what free will is and is not

[bricklayer]

Ok - it just seemed that you were calling this a misrepresentation in your previous posts.
Glad it´s got clarified.

I understood that you had misunderstood, but I am never sure who is genuinely misunderstanding and who is employing a tactic of sorts. So when I'm unsure, I just repeat myself, as you noticed.
I will make a mental note of you being genuine.

 

[juvenissun]

A child (or simply someone) did something you don't like.

You don't have to know that particular feeling before it is passed to you. That is a feeling originated by the action of the child. This is an illustration on the free will of the child.

God does not need to know or to invent anything evil. We did evil and God does not like it. That is where the evil came from and that illustrates our free will.

If God did not give us free will, then there would be no evil.

 

[Bushido216]

You're going to want to back away from this line of thought, if only because it makes a portion of God's knowledge about the state of things dependent on the human condition, which has unsettling consequences for me.

 

[bricklayer]

You're going to want to back away from this line of thought, if only because it makes a portion of God's knowledge about the state of things dependent on the human condition, which has unsettling consequences for me.

Very perceptive. God's knowledge is necessary, never contingent.

 

[Bushido216]

I agree with you, but for the sake of correctness, you're confusing your terms. You should replace necessary with immanent.

 

[juvenissun]

You're going to want to back away from this line of thought, if only because it makes a portion of God's knowledge about the state of things dependent on the human condition, which has unsettling consequences for me.

God does not control what you want to do. God loves you and wish you would come to Him. But if you don't, God will let you go. This has nothing to do with God's understanding or knowledge.

 

[Bushido216]

I agree. And this last post of yours has nothing to do with the previous one you made.

If the conditions of possibility for evil post-date God, then you've demonstrated that which is not immanent in God, and hence made evil contingent upon humans... and thus God's knowledge of evil contingent on humans.

 

[juvenissun]

I agree. And this last post of yours has nothing to do with the previous one you made.

If the conditions of possibility for evil post-date God, then you've demonstrated that which is not immanent in God, and hence made evil contingent upon humans... and thus God's knowledge of evil contingent on humans.

Let's go from the definition. Evil is a thought or an action against God.

When nobody or nothing is doing that, there was no evil, even to God. When somebody or something is doing that, God knows. That does not mean God creates evil. God gives free will, the free will goes against God.

It is how satan came to be. It is what Adam was. With a little modification, that is also what we are.

 

[Bushido216]

So, let me offer a different definition. I think we can both agree to this definition and it'll resolve this problem nicely.

I think we can safely decide that objective morality derives from God, thus, two otherwise similar actions can have different moral outcomes. Taking my sword and striking someone down because I want their wife is bad. Taking my sword and striking someone down because the Lord commands me isn't bad.

So from various Biblical examples we can otherwise assume that objective morality is going about one's life in a way that would please God, and being immoral would be going about one's life in a way that displeases God.

So, if we take it to be the case that morality derives from staying within God's limits or going outside of God's limits (morally speaking) we can establish that evil has existed forever and does not derive from human actions, it derives from God's expectations.

In other words, as soon as God makes a decision about how He wants humans to behave, He has created the conditions of possibility necessary for both Good and Evil. Eating the fruit from the tree was the first evil act by humans. Lucifer's rebellion was the first evil act by something not a human, but neither invented evil.

In this definition, the possibility for evil is created the moment God creates the possibility for good, since one is just the opposite of the other. This both allows us to make evil immanent to God in a way that doesn't make God evil, justifies the existence of evil in the world, and doesn't hurt any definitions of free will.

I hope I explained this well.

 

[juvenissun]

So, let me offer a different definition. I think we can both agree to this definition and it'll resolve this problem nicely.

I think we can safely decide that objective morality derives from God, thus, two otherwise similar actions can have different moral outcomes. Taking my sword and striking someone down because I want their wife is bad. Taking my sword and striking someone down because the Lord commands me isn't bad.

