Plantinga's "Free Will" defense contradicts Christianity

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

That's theologians for you - always going about telling God what to do.

Boru

edit:  Physicists too, come to think of it.

OFC.  All theology is an attempt to put boundary conditions on the divine.  Within the context of plantingas christian god there would be a logical contradiction unless some caveat of necessity discharged the moral responsibilities god has by virtue of his nature.

Or, in simpler terms.....god would be logically inconsistent with itself - shorthand for nonexistent in rational theology.  Hence, the necessity of theodicy and defense.

Agreed, and I think that's largely the trouble.  I'm perfectly happy to accept the premise that God is unable to act in a manner inconsistent with his nature, but theologians are continually tinkering with God's nature until they get something they're comfortable with.  Then they publish it and the kerfuffle starts all over.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

God beliefs have to innovate to compete, like any other product in the marketplace. Plantinga, though, is geared toward a stable feature of christian belief. That their god is smart, powerful, and good.

In a way, plantingas defense is a brave entry in an otherwise less-than-credible pursuit. It takes intellectual and moral rigor to hold your own god up to at least the standards of man, declare it's inactivity a potential moral failure, and discharge that failure by insisting that god is incompetent. The reason it's considered a successful defense, when nothing in theodicy is considered as much, is because it actually makes sense. As unflattering a picture as it paints, it at least follows from premises that anyone can accept, with no invocation of impenetrable mystery, and staring straight at the problem rather than sweeping it under some rug.

[John 6IX Breezy]

I don't know much about theologians, but I think that's neither a behavior exclusive to theology nor a bad thing. People understand things by making sense of them. Tinkering and raising conditions are part of that process.

[ColdComfort]

Okay. You may have a point. Nevertheless eliminating the type of male desire (it's always a man)  to torture women for sexual pleasure does not seem to involve any logical contradiction and thus God could have done it without interfering with that individuals free will. I'm not that interested in the whole issue because God is under no compulsion or obligation to create the best of all possible worlds. I don't think he did but there is no conclusion about the nature or existence of God to be drawn from that. This whole debate seems the purview of Deists. As you already pointed out once the philosophical debate doesn't fit hand in glove with Revelation where after all we have the Fall, Original Sin and Jesus , in His human nature, being brutally and unjustly executed.

Well, at least we can agree on something - the described torture and murder of Jesus is one of the worst stories in religion (all religions, not just yours).  Good thing it never happened, innit?

Boru

Sorry, how are we in agreement?

[The Grand Nudger]

The brutal and unjust execution of some rabbi.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Well, at least we can agree on something - the described torture and murder of Jesus is one of the worst stories in religion (all religions, not just yours).  Good thing it never happened, innit?

Boru

Sorry, how are we in agreement?

Yeah, what GB said. I’ve always felt that torture and crucifixion were a little excessive for preaching without a permit.


Boru

[Abaddon_ire]

I think it's generally good to view most brain injuries and diseases, even those stemming from genetic or behaviors such as drug use, as either hijacking, exploiting, or limiting what the brain does naturally. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't know any disorder that adds a behavior that isn't already possible in a healthy brain. Drugs and diseases are using the same colors to make a different painting.

Everything that's good can be used for evil. Your immune system fights off pathogens, but if it no longer recognizes your native cells you get an autoimmune disorder. The same hands that can be used for building houses can be used for breaking necks. Evil can always be possible because things that are designed for good can always be misplaced.

Perhaps the only way to design an organism incapable of evil is to create an organism that has no autonomy, no behaviors, and no functions.

Okay. You may have a point. Nevertheless eliminating the type of male desire (it's always a man)  to torture women for sexual pleasure does not seem to involve any logical contradiction and thus God could have done it without interfering with that individuals free will.

Because women have no sexual desire at all? Ever? Of any sort? Boy have you led a sheltered life.

I'm not that interested in the whole issue because God is under no compulsion or obligation to create the best of all possible worlds.

So he could have created the best possible universe, but chose intentionally not to do so?

I don't think he did but there is no conclusion about the nature or existence of God to be drawn from that.

Wrong. One can conclude from that that god intentionally inflicted suffering because he merely felt like doing so and is thus a sadist.

This whole debate seems the purview of Deists. As you already pointed out once the philosophical debate doesn't fit hand in glove with Revelation where after all we have the Fall, Original Sin and Jesus , in His human nature, being brutally and unjustly executed.

Nope. Inconvenienced for a weekend at best. Not much of a sacrifice, is it?

Besides, "original sin" is an idea that is insidious and scurrilous at best. It has some unfortunate consequences. Child murder being one obvious one.