Is there a possible world where Adam/Eve do not eat of the tree?

Look Up · Mar 9, 2017

Look Up said:
Doesn't the fact that God commanded Herod, Pontius Pilate, and the involved Jews and Gentiles not to murder speak against God planning (Acts 2:23) and predestining (4:28) the death of His holy Servant Jesus (cf. 4:27)?

Achilles6129 said:
... isn't God causing the world where he foreknows that a particular action will be freely performed in a sense violating free will?

I'm citing from my post # 12 on this thread as well as from your above post, Achilles6129. I framed this my question in post # 12 to mirror your own (post # 4) which questioned dhh712 : You asked, "Doesn't the fact that he commanded [Adam and Eve] not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good/evil speak against [God decreeing the fall]?"

So I suggested by way of indirect response that (1) God planned and predestined that those actually involved in the murder of Jesus would do so and (2) God held them accountable for the murder of Jesus. Point (1) does not mitigate point (2). Or is that not what the Scriptures say--both (1) and (2)? "For indeed, the Son of Man is going as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!" (Luke 22:22).

It is I think well to ask if God violates free will where He foreknows it, but it seems also well to ask what the Scriptures say on the matter. Then the question falls to whether one accepts what the (theologically harmonized) Scriptures say on the matter or not even if contrary to one's sense or inference. Does one trust the Scriptures as God's word or not?

It may also be helpful to clarify what the will is free from and in what sense. The way the Bible paints God, is it possible for human will in this world to be absolutely free from divine causality of all possible sorts? I don't see how one can reasonably argue from the Bible (without being selective) against such a blanket statement. But then one must ask in what sense the human will is free from God. At least in the sense that Adam could choose to disobey God without divine prevention ("and he ate"), Adam had a free will. At least in that Judas, Pontius Pilate, et al. could sin by participating in the murder of Jesus without divine prevention, they had free will even if there is more to the freedom of the will. God surely did not positively influence Adam and Judas Iscariot to sin (against God), but what are the natures of divine influences and causality (and freedom)?

It might also help to appreciate experientially one's own sin and guilt before God and believe in God's holiness--as the Bible presents God to be. Sin and guilt before God are genuine. The children of Adam are slaves to their own sin rather than free to please God apart from Jesus (Jer. 13:23, John 8:34, Rom. 8:8, 11:8, Eph. 2:1, etc.). They are thus in a sense free to sin even if they are not wholly free of divine causality (P.S. while the Christian is enabled not to sin, Rom. 6).

How it is possible that God could foreknow (Acts 2:23--a term I think needs clarification, but never mind at the moment), plan, and predestine (Acts 4:28--and prophesy, Acts 3:18 etc.) that those who murdered Jesus would do so yet remain without ethical culpability or unholiness in the death of His Son I do not know (not that we can judge the Judge), nor do I know how divine predestining of that death fails to mitigate the culpability of the human perpetrators, but is there any doubt that this is the picture the Bible paints of God and of those responsible before Him?

Or one could reframe the issue with "shoe on other foot": Why is it incompatible for Judas to have betrayed Jesus freely AND for God in holiness to have predestined the betrayal? Or then again, what kind of God would not know or intend that Adam and Judas Iscariot would sin as they did? What kind of God would be complicit in their sin? I think a God incompatible with the picture of God in the Bible. (P.S. And is there no freedom in slavery to righteousness?)

"For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things" (Rom. 11:36).

"... For it was the LORD's doing to harden their hearts that they should come against Israel in battle, in order that they should be devoted to destruction and should receive no mercy but be destroyed, just as the LORD commanded Moses." Joshua 11:20 (The Canaanites sinned in fighting the LORD's people.)