So from various Biblical examples we can otherwise assume that objective morality is going about one's life in a way that would please God, and being immoral would be going about one's life in a way that displeases God.

So, if we take it to be the case that morality derives from staying within God's limits or going outside of God's limits (morally speaking) we can establish that evil has existed forever and does not derive from human actions, it derives from God's expectations.

In other words, as soon as God makes a decision about how He wants humans to behave, He has created the conditions of possibility necessary for both Good and Evil. Eating the fruit from the tree was the first evil act by humans. Lucifer's rebellion was the first evil act by something not a human, but neither invented evil.

In this definition, the possibility for evil is created the moment God creates the possibility for good, since one is just the opposite of the other. This both allows us to make evil immanent to God in a way that doesn't make God evil, justifies the existence of evil in the world, and doesn't hurt any definitions of free will.

I hope I explained this well.

You wrote many words. But I don't see a definition. Could you collect those words together to form a clear definition of evil?

 

[bricklayer]

I agree with you, but for the sake of correctness, you're confusing your terms. You should replace necessary with immanent.

God's will is immanent; it is also transcendent. It is also necessary. It is also holy.
I did not mean to be exhaustive.

 

[Bushido216]

Evil is that which displeases God, regardless of whether or not any evil act is performed.

 

[bricklayer]

God does not control what you want to do. God loves you and wish you would come to Him. But if you don't, God will let you go. This has nothing to do with God's understanding or knowledge.

"God does not control"; what exactly is beyond God's control?
What idea do you have that God comes to know?
What choice do you make that God comes to learn?

That which "God does not control" has everything to do with God's understanding and knowledge or your implied lack thereof.

 

[juvenissun]

"God does not control"; what exactly is beyond God's control?
What idea do you have that God comes to know?
What choice do you make that God comes to learn?

That which "God does not control" has everything to do with God's understanding and knowledge or your implied lack thereof.

No no.

You do not control the behavior of your young son, does not mean he will do something you do not understand. You just let him do, without telling him what or how to do.

Whatever we do, God fully understand, including your decision to reject Him or to disobey Him.

 

[juvenissun]

Evil is that which displeases God, regardless of whether or not any evil act is performed.

Agree.

Would God design us to do evil? (consider satan, and Adam)
If not, how could we do evil?

yes, it is all about the magic nature called the "free will".

 

[Bushido216]

The only point I'm trying to make is that evil doesn't depend on humans. Evil ACTIONS do, but not evil itself.

 

[juvenissun]

The only point I'm trying to make is that evil doesn't depend on humans. Evil ACTIONS do, but not evil itself.

The problem is: no action (or thought), no evil. Action or thought is the origin, the name "evil" is a consequence.

 

[bricklayer]

No no.

You do not control the behavior of your young son, does not mean he will do something you do not understand. You just let him do, without telling him what or how to do.

Whatever we do, God fully understand, including your decision to reject Him or to disobey Him.

God does not merely understand our decisions, our free will choices.
This is exactly the combination of decisions and choices He chose to create.
This creation is exactly the creation God chose to create, knowing it exhaustively apart from its existence.

God does not come to know our decisions; we do.

 

[sandwiches]

What I said was: These horrible things "happened". We don't have to think about them or to know the bad to act them out.

God sees our actions. God does not have to be evil so to make us do evil. God does not need to put evil in our mind. On the contrary, God explicitly tells Adam: DON'T eat that fruit. It does not mean the fruit is evil. God simply says: don't eat it. If Adam does not have a free will, how could he eat it?

You don't have to convince me. I am arguing about bricklayer's point: Humans cannot conceive of a new idea. We merely perceive them from God. Therefore, whatever evil ideas people have thought (and people DO have evil ideas every now and then) God must have conceived first.

 

[sandwiches]

Every idea, even the ideas that are unlike God, the evil ideas, are originally conceived by God.

Well, then we go back to my question: Why did God conceive the idea of rape, murder, pedophilia, etc?