Good and Evil

[Jeremy E Walker]

Where'd I go wrong?

Genre dictates how one reads any piece of literature.

This is one element you have failed to take into account.

 

[Received]

So would you mind rephrasing your question in a way that does justice to this fact?

You get the idea, so what's the point?

No, God spontaneously interfering wasn´t the point of discussion, at all.
I was specifically addressing the notion of an *omnipotent, omniscient creator of everything* (and I shortened that to omni-God later), and I was addressing the very way this omni-God created his creation to function (not: what he could possibly do later in order to interfere).
Seeing that omni-God is the creator of nature and physics and all that, he could have created all that differently.
Seeing that omni-God is the creator of the way our brains work, he could have created that differently.

And that leads me to the previous points I made. Freedom can be constrained only externally by limiting the physical world, or through arbitrary limitations of human freedom. You simply can't create a free being in a specific environment who has some limitations of his freedom without there being this outside influence (God or physical constraints). You're positing a version of freedom that isn't intrinsincally meaningful to freedom. It's like asking for a Roulette table to still be a Roulette table but have more than two colors. Maybe God could miraculously create a third color if he's betting hard, but he needs a reason for intervening like this and unhinging the otherwise intrinsic nature of what makes a Roulette table a Roulette table. Likewise with human freedom: God needs a reason for intervening in limiting freedom. And (as I say below), who's to say he hasn't done this innumerable times?

Furthermore, we quite obviously are already limited in the way you describe (I don´t have to fight the urge to spontaneously cut off my legs, or to burn my hands, for example) without this limitation suggesting that this is due to acute interventions or ongoing efforts by God or the flying spaghetti monster. Thus, would the range of my will be limited in the same way in other instances (e.g. that no matter what I wouldn´t even get or entertain the idea of killing or raping someone), I wouldn´t perceive that limitation any differently than I do perceive the limitations I already have.

That's another version of the response I made in the previous post, just it's not a matter of external constraints but internal constraints. And, again, if we're talking like this, we're not talking about the subject at hand so much as the problem of evil: how could God allow people to entertain X number of possibilities for evil when he could only allow Y number. That also is arguably like the Roulette comparison as well: freedom means having all possibilities open that are given in a specific situation (what determines which ones are given is, maybe paradoxically, what is determined given a person's environment and psychological state and maturity), not having a select few possibilities arbitrarily cut out for the sake of the greater good. And, actually, even if God were able to limit human freedom like this (I don't really see why he couldn't, in a sense), who's to say he hasn't already limited the freedom of bad people an innumerable number of times already? That's also the problem here: even if God could do this, it would be impossible to prove that he has.

Under this definition of "freedom", if hard-pressed to answer your original question ("So you're saying there's no point in making people free?") yes or no I´d have to respond:
"Yes, that´s what I am saying."(IOW, this sort of freedom isn´t a positive thing, in my book.)

Yeah, I mean the harder freedom of the will rather than the easy physical or psychological freedom to not be constrained by something. But to me, if freedom is intrinsic to what it means to be a human being, then you can't imagine having a human being as a self without freedom. That's why Sartre said freedom isn't something a person has, but something he is.

 

[quatona]

If someone is free to choose to love their neighbor, then they must also be free to choose not to.

Do you agree?

Yes.

 

[quatona]

You get the idea, so what's the point?

I do not only not get the point of the question, I also have voiced quite some criticism: asking this question pretends a false dichotomy between a yes and a no scenario, whereas neither of them is the actual situation we´re in, nor the alternative I am talking about.

And that leads me to the previous points I made. Freedom can be constrained only externally by limiting the physical world, or through arbitrary limitations of human freedom. You simply can't create a free being in a specific environment who has some limitations of his freedom without there being this outside influence (God or physical constraints).

Agreed. So in creating the physical world as it is God chose how and where to limit human freedom and where and how not.

