RE: Problem of Divine Freedom
April 17, 2014 at 7:09 pm
(This post was last modified: April 17, 2014 at 7:23 pm by fr0d0.)
(April 17, 2014 at 8:11 am)MindForgedManacle Wrote:(April 17, 2014 at 5:34 am)fr0d0 Wrote: God can't do evil, because he is good. Good is his most basic property. If a positive ion couldn't change into a negative ion, then God would be the positive ion. The negative ion exists as a natural counterpart, but is never the positive ion.
You're contradicting yourself. If God is good and cannot change, it is because the inability to changenis his most basic property, not goodness.
Quote:1. For an agent to be morally good it must be free to act.
2. God is an agent for good
3. God is free to act as his nature dictates
That is a logically invalid argument. Abstracted, it takes this form:
If A, then B;
B;
Therefore A.
There is a clear affirmation of the consequent in premise #2. Secondly, there is an equivocation between #1 and #3. You're equivocating between "free to act" (which is libertarian free will) and "free to act as his nature disctates" (which is compatibilist free will).
Quote:Morality isn't applicable where there is no choice to do evil.
...That was part of my point. Without the possibility of choosing to do evil, God cannot be said to be morally good. If you disagree with this, that means you cannot accept Plantinga's Free Will Defense, which is founded on this very premise.
You mistakenly assumed that my points were meant to provide a logical premise. They were no such thing.
How can God change his most basic property?
Yes I agree. How can God be 'morally' good. He is simply 'good'. Our moral sense (attained through an ability to discern good and bad) can determine his goodness.
(April 17, 2014 at 8:26 am)Senshi Wrote:(April 17, 2014 at 6:49 am)fr0d0 Wrote: God is limited by logic.
If God knew that the children were innocent he wouldn't have killed them. As you can't know if they were innocent then you don't have enough knowledge to make that statement.
"God is limited by logic."
Therefore he is not above the rule of law, again implying he is not all powerful.
Do you seriously believe that children can be held responsible for 'sinful' actions, how about toddlers and babies? Do you believe the ones that died in the flood died because they weren't innocent?
God cannot be above logic, no. "All powerful" does not mean illogical. That would be nonsense.
How do you know that children couldn't be guilty? If you are not capable of knowing everything then how are you judging this?
(April 17, 2014 at 2:30 pm)FreeTony Wrote:(April 17, 2014 at 6:49 am)fr0d0 Wrote: But this is the first cause. If there were anything negative about it nothing would have been created.
So you're using positive = good and negative = evil?
You still haven't explained why an evil and/or negative God can't create something.
A first cause is necessarily positive. A negative cause cannot take away from nothing. Assuming a singularity... that had to be a positive force.
A "negative God" couldn't therefore be first cause... the original creator. Something would have to precede him.
Yes, positive/ good
(April 17, 2014 at 5:51 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:Quote:To create necessitates a positive force.
But God created evil. Isn't this somewhat less positive than NOT creating evil?
Even if we accept (which I do not) that human beings, as ostensibly free moral agents, are responsible for moral evil, there is also natural evil to consider. I find it difficult to imagine that the creator of the Universe can NOT be held responsible for natural evil.
Boru
I don't think that humans are responsible for moral evil. Negativity is a natural phenomenon opposing positivity. The biblical story attempts to illustrate the reality.