"... the sword shall never depart from your house ... Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house. And I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor ... " 2 Samuel 12:10a, 11a cf. following chapters (rape, murder, and treason of and by David's children)

"... Nation was crushed by nation and city by city, for God troubled them with every sort of distress." 2 Chronicles 15:6

"whose [Egyptian] hearts He turned to hate His people and to deal deceptively with His servants." Psalm 105:25

"... Moreover, I gave them statutes that were not good and rules by which they could not have life, and I defiled them [NIV: let them be defiled] through their very gifts in their offering up all their firstborn, that I might devastate them. I did it that they might know that I am the LORD." Ezekiel 20:25-26

"... For before those days there was no wage for man or any wage for beast, neither was there any safety from the foe for him who went out or came in, for I set every man against his neighbor." Zechariah 8:10

"... this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men ..." Acts 2:23

“For, in fact, in this city both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, assembled together against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, to do whatever Your hand and Your plan had predestined to take place." Acts 4:27-28

"... So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills." Romans 9:18

"... him who works all things according to the counsel of his will." Ephesians 1:11b

"... they refused to love God and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned ..." 2 Thessalonians 2:10b-11a Cf. 1 Kings 22:13-28

Achilles6129 · Mar 9, 2017

farran34 said:
It sounds as if you are asking why God could not weakly actualize a possible world in which Adam and Eve do not sin. Admittedly this is somewhat problematic, but there is a possible solution. Plantinga's solution is to suggest that it is possible that people would have trans-world depravity (is such that in every world in which he or she exists and is free, he or she does something wrong). If this is true, then there is no possible world in which God could weakly actualize in which Adam and Eve would not sin.

Trans-world depravity could be true in the case of Adam and Eve, but as we saw in the case of Sodom trans-world depravity is not true.

farran34 said:
I think you need to think more seriously about the consequences of God being able to make a world in which evil does not exist and humans still have free-will. I do not see any easy ways in which one could escape the logical problem of evil if this is true and it seems Mackie's logical problem of evil argument would be difficult to refute:

1. God is omnipotent (theistic belief, assumed for the sake of argument)
2. God is perfectly good (theistic belief . . .)
3. An omnipotent being can do anything [logically possible] (true by definition)
4. A perfectly good being eliminates/prevents all the evil it can.
5. God can do anything. (1,3)
6. God eliminates all the evil God can. (2,4)
7. God eliminates all evil. (5,6)
8. There is no evil. (7)

I think that much of this line of reasoning is based upon a serious misunderstanding of theology. This isn't something that only anti-theists are guilty of; theologians are certainly guilty of it too! I'll make several points:

1) In regards to the problem of evil, I would agree with #4, but probably not in the chronology that many think #4 should be applied. The net effect of evil is ultimately zero, since God will intervene and eventually set all evil right. This obviously hasn't happened yet (at least physically). However, since the net effect of evil is ultimately zero, God can permit as much evil as he wants. He could permit a universe full of evil and it would make no difference, since the net effect of it all is zero.

2) The next point involves something that is sort of related to this discussion: a "maximally great" world. The idea is that no matter how great or "perfect" the world is, it could always be better. So suppose that you have a world where there are two people who obey God's commands. Wouldn't a world with four people who obey God's commands be a better world than one with two people? And so on. The point is there can always be more people who obey God's commands, and we can always ask the question "why didn't God create that world?" This line of reasoning indicates that it really doesn't matter what world God creates and that the world which God creates in fact has nothing to do with God's moral goodness at all. In other words, God can create any world - even a world where everyone goes to hell - and still be just as morally good as if he creates a world where everyone goes to heaven.

farran34 said:
I disagree with you that it makes no difference as to whether or not God creates world a or world b if one of them is greater than the other. Perhaps it does not make a difference if one is only debating other Christians and (question-beggingly) assumes that it is no matter because whatever God does will have perfect justice. But it seems impossible to satisfy an atheist arguing this way, as he will want a better answer as to why God did not create a better world. Leibniz would also struggle with your answer, since he is a very strong advocate of the principle of sufficient reason, he would find it very troubling that God would arbitrarily created a world that was not maximally great.

See #2 above. Does this mean that you believe that this world is the best world that God could have possibly created?