You're positing a version of freedom that isn't intrinsincally meaningful to freedom. It's like asking for a Roulette table to still be a Roulette table but have more than two colors. Maybe God could miraculously create a third color if he's betting hard, but he needs a reason for intervening like this and unhinging the otherwise intrinsic nature of what makes a Roulette table a Roulette table. Likewise with human freedom: God needs a reason for intervening in limiting freedom. And (as I say below), who's to say he hasn't done this innumerable times?

Do you even read my responses? Again: I am not talking about post creation interventions.
God could have created a Roulette table with as many or few colours as he wished to. He could even have created colours that don´t exist in this world. He could have created different laws of physics, etc.etc. And since this Roulette table is the analogy for *all there is* this would still be a Roulette table.

That's another version of the response I made in the previous post, just it's not a matter of external constraints but internal constraints.

Yes, I agree that this is an important distinction.

And, again, if we're talking like this, we're not talking about the subject at hand so much as the problem of evil: how could God allow people to entertain X number of possibilities for evil when he could only allow Y number.

Yes, that´s what I am talking about (it is not the classical PoE argument, though). God, in creating the world the way it is, has limited the possibilities and options, and therefore the question has never been "freedom, yes or no?", but "Is the exact current number of created options and limitations the best fathomable, in my opinion?". E.g. I know that the human mind (collectively as well as individually) comes with unsurmountable inhibitions and urges that are not chosen.

That also is arguably like the Roulette comparison as well: freedom means having all possibilities open that are given in a specific situation (what determines which ones are given is, maybe paradoxically, what is determined given a person's environment and psychological state and maturity), not having a select few possibilities arbitrarily cut out for the sake of the greater good.

Except that this is already the case. Not every human has all possible urges and desires and all possible inhibitions and antipathies, and he doesn´t have the freedom to have urges, desires, inhibitions and antipathies he doesn´t have.
On top of that, there are things to do that practically no one has the urge or inhibition to do, even though they are physically possible.

And, actually, even if God were able to limit human freedom like this (I don't really see why he couldn't, in a sense), who's to say he hasn't already limited the freedom of bad people an innumerable number of times already?

Again, I am not talking about post creation interventions. I am talking about the way God created everything.
Also, here and in a previous post I do have posited that God indeed has limited human freedom by the way he created a. the external world, and b. how the human mind works in innumeral ways.

That's also the problem here: even if God could do this, it would be impossible to prove that he has.

The way the physical world functions and the way the human mind functions are (with all the external and internal options and limitations) the plan and making of omni-God. So (assuming for the sake of the argument that this God exists, this needn´t even be proven. We observe it.)

But to me, if freedom is intrinsic to what it means to be a human being, then you can't imagine having a human being as a self without freedom.

And since "no freedom" is and has never been my point (but the exact degree of freedoms and limitations we have), you are still clinging to approach this issue by means of your false dichotomy which simply ingnores my point rather than addressing it.

When I tell an improvising student to play fewer notes (or a different notes), the response "So you don´t want me to play any notes at all?" tells me that he hasn´t even understood what I was saying. That´s exactly how I feel in this conversation at this point.

When I suggest to a student that an alternate tuning might suite the tune better and he responds "But I can´t permanently change the tuning during playing" I also know that he hasn´t understood what I was suggesting. This is also how I feel in this conversation at this point.

 

[Received]

Agreed. So in creating the physical world as it is God chose how and where to limit human freedom and where and how not.

Are you saying that God created the physical universe, which in its specific form of creation therefore limited freedom in such-and-such a way? If so, then that's too incredibly complicated for us to even argue about, given that one single atom moving in a certain way can cause a cascade that brings about changes in nations millenia later, and we haven't even gotten to how human freedom can't be determined, which will influence things in an unpredictable way even further (not so much for God, but for us to comprehend in terms of the best of all possible worlds regarding the PoE modification we're talking about here).

If we're just talking about human freedom, again, you can't have 98% human freedom in terms of choosing some possibilities and being denied others (internally). Interventions by God to limit these internal possibilities for choice means God must have a good reason, and so we're back at the PoE again.

