God ever put us in a state of free will? Less good comes of it because it results in some good souls unnecessarily experiencing evil done to them on earth, and it results in some souls choosing evil and not receiving a good, eternal life with God. — Relativist
1. Logical contradictions do not exist. — Relativist
That is certainly a distinction, and any distinction can provide an escape hatch. That's why I don't suggest my arguments could convince a committed Christian - they can always resort to "God moves in mysterious ways." Arguments such as mine are only relevant to someone who is actually willing to entertain the possibility that a 3-omni God does not exist. The real lesson is that such a God's non-existence seems more likely than his existence.it is enough for an apologist that the qualified being once had free will.
Yes I know. As a former RC I find myself constantly being tempted to correct people that say or imply that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception says that Mary conceived Jesus without having sexual intercourse - a temptation I often fail to resist :snicker:. The question I'm raising there is whether proponents of the free will theodicy defence are cornering themselves into saying Mary had no free will, since removing a tendency to commit 'sins' (shielding her conception from the taint of original sin) sounds to me like depriving them of free will. After all, if God could do that for Mary, why didn't She just do it for everybody, and that way make sure that everybody goes to heaven?BTW, Mary being "immaculate" just means she was born without original sin (see this) — Relativist
2. If x exists then x is metaphysically possible (converse of 1) — Relativist
Because if you have free will you have to sin. — GreyScorpio
1. An object that is describable as a logical contradiction is metaphysically impossible. (e.g. square circles are metaphysically impossible) — Relativist
Abstractions are a special kind of existent, and one can argue that they do not actually exist. e.g. circles do not actually exist; rather, circular objects exist from which we abstract out the concept of circular via the way of abstraction — Relativist
This seems a digression. At issue is: what non-mental objects exist? Contradictions exist only as mental objects. — Relativist
The argument from evil is an inference that a 3- omni God cannot exist, because this is inconsistent with the presence of so much evil in the world. Theists reject this with the "free-will" defense, which suggests that God "had" to allow evil because it is a necessary consequence of free will. My argument defeats this defense based in Christian doctrine: — Relativist
Minimizing law heads humans in the direction of natural instinct, where good and evil disappear. — wellwisher
The argument from evil is an inference that a 3- omni God cannot exist, because this is inconsistent with the presence of so much evil in the world. Theists reject this with the "free-will" defense, which suggests that God "had" to allow evil because it is a necessary consequence of free will. My argument defeats this defense based in Christian doctrine: — Relativist
." I suggest that a physical world is a logical-system, consisting of abstract logical implications that just 'are'."
.That doesn't make any sense.
.Logic is an epistemological tool;
.it applies to propositions (descriptions of some aspects of reality) not to the ontic objects of reality.
.If there are no intelligent minds articulating descriptions of reality, then there are no propositions
.(except in some abstract sense that every aspect of the world is describable, in principle).
."Anyway, when the "problem of evil" is stated, there's over-emphasis on this physical world and its importance. Sure, this life matters, in the sense that how we conduct ourselves in it matters.
.
But this life and this world are a blip in timelessness. In fact, the long but finite sequence of lives that you're in is likewise only a blip in timelessness."
.That seems a self-defeating position. Why bother continuing to live, and to improve your life and that of your loved ones?
.More importantly, why did God bother to put us into this hellhole (as it is for some, at least)? Did he want some maleficent amusement?
This is the heart of the problem of evil. We see evil all around us, with no apparent good coming out of it. A committed Christian can always rationalize it in terms of God "having a plan" beyond our understanding, but that is a non-answer to the question of "why?" The simplest answer to the " why? " is: the Creator is indifferent or he lacks the ability to prevent it. So while I acknowledge that strong faith can provide a reason to reject the argument from evil, it doesnt satisfy those who develop doubt and seriously entertain the possibility there is no God. — Relativist
"We see evil all around us, with no apparent good coming out of it." — FreeEmotion
The greater good defense is more often argued in religious studies in response to the evidential version of the problem of evil,[35] while the free will defense is usually discussed in the context of the logical version.[36] Most scholars criticize the skeptical theism defense as "devaluing the suffering" and not addressing the premise that God is all-benevolent and should be able to stop all suffering and evil, rather than play a balancing act.[37]
.My statement doesn’t depend on materialism being true – e.g. minds can exist as immaterial entities without entailing logic having an ontic status.
.It’s undeniable that logic is an epistemological tool since it provides a means to infer propositional truths from prior truths. That fact doesn’t preclude it being something more than that, but you need to make a case for it.
.Michael Ossipoff: “Uncontroversially, there are abstract facts, in the sense that we can state them or speak of them.”
.
100 years after the big bang, no one was around to state, speak, or contemplate any such abstract facts. Did abstract facts exist at that time?
.My point is that these “facts” of which you speak are merely descriptive
., and reality exists with or without it actually being described.
.If you have a different view, then make a case for it.
.Michael Ossipoff: “There’s no physics experiment that can establish or suggest that this physical world is other than that. As Michael Faraday pointed out in 1844, physics experiments detect and measure logical/mathematical relational structure, but don’t establish some sort of objective reality for “stuff “.
Physics pertains to physical relations among ontic objects
., relations that are describable in mathematical terms. These physical relations do not exist independently of the objects that have them.
.Michael Ossipoff:” there’s no justification for claiming that all of the true abstract facts would suddenly become false if all conscious beings were to somehow vanish.”
Relations exist as constituents of states of affairs
., and we can think abstractly about these relations but that doesn’t imply the relations actually exist independent of the states of affairs in which they are actualized.
.Michael Ossipoff: “What it means is that you needn’t worry about it, complain about it, or agonize about it.”
Your assertion isn’t the least persuasive, and in fact it merely seems dismissive – since you aren’t actually confronting the issues.
.Michael Ossipoff: “I take it that you’re referring to the God that you believe in”
No, I’m referring to a God that is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
.It seems unlikely that such a God could exist given the gratuitous suffering that exists in the world.
I don’t claim that your notion of God makes sense.Michael Ossipoff: “Don’t glibly make statements about the indescribable, as by attributing those inevitable abstract implications to God’s will or making. Don’t be so quick to blame God for your being in this life that you wanted or needed.”
.
I don’t blame a God for anything. What I do is to draw inferences about what sort of God makes sense. Given the nature of the world: a 3-omni God doesn’t make much sense.
.Michael Ossipoff: “… however bad this planet’s societal situation is (and it is bad), worldly incarnated-life is just a blip in timelessness. …so you’re making too much of it.”
It seems to me that you make too little of it.
.You haven’t really addressed the issue of the problem of evil
., you just assert it’s [referring to the “problem of evil”] not a big deal.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.