Problem of Divine Freedom

[archangle]

There was a thread about the Problem of Heaven in the Christianity section, so I'd thought I'd bring up a related counter-apologetic here: The Problem of Divine Freedom.

1) For an agent to be morally good, that agent must possess libertarian free will and thus the capacity to do evil. [Plantinga's Free Will Defense]

2) God is an agent, yet cannot do evil. [Common theological position/Divine Command Theory]

3) Therefore God does not have libertarian free will or moral goodness.

Now one response I anticipate is the claim that God could do evil, but he simply chooses not to do it. Despite being in contradiction with Divine Command theory, this makes it mysterious as to why God created beings who had the ability to do evil, and whom inevitably do so. After all, it's logically possible for God to have actualized the possible world where agents with libertarian free will never do evil.

he can't?
how do they know?

who's decides what is "evil" ... humans? really?

a friggin ape knows whats best?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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

[fr0d0]

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.

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).

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.

---

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?

---

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

---

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.

[Senshi]

"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?

No one said illogical but you! God being under the rule of law implies there is a governance greater than him which determines what he cannot, therefore he does not have absolute control over the universe, HE CANNOT CHANGE THESE LAWS

How can you blame an undeveloped mind? We don't hold the insane accountable for their actions because they lack the ability to make sound judgments or monitor their behavior. There is nothing immoral or sinful about anything a baby or a toddler can possibly do, even if it results in people dying.

[fr0d0]

No one said illogical but you! God being under the rule of law implies there is a governance greater than him which determines what he cannot, therefore he does not have absolute control over the universe, HE CANNOT CHANGE THESE LAWS

How can you blame an undeveloped mind? We don't hold the insane accountable for their actions because they lack the ability to make sound judgments or monitor their behavior. There is nothing immoral or sinful about anything a baby or a toddler can possibly do, even if it results in people dying.

The law of logic doesn't need to preexist. any illogical creator couldn't possibly exist. I never mentioned "absolute control" as if logically consistent wasn't important.

Again, how do you know? Can you see the future? Can God?

[Senshi]

No one said illogical but you! God being under the rule of law implies there is a governance greater than him which determines what he cannot, therefore he does not have absolute control over the universe, HE CANNOT CHANGE THESE LAWS

How can you blame an undeveloped mind? We don't hold the insane accountable for their actions because they lack the ability to make sound judgments or monitor their behavior. There is nothing immoral or sinful about anything a baby or a toddler can possibly do, even if it results in people dying.

The law of logic doesn't need to preexist. any illogical creator couldn't possibly exist. I never mentioned "absolute control" as if logically consistent wasn't important.

Again, how do you know? Can you see the future? Can God?

Again, no one said anything about it pre-existing or illogical but you! Without unconditional control over the universe the creator's role and level of power is questionable.

Are you implying that all of the babies and toddlers that died in the flood would grow up to be sinners? Well guess what it still doesn't make any sense even if that is the case. We're all "sinners" so killing them is still unjustified.

[fr0d0]

So what are you saying preexists the creator? I've already said that absolute control is nonsense and why.

Again, how do you know enough to judge? If in a species of ants a malignant disease affected all but 10 and killing the rest saved the species... would you kill all but the 10 to save them? And would your action be just?

[RobbyPants]

Who cares. This argument only applies to an omni-benevolent god, which is only believed in by a fairly small minority of the theists that have ever existed.

Are you saying that "when backed into a corner, a typical theist will admit God isn't omnibenevolent" or "most theists already don't believe in an omnibenevolent god"? While it's anecdotal, almost every Christian I've encountered makes the assumption that God is all good. When backed into a corner, they either stop answering questions, or redefine "all good" to include some very creepy things and still maintain God is all good.

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.

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

Morality isn't applicable where there is no choice to do evil.

Why not make all people intrinsically good, then, too? If the answer to that question is "to know that we love him" and God is defined as "good", then part of the definition of "good" is "purposefully putting sentient beings in a situation where they will suffer for purely selfish reasons".

[fr0d0]

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.

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

Morality isn't applicable where there is no choice to do evil.

Why not make all people intrinsically good, then, too? If the answer to that question is "to know that we love him" and God is defined as "good", then part of the definition of "good" is "purposefully putting sentient beings in a situation where they will suffer for purely selfish reasons".

We have an inbuilt moral sense > we can know what good is. This is what sentience is.

Part of the definition of good is that whatever you create at the same time a force exists to destroy it. That's the logical existence we inhabit.

[Senshi]

So what are you saying preexists the creator? I've already said that absolute control is nonsense and why.

Again, how do you know enough to judge? If in a species of ants a malignant disease affected all but 10 and killing the rest saved the species... would you kill all but the 10 to save them? And would your action be just?

No you didn't say why! Now that we got this far and both agree god doesn't have absolute control let's ask the next question. Is god all knowing?

A disease is a bad analogy, because everyone is still affected by the disease 'sin' so the cleansing efforts went to waste. And, finally if god knows the future 1. why would he wait and ask them to repent again and again if he knew they wouldn't 2. why would god not kill off the first few ants who spread the disease before he would have to do something like a great flood?