Do you even read my responses? Again: I am not talking about post creation interventions.
God could have created a Roulette table with as many or few colours as he wished to. He could even have created colours that don´t exist in this world. He could have created different laws of physics, etc.etc. And since this Roulette table is the analogy for *all there is* this would still be a Roulette table.

He couldn't have created human beings with 98% freedom. Human freedom is a purely dichotomous variable sort of thing: either people have it and therefore full sway over all the internal possibilities and can exercise it within their externally limited constraints, or they don't have it at all. That's my point in using the Roulette example: you don't have a Roulette table if it has three colors, and claiming you do is making a nonsensical statement given that the properties that define something can't be arbitrarily changed and the identity of the thing still considered the same thing.

Again, God can intervene, but here we're at the PoE again. Along with the question of, "how do you know that God hasn't intervened in a million other cases?" as well as, "how do you know that God intervening in this particular instance is, teleologically considered, the best thing out there?" (IOW, suffering always has the possibility of a greater good to come from it, no matter how much logically speaking the allowed evil repulses us) and also, "how do you do take into account God allowing X evil without limiting Y person's freedom as unjustifiable if there is some sort of post-mortem judgment that will punish people who misuse freedom?"

I'll stop there, given that this is a lot.

 

[BL2KTN]

Genre dictates how one reads any piece of literature.

This is one element you have failed to take into account.

And what genre(s) are the first chapters of Genesis?

 

[quatona]

Are you saying that God created the physical universe, which in its specific form of creation therefore limited freedom in such-and-such a way?

Yes.

If so, then that's too incredibly complicated for us to even argue about, given that one single atom moving in a certain way can cause a cascade that brings about changes in nations millenia later, and we haven't even gotten to how human freedom can't be determined, which will influence things in an unpredictable way even further (not so much for God, but for us to comprehend in terms of the best of all possible worlds regarding the PoE modification we're talking about here).

Well, since I don´t have to bother with the question how creation had to be done so that it led to the status quo, and neither do I have to explain how to create a universe that´s different from the one we see, the complexity of the task isn´t my problem. Omni-God would know how gain a different result.

If we're just talking about human freedom, again, you can't have 98% human freedom in terms of choosing some possibilities and being denied others (internally).

Of course you can. As I said already, that´s exactly what we have.

Interventions by God to limit these internal possibilities for choice means God must have a good reason, and so we're back at the PoE again.

Well, something must draw you irresistibly to the topic of "intervention" even though I have told you numerous times that this is not what I am talking about.

He couldn't have created human beings with 98% freedom. Human freedom is a purely dichotomous variable sort of thing: either people have it and therefore full sway over all the internal possibilities and can exercise it within their externally limited constraints, or they don't have it at all. That's my point in using the Roulette example: you don't have a Roulette table if it has three colors, and claiming you do is making a nonsensical statement given that the properties that define something can't be arbitrarily changed and the identity of the thing still considered the same thing.

Has been addressed in my previous post. You may want to address the points I made rather than simply ignoring them and repeat what you already said.

Again, God can intervene, but here we're at the PoE again. Along with the question of, "how do you know that God hasn't intervened in a million other cases?"

You don´t read my response, or you simply ignore them. I have addressed this point in my previous post.
Besides, and for the umpteenth time, my point is not about post creation interventions.

as well as, "how do you know that God intervening in this particular instance is, teleologically considered, the best thing out there?"

Well, in your question you asked merely what we´d prefer. Not what would be the best solution in terms of teleology.
And for the umpteenth+first time: my point is not about post creation interventions.

