Free Will and Evil

[zippy2006]

Okay, @zippy2006 let's clear up the concept of "knowledge" before I get back into that response.

God, being omniscient, knows all things, even things that He can't experience. For instance, God knows what it feels like to make a mistake, even though He can't make mistakes to experience what it feels like, correct?

Yes, that seems accurate. He knows what a human feels like when they make a mistake.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I explained in my post 111 why it is not possible to create a being (make it instinctive to a being) with Godly type Love. An instinctive "love" would be like a android loving you which you programmed to love you.

I'm programmed by evolution to love my child. If that makes me an android in your eyes, then I'm fine with that.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Personally, I find it odd that anyone could choose to do so without intent ... under normal social circumstances.

That's kind of the point. If I have the ability to choose to do horrible action X (I'm not physically constrained from doing so), but I never would because the thought of it is anathema to me, do I have free will?

If I do, then an omnipotent god could have created everyone so that no one would do horrible action X.

If I don't, why should I care that I don't?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's kind of the point. If I have the ability to choose to do horrible action X (I'm not physically constrained from doing so), but I never would because the thought of it is anathema to me, do I have free will?

If I do, then an omnipotent god could have created everyone so that no one would do horrible action X.

If I don't, why should I care that I don't?

Apparently, I'm not making myself clear enough, Todd. Sorry.

Let me put it this way: The insistence that God should have made human beings in a way where they have free will but without any motivational impetus to cause harm to other people is ... too simple of an idea. For us to say this would then mean that we 'know' what omnipotence "actually is," if it exists. My contention is that (despite what Christians often say and what atheists often assume philosophically)............... we don't know what omnipotence is or how it would work. It's just a word that WE fill with ill-begotten meaning because we ignore what the Bible indicates epistemologically.

And what does the Bible indicate epistemologically? That God is beyond our full understanding. From a purely human viewpoint, we don't fully understand what God means when He says He is Almighty. Furthermore, the typical context of God's being Almighty as reflected in Scripture ISN'T that God can do any such X, but rather that..................He can do anything that He decides to do, which is a different conceptual frame by which to grapple with what All Power could possibly mean and as to what it could possibly do. It also implies that God wouldn't contradict His own nature by deciding to do something that He hasn't intended on doing.

So, both Christians and Atheists need to stop using the overused and cliche notion of OMNI-POTENCE which doesn't really reflect the contextual indicators in the Bible.

We don't really (or fully) understand what God could do...so we need to stop pretending and talking as if we have it all philosophically and/or theologically figured out.

 

[bling]

I'm programmed by evolution to love my child. If that makes me an android in your eyes, then I'm fine with that.

If a human’s love for their child is only “instinctive” than it is robotic (being like an android).

You can have a much greater type of Love for your child which is a thought-out choice you make to Love them unconditionally, which can allow a person to Love his child like the father in the prodigal son story (Luke 15) Love his younger son (in spite of the fact the young son virtually told the father: “I wish you were dead so I could have my inheritance”.)

God’s Love for you is much greater than the instinctive love a parent has for a child and you can have that same degree of Love if you want it?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I have little to none inclination to harm other persons, or to cut off my legs. Can´t say I miss this "freedom" or that I would feel more "loved" if I were equipped with those inclinations.

That's great! I don't find that I have those inclinations either, quatona.

Well, someone must have come up with the (human) term "omnipotent" as a descriptor of the god of they concept. I am naturally assuming they meant to communicate something with it. Maybe we take theologians too seriously?

Possibly. Or, we may want to realize that the Church had people in it who took earlier forms of Grecian philosophy and used these forms to construct what they thought were more logical and/or reasonable concepts by which we might think about the Biblical God. In the process, they may have altered some concepts that were left by the Hebrews to the province of 'mystery' as to the full nature of God. Some like Aquinas tried to concretize things about God by using Grecian philosophical concepts that..........we have never really known.

Again, 'ominpotence' is a word. The question is: What did the person using it mean by it?

Yes, that is definitely the question that many [Christians] don't ask.

Yep, that would be very disappointing to learn.