Achilles6129 · Mar 9, 2017

Look Up, in regards to your post, I would say that predestination is a complex doctrine that I haven't really studied all that much. However, I would suggest that there is certainly a possibility that God simply foreknows what an individual will freely do and then reacts accordingly, hardening their heart if they're disobedient, and blessing them if they're not. It doesn't have to mean that God causes them to be disobedient, only that he reacts accordingly.

Now I'm not sure if this will fly with every passage in the Bible dealing with predestination, but I'll have to study further on the issue.

jimmyjimmy · Mar 10, 2017

Achilles6129 said:
Well, is there?

No.

farran34 · Mar 10, 2017

Achilles6129 said:
Trans-world depravity could be true in the case of Adam and Eve, but as we saw in the case of Sodom trans-world depravity is not true.

This does nothing to show trans-world depravity is not true... Re-read the definition I gave of trans-world depravity

Achilles6129 said:
1) In regards to the problem of evil, I would agree with #4, but probably not in the chronology that many think #4 should be applied. The net effect of evil is ultimately zero, since God will intervene and eventually set all evil right. This obviously hasn't happened yet (at least physically). However, since the net effect of evil is ultimately zero, God can permit as much evil as he wants. He could permit a universe full of evil and it would make no difference, since the net effect of it all is zero.

While I agree that #4 is the right place to attack this argument, I do not find this answer satisfactory at all. If in possible world a (our world) God allows millions of innocent girls to be raped, mutilated, and tortured for no reason other than the satisfaction it brings the perpetrators, and possible world b does not allow this can you honestly say this makes no difference because in the end God will make it right either way...? This doesn't sound like a God who cares very much about his children. The way I would answer this is that the presence of evil is necessary for a greater good, and hold to something like a soul-building theodicy. I think #4 is correct in so far as an Omni-benevolent being would prevent all evil it can—unless that good brings about a better good.

Achilles6129 said:
2) The next point involves something that is sort of related to this discussion: a "maximally great" world. The idea is that no matter how great or "perfect" the world is, it could always be better. So suppose that you have a world where there are two people who obey God's commands. Wouldn't a world with four people who obey God's commands be a better world than one with two people? And so on. The point is there can always be more people who obey God's commands, and we can always ask the question "why didn't God create that world?" This line of reasoning indicates that it really doesn't matter what world God creates and that the world which God creates in fact has nothing to do with God's moral goodness at all. In other words, God can create any world - even a world where everyone goes to hell - and still be just as morally good as if he creates a world where everyone goes to heaven.

You have a good point on questioning whether or not there is a "maximally great" world, but your conclusion from this ultimately fails.

First, it could be the 'structure' (for lack of a better word) of our world is maximally great—or at least importantly different than a world in which everyone goes to hell. The structure of our world being a world in which humans have freewill and have the potential to obtain a relationship with God.

Secondly, perhaps you are right and we should stop talking about 'maximally great worlds' (which I think is a valid assertion). One still needs to be able to give an answer as to why God allows the evil he allows, even putting aside all the 'greatest possible worlds' talk. I am not buying the answer, "it doesn't matter how evil the world is, in the end God will make everything right" line. This would mean that God could create a world in which maximal suffering occurred for absolutely no reason, and that it would be fine just because God will make it right in the end. No atheist will buy that.

Look Up · Mar 10, 2017

Achilles6129 said:
Look Up, in regards to your post, I would say that predestination is a complex doctrine that I haven't really studied all that much. However, I would suggest that there is certainly a possibility that God simply foreknows what an individual will freely do and then reacts accordingly, hardening their heart if they're disobedient, and blessing them if they're not. It doesn't have to mean that God causes them to be disobedient, only that he reacts accordingly.

Now I'm not sure if this will fly with every passage in the Bible dealing with predestination, but I'll have to study further on the issue.

