You can't simply define a term in such a way that your opponent's claim is false by definition. — Michael
You can't simply dismiss my definition without providing another one. — unenlightened
You have to actually show that the things that the free will theodicist is referring to when he talks about evil (e.g. murder) actually are unjustifiable, and so actually are evil. — Michael
I don't think any freewill theodicist thinks murder is justifiable, or not evil. Perhaps you could cite one? — unenlightened
As for thinking murder justifiable or not, this is ambiguous. A better phrasing would be "the existence of murder is justifiable". And that's exactly what the free will defence claims; that the existence of murder is justified (on the grounds that free will is a good). — Michael
It's really suspicious that the argument ends up with God's mysterious ways. — Marchesk
The whole belief in the existence of God is based in the assumption that the universe behaves in "mysterious ways". Nor should it appear as a cop out, because until human beings are omniscient, there will always be "mysterious" things out there. — Metaphysician Undercover
Imagine you are the government and the wealthy, with excess resources and the power to direct them to create more resources and social well-being, yet when they question coms about what you should do you say: "Ehhhh, I'm just going to nothing. That riff raft just keeps making bad decisions. If only they would make the right choice, direct themselves properly, to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, they could be prosperous like me." It's utter libertarian bullshit. — TheWillowOfDarkness
The problem isn't assuming that God would do things we don't understand. The problem is when you combine an omni-good god with the existence of an imperfect creation, specifically evil.
It's a cop out to say that such a God must have a reason for allowing evil, but we can't state what it is. The reasonable conclusion is that such a being doesn't exist, and if there is a God, humans have incorrectly ascribed ridiculous attributes to such a being. — Marchesk
And if God doesn't see them as evil, why should he prevent them? — Metaphysician Undercover
All that's fine and dandy, but then why would the theist call God, "good", since being good is based on our conception of good and not God's. — Marchesk
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either God is perfectly good in a meaningful sense to us, or we shouldn't use "good" as a description of God. So the price of using this line of argument for the FWD is God's goodness, so far as we understand the word. — Marchesk
All that's fine and dandy, but then why would the theist call God, "good", since being good is based on our conception of good and not God's. — Marchesk
Yet the God of monotheistic religions is said to permit this sort of behavior from us because of free will. Slavery, genocide, war, child soldiers, rape, etc. is allowed to take place, even though God is good and able to prevent them.
We do not define "good" and then ascertain whether God satisfies that definition, we ascertain what God is like and then define "good" accordingly.
"Is the pious (τὸ ὅσιον) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?
The theist calls God "good" because whatever God is, that is what is good. We do not define "good" and then ascertain whether God satisfies that definition, we ascertain what God is like and then define "good" accordingly. — aletheist
Sounds to me like: "Is the pious (τὸ ὅσιον) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" — Cavacava
So what is God? Well, for one he's omnipotent. Therefore we define "good" as "omnipotent"? Obviously that doesn't work. — Michael
No, we characterize God's omnipotence as good. By analogy, our own abilities are also good - including free will, even though (unlike God) we exercise it in ways that are not good. — aletheist
The term 'good' losses its meaning without the concept/experience of 'evil', they co-implicate each other. Imagine that you were in a world where only good could possibly happen, if so then what's good would be the way things are, it would have no differential — Cavacava
But you said that we define "good" according to the nature of God. If it's God's nature to be omnipotent then we define "good" as "omnipotent". So what's wrong here? — Michael
There's no cop out, it's just that most human beings really don't understand "evil". Do you understand evil? — Metaphysician Undercover
Perhaps formulating my previous response as a syllogism will help you see your mistake.
Whatever is consistent with God's nature is good.
God's omnipotence is consistent with God's nature.
Therefore, God's omnipotence is good. — aletheist
Not being able to name the good seems like a small price to pay for not having to suffer.
A world where only good actions are possible is impossible in principle because if it were so, we would no longer be capable of making a mistake, we would no longer be human. Instead of free agency, we would be fully determined to act in a certain manner. — Cavacava
And what's wrong with that? Isn't that what it's like for God? A perfectly good God has no free will to do evil. — Marchesk
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.