For other Christians, maybe. It's not disappointing to me. That's just the nature of the philosophy of "how the cookie crumbles," as we say. And a lot of Christians don't like the fact that on some concepts there is a lack of specificity by which they can carry their beliefs, so they work overtime to try to 'make them' specific.

I am under the impression that theology (and the discussion of theological explanations) is about what makes sense to/for US.

Yes. To an extent it is. At least that's how theology works out in actual practice, despite what Christian Apologists often try to say to the contrary. Everyone has to pull out two fist fulls of pieces from the thousand piece puzzle and make of them what they can. If God actually exists, then He might help with the rest of the cognitive process somewhere along the way for those ... who are fully interested.

 

[quatona]

Yes. To an extent it is. At least that's how theology works out in actual practice, despite what Christian Apologists often try to say to the contrary. Everyone has to pull out two fist fulls of pieces from the thousand piece puzzle and make of them what they can.

Fair enough. I guess that helps understand why I get suspicious when believers try to tell me what´s the truth/Truth/TRUTH (!!!).

 

[Moral Orel]

Yes, that seems accurate. He knows what a human feels like when they make a mistake.

So experiential knowledge can be had without the experience, yes? I would say that an omnipotent, omniscient God can create an omniscient being. Is that possible, if not why not?

 

[zippy2006]

So experiential knowledge can be had without the experience, yes?

Sure, by God or by a special gift of infused knowledge.

I would say that an omnipotent, omniscient God can create an omniscient being. Is that possible, if not why not?

In my estimation a creature could not be omniscient. To be omniscient is to know all things perfectly, and therefore to know God perfectly, but only God is capable of knowing himself perfectly.

At this point in our conversation there are two posts you have decided not to reply to (49 & 110), and therefore the dialogue is two branches away from the topic of the OP. This means that if you are to bring us back on topic you will need to provide thorough and clear arguments that bring us all the way back to the start.

 

[Moral Orel]

In my estimation a creature could not be omniscient. To be omniscient is to know all things perfectly, and therefore to know God perfectly, but only God is capable of knowing himself perfectly.

I don't see why that is, but I don't see how debating that matters to the conversation. Is that the only thing that creature created by God can't know?

At this point in our conversation there are two posts you have decided not to reply to (49 & 110), and therefore the dialogue is two branches away from the topic of the OP. This means that if you are to bring us back on topic you will need to provide thorough and clear arguments that bring us all the way back to the start.

I am. Initially you defined free will based on desire, then you shifted to knowledge/rationality. You've made a lot of claims about "the only way to have such and such knowledge" in this thread and even the Mackie's World thread, and I'm trying to figure out whether your claims about how to attain knowledge are true or not. Based on this:

Sure, by God or by a special gift of infused knowledge.

I would say that they are not. Is there any knowledge, other than a perfect understanding of God Himself that is impossible for God to specially infuse in us?

 

[zippy2006]

I don't see why that is, but I don't see how debating that matters to the conversation. Is that the only thing that creature created by God can't know?

The principle is that nothing can perfectly know that which transcends it. Therefore an animal could not perfectly know a human being, a human being could not perfectly know an angel, and an angel could not perfectly know God. All creatures would be unable to have perfect knowledge of God, but this knowledge is the only thing that the highest creatures are incapable of.

Of course other kinds of knowledge could also be impossible to creatures insofar as they entail a contradiction. For example, it would seem that God is the only being who could have absolute knowledge of the future, although in some cases it would be possible for him to mediate such knowledge to creatures.

I would say that they are not.

And you are welcome to present an argument for your position, hopefully one that takes into account the large gaps you have left in the conversation.

 

[Moral Orel]

And you are welcome to present an argument for your position, hopefully one that takes into account the large gaps you have left in the conversation.

I'll go back through your posts and find all the times you said we have to learn things to have knowledge. I'm not doing them all at once though. This one seems to be at the heart of your argument though:

The fact that meriting reinforces central truths of creaturely existence provides a sufficient reason for why God's plan of salvation includes merit. The reinforcement helps to teach us who and what we are, especially in relation to God. If the reinforcement were not present we would have less of this kind of knowledge.

