Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What I meant was we can consider that God created all events before time began
including what you will ask of him tomorrow.
And we can look to God and do as He asks us tomorrow.
But we cannot reconcile the two processes and think that we have no choices.
We do. It just so happens that God knows those choices.
Was this still on the first page, or was a chance at necromancy that hard to pass up on?
I'm terribly sorry, but I don't understand what you meant by this. If you could please elaborate, I might be able to answer.
Sorry, allow me to explain.
When it comes to internet, there are some unspoken rules (etiquette). For internet forums, one of those rules is reviving old threads that have no new posts for a while. This is referred to thread necromancy. The conversation has run its course and the thread has "died". You aren't supposed to bring back the dead because the topic has passed. It pushes down threads that are currently alive.
I prefer to consider living in time as living within the pages of a book that is already written.What I meant was we can consider that God created all events before time began
including what you will ask of him tomorrow.
And we can look to God and do as He asks us tomorrow.
But we cannot reconcile the two processes and think that we have no choices.
We do. It just so happens that God knows those choices.
I prefer to consider living in time as living within the pages of a book that is already written. In other words, God is without time, and the world then is like a book about time on His timeless shelf. Which, of course, means that He knows the end because He is the Author of the book, and we do not...simply because we have not read it all the way through to the end.
Ah, I see. Well, as you could probably tell, I don't have much experience with forums. Aside from general courtesy I'm a bit unaware of them. I apologize for any disturbance or annoyance it may have caused, so far as I knew I was just commenting on an interesting thread. Thanks for the heads-up!
That implication would have the disciples at odds with the scriptures...which has happened historically among disciples. But would not be the case with Christ.That matches how scripture explains it. On the other hand, the disciples were
instructed to go preach the gospel to the world. This implies that everything
written could possibly be changed. This idea is covered extensively:
http://biblehub.net/search.php?q=erased
That implication would have the disciples at odds with the scriptures...which has happened historically among disciples. But would not be the case with Christ.
The idea that things can be changed, or even that God can have a change of heart - is simply misunderstood. These changes simply "tell the story" of the changes that occur within the story in chronological order. Change - even God changing His mind - is the story...so of course it is going to be in there!
Imagine, you making up (creating) a story in your mind that has a timeline - would it ever actually have a timeline, if you yourself did not? No, the whole thing would be contrived...which is simply what is meant by "created" in His "image" (His minds eye).Hmm...interesting book analogy above. I suppose my only question would be "If time exists as a creation of God, then could God destroy time and make it as though it never existed?"
It seems to me that God in His necessity is eternal, and yet by creating time, He either binds Himself to it, or perhaps is bound by a higher form of time than ours, a meta-universal time of some sort.
Here, I will try to clearly articulate a common argument against the existence of God, the free will defense, and a reply to said defense. I will then argue that if you accept the premises of the argument relating to the nature of God, then you must follow the conclusion that God cannot exist. You will notice that put the word "logical" in the thread title. This simply means the version of the problem of evil being discussed tries to show God is logically incompatible with the existence of evil. In other words, the definition of God cannot coexist with the current (and present) existence of evil because their mutual existence logically contradict each other, much like a square-circle cannot exist.
To start:
1) Evil and suffering exists. (Justificaiton: prima facie true.)
2) God exist, a being who is: (Justification: Assumption)
a)omnipotent (able to do all things logically possible),
b)omniscient (knows all true and false propositions), and
c)omnibelevolent (wills the highest good of the other agent. For example, this
highest good can be achieving a relationship with God and getting into heaven).