I pray your further study of the God who promised eternal life before the ages began (Titus 1:2--that is, before Adam, cf. Rev. 13:8, 17:8, Eph. 1:4) and who prepared beforehand the good works Christians walk in (Eph. 2:10, cf. Isa. 25:12) does not end in your becoming an open theist of sorts, though I would agree for example that God does not and cannot tempt anyone (say, Adam or Judas) to do moral evil (James 1:13) and that divine hardening, where it occurs, is judicial whatever other purposes it may have while divine blessings for good works (e.g., on Abraham for "sacrificing" Isaac) may rightly be considered as divine reaction however else it may be viewed biblically (so Eph. 2:10, etc.).

"... All my days were written in Your book and planned before a single one of them began" (Psalm 139:16b).

"A man’s heart plans his way, but the Lord determines his steps" (Prov. 16:9, cf. 19:21, 20:24, 21:1, Jer. 10:23).

"Who is there who speaks and it happens, unless the Lord has ordained it? Do not both adversity and good come from the mouth of the Most High?" (Lam. 3:37-38).

"... I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and no one is like Me. I declare the end from the beginning, and from long ago what is not yet done, saying: My plan will take place, and I will do all My will ..." (Isaiah 46:9-10)

“I am your brother, Joseph, whom you sold into Egypt. And now do not be distressed or angry with yourselves because you sold me here, for God sent me before you to preserve life” (Gen. 45:4-5, cf. 15:13 to Abraham: "Your offspring will be foreigners in a land that does not belong to them; they will be enslaved and oppressed 400 years ..."). Did the Lord "determine the steps" of Joseph's brothers in selling him into slavery while not being complicit in their sin?

"You will say to me, therefore, 'Why then does He still find fault? For who can resist His will?' But who are you, a mere man, to talk back to God? Will what is formed say to the one who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' Or has the potter no right over the clay, to make from the same lump one piece of pottery for honor and another for dishonor?" (Rom. 9:19-21).

If I may, I recommend Beyond the Bounds by Mark Talbot and Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility by D.A. Carson.

Achilles6129 · Mar 11, 2017

farran34 said:
This does nothing to show trans-world depravity is not true... Re-read the definition I gave of trans-world depravity

It does show that trans-world depravity isn't true, because there is a possible world where the inhabitants of Sodom obey God's commands. If you disagree, then explain how it does not.

farran34 said:
While I agree that #4 is the right place to attack this argument, I do not find this answer satisfactory at all. If in possible world a (our world) God allows millions of innocent girls to be raped, mutilated, and tortured for no reason other than the satisfaction it brings the perpetrators, and possible world b does not allow this can you honestly say this makes no difference because in the end God will make it right either way...? This doesn't sound like a God who cares very much about his children. The way I would answer this is that the presence of evil is necessary for a greater good, and hold to something like a soul-building theodicy. I think #4 is correct in so far as an Omni-benevolent being would prevent all evil it can—unless that good brings about a better good.

If the net effect of evil is zero, then as a matter of fact zero evil is actually allowed. Since it's ultimately wiped away, its existence is irrelevant. So it doesn't matter whether or not there's a world with an enormous amount of evil or not. It's simply irrelevant.

As far as evil being allowed to in order to obtain a greater good, I think that there are numerous passages of Scripture that deny such a suggestion. I would start with Gen. 6 where God says that he's "sorry that he made them." That seems like a passage where God is clearly acknowledging that the presence of evil is not for a "greater good," but is actually something that he didn't intend at all.

You have a good point on questioning whether or not there is a "maximally great" world, but your conclusion from this ultimately fails.

farran34 said:
Secondly, perhaps you are right and we should stop talking about 'maximally great worlds' (which I think is a valid assertion). One still needs to be able to give an answer as to why God allows the evil he allows,

There doesn't necessarily have to be a reason involving a natural human being's understanding of efficiency or moral goodness. Since the net effect of all evil is zero, God could allow anything, and it could be something that God simply never intended. In other words, there's no "providential" reason for it. It could simply exist as something that God never intended, but has effects that are suffered as a result of disobedience to God's commands (see Mt. 7:24-27, etc.)

farran34 said:
even putting aside all the 'greatest possible worlds' talk. I am not buying the answer, "it doesn't matter how evil the world is, in the end God will make everything right" line. This would mean that God could create a world in which maximal suffering occurred for absolutely no reason, and that it would be fine just because God will make it right in the end. No atheist will buy that.