Learning and teaching are obsolete with specially infused knowledge. If we can ever have knowledge of something, then God can specially infuse it without teaching it to us. Therefore we can have all of this type of knowledge without having anything "reinforced". We don't need to experience dependence to know that we are dependent.

Tell me how "teaching" and "learning" matter one whit to an omnipotent creator that can specially infuse knowledge?

 

[Moral Orel]

Who knows? One of the "central truths" I referred to could well be the truth that we play a role in our destiny, that the labor of our hands contributes to creation for good or for ill. An unmerited 'reward' would exclude this truth.

Now this was your reply to that quoted section from my previous post, but it's just stating the question again. Why is it that the labor of our hands can contribute to creation for ill? What purpose does that "central truth" have? The "labor of the hands" of God never create ill, only good, and that's a good thing. Why is it good for us to be able to create ill if God can't?

And yes, if it was all a gift (unmerited reward) then yes, this wouldn't be a central truth. You're supposed to be telling me why this "central truth" is good.

 

[zippy2006]

I'll go back through your posts and find all the times you said we have to learn things to have knowledge. I'm not doing them all at once though. This one seems to be at the heart of your argument though:

I don't recall any place in the conversation where I said that knowledge requires learning, but it would not bother me if I did.

Learning and teaching are obsolete with specially infused knowledge.

Not true. Suppose a father makes his son get a job to learn the worth of work and the value of money. Now suppose he gives him a gift of $50 on his birthday. Has the father "made obsolete" the reasons he had for wanting his son to work? Of course not. An exception does not undermine the rule. A gift does not undermine the value of the norm.

There are two things I've highlighted that infused knowledge fails to realize: natural merit and causal efficacy. There is no merit in infused knowledge, and it does not teach us that we are causally efficacious (i.e. that what we do matters and has effects on the world and on us). The means to knowledge is important. Therefore we have good reasons to see why God did not simply supernaturally infuse knowledge of the things we learn naturally. Infused knowledge is also less common because of the Fall and Original Sin.

If we can ever have knowledge of something, then God can specially infuse it without teaching it to us. Therefore we can have all of this type of knowledge without having anything "reinforced". We don't need to experience dependence to know that we are dependent.

And yet experiencing it brings with it good things that would not be present if it were simply infused.

Tell me how "teaching" and "learning" matter one whit to an omnipotent creator that can specially infuse knowledge?

See above. We are not angels. We are material, temporal beings. It is in our nature to move from present to future, from premises to conclusions, from cause to effect. Why didn't God stop at angels? Apparently because he wanted a more diverse, variegated universe in which is reflected more of his own grandeur and glory.

Now this was your reply to that quoted section from my previous post, but it's just stating the question again. Why is it that the labor of our hands can contribute to creation for ill? What purpose does that "central truth" have? The "labor of the hands" of God never create ill, only good, and that's a good thing. Why is it good for us to be able to create ill if God can't?

My point was not that there is some special reason for our being able to do ill (if there is, it has been covered already as the necessary result of free will on this side of heaven). My point was that we are causally efficacious, that what we do matters, that we have an effect on creation.

And yes, if it was all a gift (unmerited reward) then yes, this wouldn't be a central truth. You're supposed to be telling me why this "central truth" is good.

I think it is self evident that it is good. Imagine a world in which you are a ghost who cannot influence anything, communicate with anyone, or do anything whatsoever. Do you deem such an existence better than the one you have now?

 

[Moral Orel]

I don't recall any place in the conversation where I said that knowledge requires learning, but it would not bother me if I did.

Are you kidding me? I just quoted you doing it, you do it again in this post, and we just went over "special infusion" of knowledge. You want to move forward with this faulty premise that there is some knowledge that God is incapable of infusing, but we're not going to do that until you show that premise is true. Here's that quote again with bolding this time:

The fact that meriting reinforces central truths of creaturely existence provides a sufficient reason for why God's plan of salvation includes merit. The reinforcement helps to teach us who and what we are, especially in relation to God. If the reinforcement were not present we would have less of this kind of knowledge.

