RE: The free will argument demonstrates that christians don't understand free will.
April 30, 2014 at 6:53 pm
@Esquilax
While interesting, the examples you, Esq., provide (the misfired gun & flaccid rapist) are not enough by themselves to validate the premise that an all-knowing, beneficent, and all-powerful god could actually create a perfect world (whatever that means) And your idea of a perfect world seems vague and not particularly well thought out. The potential rape victim is spared, but what happens to the frustrated rapist. Being thwarted and frustrated, even from a wicked desire, is also a form of suffering. To remove all frustration means preventing people from desiring what they cannot have without causing harm to themselves and others. So let’s see where that line of reasoning leads…
Anyone can see that the use of goods can be perverted. Fire is useful for heating and cooking. Fire can also be used with malice or fraud by an arsonist. The intellect can make plans for a bridge or planning a heist. Therefore the first requirement of a perfect world is that all humans must be completely benevolent so as not to intentionally misuse their abilities. To be completely benevolent, a human must only love what is good above all else and accept what is true. In Christianity, the Lord is the Good (that which is most to be desired) and the divine Logos (Truth). Therefore, to be perfect humans must love the Lord above all else and, what is essentially the same, their neighbor as themselves.
At this point you must ask yourself, “is someone that has been brainwashed or under the influence of a hypothetical love potion really in love?” To me, those conditions are substantively the same as having been pre-programmed to offer unconditional love. I say there is a significant difference between choosing to love someone voluntarily versus not having a choice in the matter and that a world in which mutual love is voluntary is better than one in which it is not.
Next…
Making people incapable of considering arson or robbery does not eliminate all potential harm and subsequent suffering. The ignorant and inattentive can cause damage without harmful intent. A grease fire can start while the cook is distracted by a co-worker. People can build houses without knowing they sit on a fault line. In order to prevent all potential harm, humans would need to be fully aware of all potential the consequences of their actions, including the actions of other humans. This creates a problem: all knowledge is limited to what can be known. Since the future does not yet exist, it cannot be known. No one, not even a god that can know everything that it is possible to know, can exactly predict all the outcomes of one’s actions. As such, the actions of free agents may inadvertently bring about harm and suffering, absent moral accountability.
While interesting, the examples you, Esq., provide (the misfired gun & flaccid rapist) are not enough by themselves to validate the premise that an all-knowing, beneficent, and all-powerful god could actually create a perfect world (whatever that means) And your idea of a perfect world seems vague and not particularly well thought out. The potential rape victim is spared, but what happens to the frustrated rapist. Being thwarted and frustrated, even from a wicked desire, is also a form of suffering. To remove all frustration means preventing people from desiring what they cannot have without causing harm to themselves and others. So let’s see where that line of reasoning leads…
Anyone can see that the use of goods can be perverted. Fire is useful for heating and cooking. Fire can also be used with malice or fraud by an arsonist. The intellect can make plans for a bridge or planning a heist. Therefore the first requirement of a perfect world is that all humans must be completely benevolent so as not to intentionally misuse their abilities. To be completely benevolent, a human must only love what is good above all else and accept what is true. In Christianity, the Lord is the Good (that which is most to be desired) and the divine Logos (Truth). Therefore, to be perfect humans must love the Lord above all else and, what is essentially the same, their neighbor as themselves.
At this point you must ask yourself, “is someone that has been brainwashed or under the influence of a hypothetical love potion really in love?” To me, those conditions are substantively the same as having been pre-programmed to offer unconditional love. I say there is a significant difference between choosing to love someone voluntarily versus not having a choice in the matter and that a world in which mutual love is voluntary is better than one in which it is not.
Next…
Making people incapable of considering arson or robbery does not eliminate all potential harm and subsequent suffering. The ignorant and inattentive can cause damage without harmful intent. A grease fire can start while the cook is distracted by a co-worker. People can build houses without knowing they sit on a fault line. In order to prevent all potential harm, humans would need to be fully aware of all potential the consequences of their actions, including the actions of other humans. This creates a problem: all knowledge is limited to what can be known. Since the future does not yet exist, it cannot be known. No one, not even a god that can know everything that it is possible to know, can exactly predict all the outcomes of one’s actions. As such, the actions of free agents may inadvertently bring about harm and suffering, absent moral accountability.