It doesn't matter whether or not an atheist buys it or whether or not it makes people feel good. What matters is whether or not it's true.

If you do not believe God will let everything go to waste, then you could try addressing the global flood narrative and also try addressing the exodus narrative. In each narrative God allows evil but apparently not for providential reasons, since he exterminates virtually everyone (the world and the Israelites) involved. What, we might ask, is the greater good?

Achilles6129 · Mar 11, 2017

Look Up said:
I pray your further study of the God who promised eternal life before the ages began (Titus 1:2--that is, before Adam, cf. Rev. 13:8, 17:8, Eph. 1:4) and who prepared beforehand the good works Christians walk in (Eph. 2:10, cf. Isa. 25:12) does not end in your becoming an open theist of sorts,

Trust me, I won't become an open theist. FYI, here's a very good passage about predestination:

"29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified." Rom. 8:29-30 (NASB)

Look Up said:
If I may, I recommend Beyond the Bounds by Mark Talbot and Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility by D.A. Carson.

Interesting. I'll take a look at them.

Look Up · Mar 11, 2017

Achilles6129 said:
FYI, here's a very good passage about predestination:

"29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified." Rom. 8:29-30 (NASB)

I assumed Rom. 8:29-30 & textual environs had occurred first and perhaps foremost in your mind, and so thought citing it in my lists unnecessary. A little odd of me, I know.

In this passage and in some others I have cited above, more is going on than divine "knowing in advance," but divine planning and doing, for in the freedom of God, "He does all He pleases" (Ps. 115:3, 135:6). I conclude that God knows in advance at least partly because he plans and does, but in a way which does not mitigate human sin or violate some form of genuine choice (granted also human slavery to sin) as represented in the Bible also.

Look Up · Mar 11, 2017

Achilles6129 said:
Interesting. I'll take a look at them.

One error of mine. Mark Talbot is the author of chapter 3 ("True Freedom: The Liberty that Scripture Portrays as Worth Having") of Beyond the Bounds, otherwise edited by John Piper et al. Talbot taught a SS class or two at our church using this chapter of his. My apologies.

Achilles6129 · Mar 12, 2017

Look Up said:
I assumed Rom. 8:29-30 & textual environs had occurred first and perhaps foremost in your mind, and so thought citing it in my lists unnecessary. A little odd of me, I know.

In this passage and in some others I have cited above, more is going on than divine "knowing in advance," but divine planning and doing, for in the freedom of God, "He does all He pleases" (Ps. 115:3, 135:6). I conclude that God knows in advance at least partly because he plans and does, but in a way which does not mitigate human sin or violate some form of genuine choice (granted also human slavery to sin) as represented in the Bible also.

Here's my current view of predestination:

God "predestines" people based upon his foreknowledge of their choices. So "predestination" is a passive activity on God's part, not an active choice. The reason for this is Biblical passages like "it is not his will that any should perish," etc. If it's really not God's will that any should perish, and God is actively choosing who's saved, then God would have chosen everyone. Anything less is a contradiction. So "predestination" as commonly understood cannot be true.

Look Up said:
One error of mine. Mark Talbot is the author of chapter 3 ("True Freedom: The Liberty that Scripture Portrays as Worth Having") of Beyond the Bounds, otherwise edited by John Piper et al. Talbot taught a SS class or two at our church using this chapter of his. My apologies.

Yes, I noticed that. No big deal.

joshua 1 9 · Mar 12, 2017

Achilles6129 said:
Well, is there?

According to multiverse theory there is.

Look Up · Mar 13, 2017

Achilles6129 said:
Here's my current view of predestination:

God "predestines" people based upon his foreknowledge of their choices. So "predestination" is a passive activity on God's part, not an active choice. The reason for this is Biblical passages like "it is not his will that any should perish," etc. If it's really not God's will that any should perish, and God is actively choosing who's saved, then God would have chosen everyone. Anything less is a contradiction. So "predestination" as commonly understood cannot be true.