And again, God has knowledge of everything, He didn't learn any of it (because He can't learn things) so there is no knowledge that requires learning to be had. If God is omnipotent, He can infuse any knowledge that we can ever have (we can safely ignore the knowledge we're incapable of ever holding).

But here you make the same error again:

There are two things I've highlighted that infused knowledge fails to realize: natural merit and causal efficacy. There is no merit in infused knowledge, and it does not teach us that we are causally efficacious (i.e. that what we do matters and has effects on the world and on us). The means to knowledge is important. Therefore we have good reasons to see why God did not simply supernaturally infuse knowledge of the things we learn naturally. Infused knowledge is also less common because of the Fall and Original Sin.

Again, bolding added by me so that you notice yourself claiming we need to learn things.

Either show that there are some types of knowledge God is incapable of infusing, or stop claiming things need to be experienced a certain way for us to learn them.

Your analogy fails:

Not true. Suppose a father makes his son get a job to learn the worth of work and the value of money. Now suppose he gives him a gift of $50 on his birthday. Has the father "made obsolete" the reasons he had for wanting his son to work? Of course not. An exception does not undermine the rule. A gift does not undermine the value of the norm.

We're talking about giving knowledge. In your story, the father gives money, and you ask if it results in the son having knowledge. That's a switcheroo if I ever saw one. Giving things does not have the same effect on our knowledge that giving knowledge does.

 

[zippy2006]

Are you kidding me? I just quoted you doing it, you do it again in this post, and we just went over "special infusion" of knowledge. You want to move forward with this faulty premise that there is some knowledge that God is incapable of infusing, but we're not going to do that until you show that premise is true. Here's that quote again with bolding this time:

You say, "God can miraculously infuse knowledge, therefore knowledge doesn't require learning." This is sophistry that makes the miraculous the norm. It's like saying that God can miraculously produce a full ear of corn, therefore agriculture is unnecessary. Or God can make bread out of rocks, therefore the rock collector is a baker. Or God can make someone levitate, therefore shoes are no longer necessary.

And again, God has knowledge of everything, He didn't learn any of it (because He can't learn things) so there is no knowledge that requires learning to be had.

And we are not God.

If God is omnipotent, He can infuse any knowledge that we can ever have (we can safely ignore the knowledge we're incapable of ever holding).

But here you make the same error again:

I made two points: infused knowledge precludes merit, and infused knowledge precludes practical knowledge. You focused on the second and ignored the first. Regarding the second, there are kinds of knowledge that are unfitting to infuse, which means that God has a good reason not to infuse these types of knowledge. This is beside my larger point that human knowledge itself is unfitting to infuse, which is why it so seldom happens. Consider a 80 year-old farmer and a 2nd grader. The 2nd grader is told by his teacher that the soil produces crops. Who has fuller knowledge that the soil produces crops, the farmer or the 2nd grader? The answer is obvious: the farmer's life work, which he has done day after day, instills in him a very deep knowledge of the fecundity of the earth.

Now, could God technically infuse the farmer's knowledge into the 2nd grader? Sure, he could create fake memories of working in the fields over many years, implant ideas about the various kinds of seeds and their produce, enlighten the mind about the kinds of soil and how to prepare it for planting, implant fake memories of harvesting year after year. God could do such a thing. But so what? What is the point? Why would God want to do such a thing?

Since you utterly failed to meet my request of connecting this to the larger conversation, I will show how faulty it has been:

Nick: Why free will?
Zip: It gives us an opportunity to cling to God, to enter into covenant, to realize what is at stake, to merit, to come to knowledge of our causal efficacy, etc.
Nick: If God can infuse knowledge, then why is any of this necessary?
Zip: The only two things that infused knowledge could be substituted for are realizing what is at stake and coming to knowledge of our causal efficacy. Infused knowledge provides no way of accounting for the other three things. And what if God thinks it is good that the farmer has a greater understanding than the 2nd grader? What if he thinks it is better to learn about your abilities by exercising them than being told you have them? What if the normal way he provides to gain knowledge is more fitting than just infusing knowledge of everything? That something is possible does not mean it is better.​

Your analogy fails:

We're talking about giving knowledge. In your story, the father gives money, and you ask if it results in the son having knowledge. That's a switcheroo if I ever saw one. Giving things does not have the same effect on our knowledge that giving knowledge does.

