My views on objective morality
March 11, 2016 at 10:39 am
(This post was last modified: March 11, 2016 at 11:05 am by LadyForCamus.)
(March 11, 2016 at 10:01 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: Is "free will" a proper defense against the problem of evil. Christians say that it is. However it's not entirely clear why. If it's a good that justifies the acceptance of some evil, then that runs into LadyforCamus' objection. The other possibility I see is that by allowing free will, humans become the responsible party in any evil transaction and it's no longer God's duty to stop them, as doing so would be an unreasonable restraint on their free will. However, God denies us certain actions by design, why would disallowing rape, either by intervention or design, be an unreasonable restraint? Is free will not free will if you are denied the option of evil?
Is there a version of this argument from free will which lets God off the hook.
(As an observation on the thread, I did not clearly see why people were claiming C_L was complicitous in rape until LfC clarified her objection to the line of reasoning at my request. So it's entirely possible that C_L simply didn't understand why people were leveling their charges at her.)
Yeah, I definitely think a misunderstanding on both ends was part of it, Jor. But, I admit I got unnecessarily aggressive in my language at certain points in the discussion. Angry due to subject matter which is not CL's fault because I don't think she was the one who even brought it up, and angry/frustrated at not being able to understand a line of reasoning. Which always irritates me.
I'm not sure there is a way to let God off the hook here. As you and others have mentioned, our free will is restrained in so many other ways. And FFS, being omniscient and all he theoretically could see we would end up as barbaric fucktards in our current state of design.
Why not use his omnipotence to, as you said, design us as benevolent creatures without violent impulses? I think we COULD still be considered as having free will in such a case. Our will simply would not include desires to physically harm each other. It's certainly a more palatable alternative for the free will proponents to consider, as opposed to God literally freezing someone's limbs to prevent them from committing an evil act.
P.s. My autocorrect highlighted "fucktards" as a misspelled word, and corrected it to "fucktarded." I think Evie has been messing with my iPad when I'm not looking!
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.