I assume you infer--and if so, correctly--that I do not believe the Scripture teaches universal salvation.

A number of the conclusions in the above quote run afoul of most of the many Scripture passages I have already cited on this thread (textual environs assumed in each Scripture case) and more besides; it adds assumed baggage to the way the word "predestination" (and that word minus the "pre" prefix--see below) is used in Scripture, confuses divine mercy and merit (cf. Tit. 3:5, Eph. 2:8-9, Phil. 1:29, Acts 11:18, 13:48, 18:27, Rom. 9:16, 2 Tim. 1:9, 2:25, 1 Jn. 4:19, etc.), and depends heavily on a meaning of "any" (and presumably synonyms like "all" and "world" in related "etc." passages) which may be disputed.

In sum there seems little reason at present to argue further. And I am leery of diverging too far from your OP even if there have been relevant logical implications for it (see below) in the progress of our above recent friendly banter.

For your own reference (if helpful), uses of the word "predestination" ("prooridzo") in the NT include Acts 4:28, Rom. 8:29, 30, 1 Cor. 2:7, Eph. 1:5, 11 and for the word "determined" (or like translation--that is, the word "prooridzo" in Greek minus the "pre" prefix: "horidzo"), see Luke 22:22, Acts 2:23, 10:42, 11:29 (--this one of human subjects rather than the usual divine subject), 17:26, 31, Rom. 1:4, Heb. 4:7.

So far as I know, these are the only uses of these words in the NT (possibly minus a few in textual variants for all I know). Unfortunately I do not have ready access to a Hatch & Redpath concordance for the LXX. But perhaps these suffice. As in creation and (apostolic-sense) election, nothing can precede divine initiative. And a Hebrew sense of intimacy may be detected in NT uses of terms for "foreknowledge."

In my view (partly per my above posts) then--surely you agree here--God could have prevented Adam and Eve from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Surely that is not concluding too much, given this God was the God who made all that has been made, Adam (meaning Adam and Eve) included. The same God later also prevented Abimelech from sinning (Genesis 20:6) against Himself in taking Sarah to be his wife, in this case because Abimelech did not know that Sarah was already Abraham's wife. Why then not Adam (other than that he was commanded not to eat and was hence tested)?

While we agree that in Adam's fall, God must be held guiltless and holy (as if anything but were possible for God), perplexing as that may be (for both of us), the divine role in Adam's fall may perhaps be inferred from other divine roles in the Scripture passages I have cited on this thread among others. In my view (partly per the above and granting that you disagree), the Creator's role in Adam's fall was something more than planned passive reaction even if we cannot entirely pinpoint what that something was, to the praise of the glory of His grace: for from Him and through Him and to Him are all things.

May God have mercy on us too and grant us increasing conformity to the likeness of His Son.

farran34 · Mar 13, 2017

Couldn't respond for a while as I am quite busy and on spring break.

Achilles6129 said:
It does show that trans-world depravity isn't true, because there is a possible world where the inhabitants of Sodom obey God's commands. If you disagree, then explain how it does not.

The inhabitants of Sodom would obey God for this situation, but not they would not have since birth been sinless and continue to be sinless, also there is nowhere in these verses that show Sodom would have been sinless, but only that they would have repented. Again, the definition of transworld depravity is that in every world in which he or she exists and is free, he or she does something wrong. There are plenty of verses that would support this claim for our world, and it seems at least somewhat plausible this could be true for every possible world. Your proposed counterexample is only about one situation, you would need to show a verse which shows a situation in which someone will never do wrong and has never done wrong.

Achilles6129 said:
If the net effect of evil is zero, then as a matter of fact zero evil is actually allowed. Since it's ultimately wiped away, its existence is irrelevant. So it doesn't matter whether or not there's a world with an enormous amount of evil or not. It's simply irrelevant.