(IOW, suffering always has the possibility of a greater good to come from it, no matter how much logically speaking the allowed evil repulses us)

To argue from the status quo doesn´t make much sense when we are talking about alternate options. You´d have to demonstrate that omni-God couldn´t have created the universe in a way that would have made the greater good readily available without previous suffering. Which contradicts the definition of omni-God.
Plus, I didn´t talk about "evil" in general, but gave a specific example: I could easily do without the internal freedom to will to rape someone. Actually, I do have a strong inhibition to use physical violence, so it feels like I personally don´t have this internal freedom. I´m not exactly missing it, and when it comes to the "greater good" that possibly might come from having the internal freedom to will to rape someone and to do it, I must be explained what this "greater good" could be, compared to the state of not having this internal freedom. All I can think of are "greater goods" that aren´t even needed to learn or to achieve when I don´t have this freedom, in the first place.
It appears to be a variation on the good old "without problem X you wouldn´t have the opportunity to find a solution to to problem X (which, of course, you wouldn´t even need if you didn´t have the problem), therefore having problem X is a good thing".

and also, "how do you do take into account God allowing X evil without limiting Y person's freedom as unjustifiable if there is some sort of post-mortem judgment that will punish people who misuse freedom?"

You are changing the horses midstream. Your initiail question was" Would you like...?", not anything about moral justifications.


But since you asked: If your beloved freedom comes down to "You have the freedom to do what you like (within the internal and external limitations that God has imposed on you in the act of creation, that is) or you´ll be ultimately punished" I couldn´t care less for this carrot and stick "freedom". It´s a euphemism, if there ever was one.

 

[Received]

Beloved freedom.

What is a "post creation intervention" and how do you think it fails to apply to the Roulette comparison?

 

[Received]

It's not that I just "don't read your posts," quatona. It's that you, more than any other member I've ever debated with in the 12 years I've been on this site, have a profound ability to put an incredible amount of content into a collection of words. Unpackaging that can be difficult for me, and for the sake of time (considering this is a site I come to to hang out and have a good time), I make some assumptions and quick actions. Don't take it personally at all; if anything it's a compliment to your concise writing.

 

[quatona]

Beloved freedom.

What is a "post creation intervention"

I introduced this term to signify that which you keep addressing ("What could/would/should/might (has possibly already done, may possibly do in the future) God do now that he has created the world as it is?"), in contrast to that which is my point ("God could have created the world differently").
Personally, I tend to think that the "post creation" is redundant in this term, but then I am aware of all the semantics wizards around who will probably (rather than address my actual point) go to great length telling me that the creation act must be called "intervention", as well. So I felt it wouldn´t hurt and possibly help clarifying, and left it in.

and how do you think it fails to apply to the Roulette comparison?

I don´t recall that to be subject to my criticism.

 

[quatona]

It's not that I just "don't read your posts," quatona. It's that you, more than any other member I've ever debated with in the 12 years I've been on this site, have a profound ability to put an incredible amount of content into a collection of words. Unpackaging that can be difficult for me, and for the sake of time (considering this is a site I come to to hang out and have a good time), I make some assumptions and quick actions. Don't take it personally at all; if anything it's a compliment to your concise writing.

I don´t take it personally at all. I just feel sort of helpless, at times. If it´s possible for you, please don´t take my impatience personally, either.
I´m sure these conversations would take a more fruitful course if we´d have them face to face.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

And what genre(s) are the first chapters of Genesis?

"Genesis is perhaps best seen as an example of "antiquarian history", a type of literature telling of the first appearance of humans, the stories of ancestors and heroes, and the origins of culture, cities and so forth."

Van Seters, John (2004). The Pentateuch: a social-science commentary. Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN 9780567080882

 

[Received]

I introduced this term to signify that which you keep addressing ("What could/would/should/might (has possibly already done, may possibly do in the future) God do now that he has created the world as it is?"), in contrast to that which is my point ("God could have created the world differently").
Personally, I tend to think that the "post creation" is redundant in this term, but then I am aware of all the semantics wizards around who will probably (rather than address my actual point) go to great length telling me that the creation act must be called "intervention", as well. So I felt it wouldn´t hurt and possibly help clarifying, and left it in.

I don´t recall that to be subject to my criticism.

So you're saying that talking about "interventions" assumes that very world you're claiming could be created differently?