3) The good agent wants to avoid as much evil and suffering as possible; the good agent wants avoid all unnecessary evil. For example, if the agent wants to teach someone something important, he strive for the path that causes the least amount of unnecessary suffering. If the agent can either teach me through non-painful tutoring or painful torture, the agent will always choose non-painful tutoring. (Jusitifcation: prima facie true)
4) God wants to avoid all unnecessary evil and suffering in achieving just ends; any unnecessary evil will be stopped by God. (Justification: 2c)
5) There exists no necessary evils in our world. (Jusitifcation: 2a and 2b. God can always teach us through non-painful ways, for example. There is no just end being served in allowing the torture of innocent people)
6) Therefore, God is incompatible with the existence of evil. Because evil clearly exists, God cannot exist. (Justification: All)
The obvious response is to reject Premise 5 and claim that God must respect the free will of agents as a necessary evil to achieve the just end of freedom. Here, I will respond to this claim.
1) God has divine-foreknowledge of the actions of free creatures. In other words, God knows what an agent with free will ultimately chooses before that agent even actually exists. God knows if I will freely rob the bank or refrain from do so, for example. (Justification: God's omniscience).
2) Mackie's world is possible. Mackie's world is a possible world where all free agents choose to do the morally good action with every choice. In other words, no one does anything evil, so evil does not exist. (Justification: prima facie true. Though it seems improbable and odd, it is logically conceivable, so it is, therefore, logically possible. There is no reason to believe such a world is not possible.)
3) God can actualize Mackie's world. (Justification: Premise 1, God's omnipotence and omniscience. God is aware of Mackie's world and create said world, as God can create all logically possible worlds).
4) Therefore, the free will defense does not stand, as the existence of free will does not necessitate evil existing. God could have created a possible world with both free will and no evil.
I admit that Premise 1 of the second argument is questionable. If you believe God cannot know actions that result from free will before they happen, then the argument does not apply to you. However, if you accept this premise, please explain where this Argument from Evil fails.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "negative motivators".
Mackie's world is a world where agents have the possibility to do either wrong or right. For example, in both Mackie's world and our world, someone can either freely choose to steal something or refrain from doing so. The difference between the two is that, in Mackie's world, all agents always pick the morally good option. Their free will is never questioned nor diminished. It's just that they always happen to exercise their free will to do the right thing.
The odd thing is that God is supposed to have created heaven, in which there is no evil, and heaven is the ultimate objective for human souls(?), so an omnibenevolent God could avoid the preceding Earthly evil, but this God doesn't. The argument that we must experience the moral and natural evils of time on Earth in order to be ready for heaven doesn't hold good for an omniscient God who would know precisely how such experience would affect us and, being omnipotent, could create beings with such character traits built-in, without having them suffer for them.While such a world is logically possible, such a world may not be feasible for God to create if God has certain ends in mind for creating other than just creating a world wherein there is no evil.
Omnibenevolence would appear to be a constraint from creating the natural, if not the moral, evils of this world.I see no reason to think that God would somehow be constrained from creating this world in which we live.
The odd thing is that God is supposed to have created heaven, in which there is no evil, and heaven is the ultimate objective for human souls(?),
Earth is not heaven.so an omnibenevolent God could avoid the preceding Earthly evil, but this God doesn't.
The argument that we must experience the moral and natural evils of time on Earth in order to be ready for heaven doesn't hold good for an omniscient God
who would know precisely how such experience would affect us and, being omnipotent, could create beings with such character traits built-in, without having them suffer for them.
Does one still have free will in heaven?
Omnibenevolence would appear to be a constraint from creating the natural, if not the moral, evils of this world.
Hmm...interesting book analogy above. I suppose my only question would be "If time exists as a creation of God, then could God destroy time and make it as though it never existed?"
It seems to me that God in His necessity is eternal, and yet by creating time, He either binds Himself to it, or perhaps is bound by a higher form of time than ours, a meta-universal time of some sort.
Here, I will try to clearly articulate a common argument against the existence of God, the free will defense, and a reply to said defense. I will then argue that if you accept the premises of the argument relating to the nature of God, then you must follow the conclusion that God cannot exist. You will notice that put the word "logical" in the thread title. This simply means the version of the problem of evil being discussed tries to show God is logically incompatible with the existence of evil. In other words, the definition of God cannot coexist with the current (and present) existence of evil because their mutual existence logically contradict each other, much like a square-circle cannot exist.