As far as evil being allowed to in order to obtain a greater good, I think that there are numerous passages of Scripture that deny such a suggestion. I would start with Gen. 6 where God says that he's "sorry that he made them." That seems like a passage where God is clearly acknowledging that the presence of evil is not for a "greater good," but is actually something that he didn't intend at all.

You have a good point on questioning whether or not there is a "maximally great" world, but your conclusion from this ultimately fails.

First, you are assuming that God could make the net effect of evil zero for any possible world. Argue for this, show me how God could make right a world in which he condemns everyone to eternal suffering, is responsible for this because he weakly actualized the world, and makes the suffering of the innocent extreme (such as increasing pain receptors and encouraging rape, genocide, ext.)—and does nothing to stop this and does not allow if for a greater good. The God of the Christianity would never allow this world, and if you think he would I need to see a strong argument for it (and how scripture supports this).

As to gen 6, I do not think this puts a hole in a greater good theodicy. Rather I think one could easily explain this passage as God being sorry that every human "every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord was sorry that he had made humankind on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart..." This actually seems to poke a hole in your suggestion that God could create any amount of evil he wants. Putting aside how literal someone should interpret this chapter, God obviously did not like this situation because the evil in which he allowed was working towards no greater good, so he wiped out the earth and progressively worked towards setting up a world in which he could send Jesus to give us salvation (a greater good).

The only reason I am stating "that an atheist would not buy this" is to that the argument is question-begging. If you put your argument out like this:

1. All world's net evil is 0
2. All worlds with a net evil of 0 are equally just
3. Therefore, a world with maximal evil is equally just as a world with no evil

No rational atheist (or in my opinion rational theist) will/should accept premise 1 or premise 2. The only reason I can see that one would accept premise 1 (really, God could make a world in which everyone is a child rapist??) is for achieving the conclusion (3).

Achilles6129 · Mar 14, 2017

farran34 said:
The inhabitants of Sodom would obey God for this situation, but not they would not have since birth been sinless and continue to be sinless, also there is nowhere in these verses that show Sodom would have been sinless, but only that they would have repented. Again, the definition of transworld depravity is that in every world in which he or she exists and is free, he or she does something wrong. There are plenty of verses that would support this claim for our world, and it seems at least somewhat plausible this could be true for every possible world. Your proposed counterexample is only about one situation, you would need to show a verse which shows a situation in which someone will never do wrong and has never done wrong.

I see. In that case, I misunderstood the definition of "trans-world depravity." I guess we could still ask why God didn't make a world in which Sodom stuck around, since he could have.

farran34 said:
First, you are assuming that God could make the net effect of evil zero for any possible world. Argue for this, show me how God could make right a world in which he condemns everyone to eternal suffering, is responsible for this because he weakly actualized the world, and makes the suffering of the innocent extreme (such as increasing pain receptors and encouraging rape, genocide, ext.)—and does nothing to stop this and does not allow if for a greater good.

When you say that God is "responsible" for their eternal suffering, do you mean "responsible" in the sense that he created the world? If so, then I would agree. But if you mean "responsible" in the sense that he selected them deliberately to go there, then I would disagree.

As far as making the net effect of evil zero, or as you put it, "making right" the world, it would be simple: all that God would have to do is right every wrong. If he does that, then the net effect of evil is zero. I think a great example of God undoing evil in the Bible is the doctrine of the forgiveness (purgation) of sins in both the OT (Lev. 16, Yom Kippur) and the NT (the cross of Christ). Obviously if you can purge sins then you can set evil right. In this case, the net effect of the sins would be zero.

farran34 said:
The God of the Christianity would never allow this world, and if you think he would I need to see a strong argument for it (and how scripture supports this).

I would argue that Gen. 6 is a strong argument for it, but more on that below.

farran34 said:
As to gen 6, I do not think this puts a hole in a greater good theodicy. Rather I think one could easily explain this passage as God being sorry that every human "every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord was sorry that he had made humankind on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart..." This actually seems to poke a hole in your suggestion that God could create any amount of evil he wants. Putting aside how literal someone should interpret this chapter, God obviously did not like this situation because the evil in which he allowed was working towards no greater good, so he wiped out the earth and progressively worked towards setting up a world in which he could send Jesus to give us salvation (a greater good).

