nothing to do with the freedom of the will or lack thereof.

I think you're being extremely selective in your interpretation and application of definitions.

Yes God created creatures with a degree of moral freedom, since God wanted men to freely love and obey Him. I don't see the problem.

Of that I am very aware...

[seer]

I think you're being extremely selective in your interpretation and application of definitions.

Really? Reference means reference, that is not about acting or not. You seem to want to link it to free will.

Of that I am very aware...

Right because there is no problem,,,

[carpedm9587]

Really? Reference means reference, that is not about acting or not. You seem to want to link it to free will.

Seer, when the "problem of evil" is discussed, the primary defense for the existence of moral evil is that god MUST give humans the will to freely choose between good actions and bad. If this god did not, then humans would simply be moral robots and the idea of moral goodness would simply evaporate. This is why evil exists - so say the theists. But now, when it comes to god himself, there is no contradiction in saying that god is incapable of choosing an evil moral action - yet god is a good moral agent.

The two positions are inconsistent. If you cannot see this...

Right because there is no problem,,,

...then that is your problem...

[seer]

Seer, when the "problem of evil" is discussed, the primary defense for the existence of moral evil is that god MUST give humans the will to freely choose between good actions and bad. If this god did not, then humans would simply be moral robots and the idea of moral goodness would simply evaporate. This is why evil exists - so say the theists. But now, when it comes to god himself, there is no contradiction in saying that god is incapable of choosing an evil moral action - yet god is a good moral agent.

Carp, this does not change that fact that God always does good, and goodness is a moral quality, whether God could do otherwise or not. And God gave men freedom so that they could choose (or not) to love Him. Obedience (doing what is morally right) certainly plays a part, but the interchange of love is of the utmost importance. It seems that God puts a premium on a love that is freely given rather than a robotic response.

The two positions are inconsistent. If you cannot see this...

Not in the least. God's moral nature is immutable, yet He finds a freely given love/response to be of great value. Nothing inconsistent here...

[JimL]

Really? Reference means reference, that is not about acting or not. You seem to want to link it to free will.



Right because there is no problem,,,

seer, give it up. You lost the argument with the claim that god has no choice, morally speaking.

[Tassman]

Not in the least. God's moral nature is immutable, yet He finds a freely given love/response to be of great value. Nothing inconsistent here...

If God's nature is "immutable" as a divine good guy then he cannot do evil, hence he is limited in the choices he can make. In short he does not have complete free will anymore than we have have complete free will. Just as God is constrained by his immutable 'goodness' so our decisions are shaped and formed by unconscious processes from long forgotten inputs, life experiences and memory function, etc.

[seer]

seer, give it up. You lost the argument with the claim that god has no choice, morally speaking.

What are you taking about Jim? What argument did I lose? Be specific.

[carpedm9587]

Carp, this does not change that fact that God always does good, and goodness is a moral quality, whether God could do otherwise or not. And God gave men freedom so that they could choose (or not) to love Him. Obedience (doing what is morally right) certainly plays a part, but the interchange of love is of the utmost importance. It seems that God puts a premium on a love that is freely given rather than a robotic response.

Not in the least. God's moral nature is immutable, yet He finds a freely given love/response to be of great value. Nothing inconsistent here...

As you wish, Seer. In my experience - you cannot reason against an unreasonable position, so I'll move on.

[seer]

As you wish, Seer. In my experience - you cannot reason against an unreasonable position, so I'll move on.

Carp what is unreasonable about this statement:God's moral nature is immutable, yet He finds a freely given love/response to be of great value. I really don't get it...

[carpedm9587]

Carp what is unreasonable about this statement:God's moral nature is immutable, yet He finds a freely given love/response to be of great value. I really don't get it...

I know you don't Seer. I don't think I'm going to be able to explain it to you in a way that will penetrate. I've already attempted to several times, and if I try again I'll just be repeating myself. Perhaps someone else can find the right words. It's not an urgent issue, and you are certainly welcome to your beliefs.

[seer]

I know you don't Seer. I don't think I'm going to be able to explain it to you in a way that will penetrate. I've already attempted to several times, and if I try again I'll just be repeating myself. Perhaps someone else can find the right words. It's not an urgent issue, and you are certainly welcome to your beliefs.

You know Carp, this looks like hand waving to me. I have said nothing that was logical, and I use an accepted definition. As far as what is unreasonable, well this is your opinion, I certainly violate no rule of logic.

[JimL]

Carp what is unreasonable about this statement:God's moral nature is immutable, yet He finds a freely given love/response to be of great value. I really don't get it...

It's a contradiction seer, that's why it defies logic. You're trying to have it both ways. If god is unable to freely choose to do wrong, if, by nature, god is determined to do right, then there is nothing moral about the choices he makes, because he has no option. You are also creating god in your own imagination in order to satisfy your own expectations of him. "God is determined with respect to this, but he is free with respect to that."

[seer]

It's a contradiction seer, that's why it defies logic. You're trying to have it both ways. If god is unable to freely choose to do wrong, if, by nature, god is determined to do right, then there is nothing moral about the choices he makes, because he has no option. You are also creating god in your own imagination in order to satisfy your own expectations of him. "God is determined with respect to this, but he is free with respect to that."

Jim, that does not follow. If God judges you and sends you to that bad place, or forgives and pardons you, then these are moral acts that will effect you. He has acted morally. And again, I am going by what Scripture states, God's moral nature can not change but there is nothing that suggests that He can not act freely in other areas. Like what to create, whether to create at all, when to do a miracle, when not to, etc... There is no contradiction here, that is a mere assertion on your part.

[Tassman]

Jim, that does not follow. If God judges you and sends you to that bad place, or forgives and pardons you, then these are moral acts that will effect you. He has acted morally. And again, I am going by what Scripture states, God's moral nature can not change but there is nothing that suggests that He can not act freely in other areas. Like what to create, whether to create at all, when to do a miracle, when not to, etc... There is no contradiction here, that is a mere assertion on your part.

If "God's moral nature can not change" then He is constrained from doing evil. Hence God does not have total free-will any more than we do, influenced as we are by our subconscious memories and formative experiences.

[JonathanL]

I know you don't Seer. I don't think I'm going to be able to explain it to you in a way that will penetrate. I've already attempted to several times, and if I try again I'll just be repeating myself. Perhaps someone else can find the right words. It's not an urgent issue, and you are certainly welcome to your beliefs.

There is nothing unreasonable about Seer's position, you're either strawmanning his position, or projecting a view that you've heard other people espouse on to him without warrant.

Seer, when the "problem of evil" is discussed, the primary defense for the existence of moral evil is that god MUST give humans the will to freely choose between good actions and bad. If this god did not, then humans would simply be moral robots and the idea of moral goodness would simply evaporate. This is why evil exists - so say the theists. But now, when it comes to god himself, there is no contradiction in saying that god is incapable of choosing an evil moral action - yet god is a good moral agent.

The two positions are inconsistent. If you cannot see this...

Then he's being perfectly reasonable. Moral free will must exist for moral culpability to exist. It does not need to exist for morality itself to exist in a Christian worldview where what is good and evil is determined by God's nature, wholly apart from any considerations of whether or not our wills are free or not.

If you murder someone and had the ability to refrain from the act, you're morally culpable. If you were completely unable to stop yourself you were not morally culpable. But in both cases what you did was an act that had moral aspects. In both cases a morally evil event took place.

Again, being a moral being does not require free will. Being able to freely choose is required for moral culpability.