To start:
1) Evil and suffering exists. (Justificaiton: prima facie true.)
2) God exist, a being who is: (Justification: Assumption)
a)omnipotent (able to do all things logically possible),
b)omniscient (knows all true and false propositions), and
c)omnibelevolent (wills the highest good of the other agent. For example, this
highest good can be achieving a relationship with God and getting into heaven).
3) The good agent wants to avoid as much evil and suffering as possible; the good agent wants avoid all unnecessary evil. For example, if the agent wants to teach someone something important, he strive for the path that causes the least amount of unnecessary suffering. If the agent can either teach me through non-painful tutoring or painful torture, the agent will always choose non-painful tutoring. (Jusitifcation: prima facie true)
4) God wants to avoid all unnecessary evil and suffering in achieving just ends; any unnecessary evil will be stopped by God. (Justification: 2c)
5) There exists no necessary evils in our world. (Jusitifcation: 2a and 2b. God can always teach us through non-painful ways, for example. There is no just end being served in allowing the torture of innocent people)
6) Therefore, God is incompatible with the existence of evil. Because evil clearly exists, God cannot exist. (Justification: All)
The obvious response is to reject Premise 5 and claim that God must respect the free will of agents as a necessary evil to achieve the just end of freedom. Here, I will respond to this claim.
1) God has divine-foreknowledge of the actions of free creatures. In other words, God knows what an agent with free will ultimately chooses before that agent even actually exists. God knows if I will freely rob the bank or refrain from do so, for example. (Justification: God's omniscience).
2) Mackie's world is possible. Mackie's world is a possible world where all free agents choose to do the morally good action with every choice. In other words, no one does anything evil, so evil does not exist. (Justification: prima facie true. Though it seems improbable and odd, it is logically conceivable, so it is, therefore, logically possible. There is no reason to believe such a world is not possible.)
3) God can actualize Mackie's world. (Justification: Premise 1, God's omnipotence and omniscience. God is aware of Mackie's world and create said world, as God can create all logically possible worlds).
4) Therefore, the free will defense does not stand, as the existence of free will does not necessitate evil existing. God could have created a possible world with both free will and no evil.
I admit that Premise 1 of the second argument is questionable. If you believe God cannot know actions that result from free will before they happen, then the argument does not apply to you. However, if you accept this premise, please explain where this Argument from Evil fails.
The odd thing is that God is supposed to have created heaven, in which there is no evil, and heaven is the ultimate objective for human souls(?), so an omnibenevolent God could avoid the preceding Earthly evil, but this God doesn't. The argument that we must experience the moral and natural evils of time on Earth in order to be ready for heaven doesn't hold good for an omniscient God who would know precisely how such experience would affect us and, being omnipotent, could create beings with such character traits built-in, without having them suffer for them.
Does one still have free will in heaven?
Omnibenevolence would appear to be a constraint from creating the natural, if not the moral, evils of this world.
That's what the priests taught me at school. I naturally assumed they ought to know...Why do you think heaven is the ultimate objective for humans? Why think that there is even such a thing as an ultimate objective for human beings to begin with?
Quite; that's the point.Earth is not heaven.
And God did not have to create the earth.
It's an argument that has been made in these forums.Who made that argument? I certainly haven't.
Other Christians have.It's a good thing I'm not making that argument.
If God existed and created evil, then He would not be omnibenevolent, but why a God would create evil is a horrible mystery to me.Why do you think God created evil?
It's the traditional problem of evil that remains unanswered. By definition, an omnibenevolent entity is all good, not least in action; such an entity cannot condone or be responsible for evil through its own action or inaction. This world is rife with natural (and moral) evils. Therefore this world cannot be the result of the action of an omnibenevolent entity, and such an entity would, if able, act to prevent those evils. An omnipotent omnibenevolent entity would be able to so act.Why think God being omnibenevolent would preclude Him from creating this world? Where are your implicit premises?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?