Read the bold/underlined part of your post above - it's exactly my point. The evil which God allowed in the antediluvian world was working toward no greater good so he destroyed it. I didn't say that such a world would continue forever, only that such a world could happen, and it seems that it did. Obviously, at some point in time God has to intervene into any world where evil exists: the only question is when.

The only reason I am stating "that an atheist would not buy this" is to that the argument is question-begging. If you put your argument out like this:

farran34 said:
1. All world's net evil is 0
2. All worlds with a net evil of 0 are equally just
3. Therefore, a world with maximal evil is equally just as a world with no evil

No rational atheist (or in my opinion rational theist) will/should accept premise 1 or premise 2. The only reason I can see that one would accept premise 1 (really, God could make a world in which everyone is a child rapist??) is for achieving the conclusion (3).

Perhaps you've slightly misunderstood my point. When I say that evil ultimately has a net effect of zero, what I mean is that God will set all evil right. Wouldn't you agree that that would happen in any world?

Achilles6129 · Mar 14, 2017

Look Up said:
In my view (partly per my above posts) then--surely you agree here--God could have prevented Adam and Eve from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Surely that is not concluding too much, given this God was the God who made all that has been made, Adam (meaning Adam and Eve) included. The same God later also prevented Abimelech from sinning (Genesis 20:6) against Himself in taking Sarah to be his wife, in this case because Abimelech did not know that Sarah was already Abraham's wife. Why then not Adam (other than that he was commanded not to eat and was hence tested)?

Well, we don't know for sure if, after Adam/Eve were created, God could have prevented them from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good/evil. Of course, God could have simply not created them, so in that sense he could have prevented them. But we don't know if there is a possible world where they would not have eaten of the tree. Abimelech and Sodom are isolated cases.

CrystalDragon · Mar 14, 2017

Achilles6129 said:
It's clear that God can create a world where the majority of creatures choose to obey his commands. This is clear because the heavenly world only had 1/3 of the angels rebel, while 2/3 of the angels remained with God (see Rev. 12:4). So God is capable of making such a world, but it appears as though this world is not such a world (see Mt. 7:13-14). The question is why this world is not such a world.

When was it ever indicated that a third of angels rebelled?

toLiJC · Mar 14, 2017

Achilles6129 said:
Well, is there? And if not, why didn't God create that world? And is there a possible world where there is no heavenly rebellion either? Or is there a possible world where no-one rebels against God?

yes, and it is not only possible but also a fact - the world of the true Saints and righteous people in general, which is at least in their hearts

Blessings

Look Up · Mar 15, 2017

Achilles6129 said:
Well, we don't know for sure if, after Adam/Eve were created, God could have prevented them from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good/evil. Of course, God could have simply not created them, so in that sense he could have prevented them. But we don't know if there is a possible world where they would not have eaten of the tree. Abimelech and Sodom are isolated cases.

Was God then incapable of, say, banishing the serpent from the garden permanently before he tempted Eve (as He banished the fallen Adam) or, if He "walked in the garden in the cool of the day," could God not have stood beside Eve when the serpent tempted her to support her right decision? Do we really know if "Abimelech and Sodom are isolated cases"? And even if they are, do they not show what God can do, since we are talking of possibilities? And need we stop there at the tools in God's kit, as it were?

Achilles6129 · Mar 16, 2017

CrystalDragon said:
When was it ever indicated that a third of angels rebelled?

When the dragon's tail swept 1/3 of the stars from the sky in Rev. 12.

Is there a possible world where Adam/Eve do not eat of the tree?

"What is unseen is eternal"

Veteran

Veteran

Pardoned Rebel

Active Member

"What is unseen is eternal"

Veteran

Veteran

"What is unseen is eternal"

"What is unseen is eternal"

Veteran

Well-Known Member

"What is unseen is eternal"

Active Member

Veteran

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

"What is unseen is eternal"

Veteran

Similar threads