 

[foolsmind]

Wow, everyone! You rock! I wish I had time to read everyone's posts. I promis to read everything in the next week. This new job is a true blessing.

I had a good conversation with a man I work with. Here are some of his thoughts. It is very difficult to define evil, as it is often diffuse. In the presence of an evil person or situation, you feel the desire to run away, but exactly why that is is hard to point to. The effect of evil pulls you into "mind spins", thoughts that run on and on and have no end. The effect of mind spins renders you worthless to others as they pull you into yourself. No love expressed. It's impossible to consider anyone when you are caught in mind spins.

I liked his ideas. My experience tells me he was on to something. Evil doesn't have to be obvious (murder, rape, war), it just has to make you worthless to others. Evil wins.

God bless!

 

[BL2KTN]

"Genesis is perhaps best seen as an example of "antiquarian history", a type of literature telling of the first appearance of humans, the stories of ancestors and heroes, and the origins of culture, cities and so forth."

Van Seters, John (2004). The Pentateuch: a social-science commentary. Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN 9780567080882

Gotcha... antiquarian history... which means antique history, which means not actual history. Okay, so Paul was wrong then, since he took Adam's sin and subsequent fall of man to be actual history, not antiquarian history. Likewise, Jesus (Yeshua) was wrong when he referred to Noah's flood as real history, not antiquarian history. Now are we getting closer?

 

[PsychoSarah]

You have more faith than I do, because I don't believe that's possible. I'm more atheistic than an atheist?!?

By the definition of omnipotent, if god has this quality, it has no limits, nothing can be impossible for it. Of course, if you don't view god as all powerful, then my point is moot as it only applies if one considers god omnipotent.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Gotcha... antiquarian history... which means antique history, which means not actual history. Okay, so Paul was wrong then, since he took Adam's sin and subsequent fall of man to be actual history, not antiquarian history. Likewise, Jesus (Yeshua) was wrong when he referred to Noah's flood as real history, not antiquarian history. Now are we getting closer?

No.

What reason do you have for saying that antiquarian history is not "actual history"?

If we look at what antiquarian history entails, it seems that your conclusion that it is not actual history is simply unsupported.

An antiquarian or antiquary (from the Latin antiquarius, meaning pertaining to ancient times) is an aficionado or student of antiquities or things of the past. More specifically, the term is used for those who study history with particular attention to ancient artifacts, archaeological and historic sites, or historic archives and manuscripts. The essence of antiquarianism is a focus on the empirical evidence of the past, and is perhaps best encapsulated in the motto adopted by the 18th-century antiquary, Sir Richard Colt Hoare, "We speak from facts not theory".

Antiquarian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

By the definition of omnipotent, if god has this quality, it has no limits, nothing can be impossible for it. Of course, if you don't view god as all powerful, then my point is moot as it only applies if one considers god omnipotent.

Do you have a reference for this definition? Perhaps from a philosophy of religion encyclopedia or something similar?

 

[ihavefoundgod951]

Have you ever noticed when you take a "o" away from "good" it makes "God" and when you add a "D" to "Evil " it makes "Devil"

Freaky huh

 

[BL2KTN]

No.

What reason do you have for saying that antiquarian history is not "actual history"?

If we look at what antiquarian history entails, it seems that your conclusion that it is not actual history is simply unsupported.

An antiquarian or antiquary (from the Latin antiquarius, meaning pertaining to ancient times) is an aficionado or student of antiquities or things of the past. More specifically, the term is used for those who study history with particular attention to ancient artifacts, archaeological and historic sites, or historic archives and manuscripts. The essence of antiquarianism is a focus on the empirical evidence of the past, and is perhaps best encapsulated in the motto adopted by the 18th-century antiquary, Sir Richard Colt Hoare, "We speak from facts not theory".

Antiquarian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's actually quite funny. You think an antiquarian (a person who studies and knows about very old things) is the same as antiquarian history (a history which is old and not actual). That's very funny.

How old are you, Jeremy?