It seems that you don't understand what an analogy even is.

 

[Moral Orel]

Since you utterly failed to meet my request of connecting this to the larger conversation, I will show how faulty it has been:

Nick: Why free will?
Zip: It gives us an opportunity to cling to God, to enter into covenant, to realize what is at stake, to merit, to come to knowledge of our causal efficacy, etc.
Nick: If God can infuse knowledge, then why is any of this necessary?
Zip: The only two things that infused knowledge could be substituted for are realizing what is at stake and coming to knowledge of our causal efficacy. Infused knowledge provides no way of accounting for the other three things. And what if God thinks it is good that the farmer has a greater understanding than the 2nd grader? What if he thinks it is better to learn about your abilities by exercising them than being told you have them? What if the normal way he provides to gain knowledge is more fitting than just infusing knowledge of everything? That something is possible does not mean it is better.

Do you read the things you write? Nigh on everything you've said comes back to knowledge. Even meriting, which you now claim doesn't have anything to do with knowledge, is about knowledge to you. For the third time in a row, I'm going to post your own words to you. Read them closely now. Why is meriting good?

The fact that meriting reinforces central truths of creaturely existence provides a sufficient reason for why God's plan of salvation includes merit. The reinforcement helps to teach us who and what we are, especially in relation to God. If the reinforcement were not present we would have less of this kind of knowledge.

I can tell you're just making this up as you go and it's falling apart but you just can't let it go.

All that's left is clinging to God, and you'll do that in Heaven, so it's moot unless you have some reason that clinging to God on Earth is better than clinging to God in Heaven. Besides, if you know that you ought to cling to God you will, because to do good is to be rational as you've stated, so it all comes back to knowledge.

And we are not God.

Since the ultimate goal is to become as Godlike as possible, I'm going to continue to appeal to the supernatural until you show me that it is inappropriate to do so. Simply because it is inconvenient to your argument is insufficient.

You say, "God can miraculously infuse knowledge, therefore knowledge doesn't require learning." This is sophistry that makes the miraculous the norm. It's like saying that God can miraculously produce a full ear of corn, therefore agriculture is unnecessary. Or God can make bread out of rocks, therefore the rock collector is a baker. Or God can make someone levitate, therefore shoes are no longer necessary.

Feel free to post an argument that shows my statements to be untrue. I laughed out loud at your use of agriculture as an example. You do remember that the original intent was for agriculture to be unnecessary in a garden that produces all the food we need with no work right?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Let me put it this way: The insistence that God should have made human beings in a way where they have free will but without any motivational impetus to cause harm to other people is ... too simple of an idea. For us to say this would then mean that we 'know' what omnipotence "actually is," if it exists. My contention is that (despite what Christians often say and what atheists often assume philosophically)............... we don't know what omnipotence is or how it would work. It's just a word that WE fill with ill-begotten meaning because we ignore what the Bible indicates epistemologically.

Although I was speaking about a fairly traditional definition of the word omnipotent, I'm all for abandoning that notion, and positing that an existent god that is necessarily benevolent couldn't have known the extent of suffering in the universe (or that god wouldn't have created anything at all) and also doesn't have the power to have created things differently, or change things after they're created.

This situation would make that particular god the most tragic figure imaginable.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Although I was speaking about a fairly traditional definition of the word omnipotent, I'm all for abandoning that notion, and positing that an existent god that is necessarily benevolent couldn't have known the extent of suffering in the universe (or that god wouldn't have created anything at all) and also doesn't have the power to have created things differently, or change things after they're created.

This situation would make that particular god the most tragic figure imaginable.

Lol! Well, that option wasn't quite the one I was implying, either.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Lol! Well, that option wasn't quite the one I was implying, either.

Well, either an "omnipotent" god could have created us so we wouldn't cause suffering, or that god couldn't.

Seems to me that if that god could have, it can't be called "omnibenevolent" using any definition that makes sense. If it couldn't, you're left with calling that god omnibenevolent (and thus tragic), or calling that god... apathetic perhaps.

So, what's your view?