Problem of Divine Freedom

[fr0d0]

I know that's what you're saying esq, but you haven't proven that. I disagree with you. I think everything presented in the bible of God is logically possible from a human perspective.

[Esquilax]

I know that's what you're saying esq, but you haven't proven that. I disagree with you. I think everything presented in the bible of God is logically possible from a human perspective.

Creation ex nihilo is logically possible for humans?

[fr0d0]

Creation ex nihilo is logically possible for humans?

As scientists suggest it as a possibility... then yes. But is that a theistic claim? Seems to be outside the realm of theism to me.

[Esquilax]

Creation ex nihilo is logically possible for humans?

As scientists suggest it as a possibility... then yes. But is that a theistic claim? Seems to be outside the realm of theism to me.

Are you just being intentionally obtuse? I'm not going to play games with you: Genesis depicts creation out of nothing via some form of divine magic, the majority of other creation myths generally begin with something coming out of nothing- most importantly- in a way that is fundamentally incompatible with our understanding of the world.

You would agree, I hope, that many of the things god does in the bible- I'm thinking miracles, here- are far outside our scope of understanding?

[fr0d0]

I'm not being obtuse esq. I'm being literally accurate.

I don't claim to fully understand God, no. If something is beyond our understanding that doesn't also make it illogical. God can only do what is logically possible ...is the claim.

You say that genesis makes scientific claims on origins. I can show you very clearly, backed up by corroborating evidence that it does no such thing. The arguments for Creationism and ID have no such support.

Changing the subject to science... are you saying that you know something from nothing is scientifically disproven? I've been following the discussions on here and I didn't get that idea at all.

Would my faith in God be affected by any advances in scientific understanding? My faith would be proven to be misplaced if it was.

[Esquilax]

I'm not being obtuse esq. I'm being literally accurate.

I don't claim to fully understand God, no. If something is beyond our understanding that doesn't also make it illogical. God can only do what is logically possible ...is the claim.

Oh, okay, you kind of missed the point, I see where the disconnect is now. I'm not saying that something beyond our understanding is necessarily illogical, just that it implies the existence of additional laws of logic that are unknown to us, since these things beyond our understanding don't comply with the laws as we understand them.

And that's fine, I'm just saying that this makes the idea that god is constrained by the laws of logic a little meaningless from a human perspective, since those constraints also encompass a set of unknown unknowns; god might be capable only of that which is logically possible, but that still leaves a lot of wriggle room.

You say that genesis makes scientific claims on origins. I can show you very clearly, backed up by corroborating evidence that it does no such thing. The arguments for Creationism and ID have no such support.

I agree that, on a factual level, there's no support for those ideas, but they are still depicted in genesis, which is all I was saying. The christian creation account does include an ex nihilo miraculous act, if one were to simply read the words on the page.

Changing the subject to science... are you saying that you know something from nothing is scientifically disproven? I've been following the discussions on here and I didn't get that idea at all.

Well, I wouldn't say that what I was describing was strictly something from nothing, given that there was something- god- there to create it. But that is an instance of a creative act by a conscious being that required no pre-existing material, even a universe for that being to exist in, and I would say that is a proposition for which we have no evidence. It is logically incompatible with what we know about reality, which hints that, if one were to accept that it happened, there are additional logical tenets elsewhere.

[fr0d0]

I'm happy to leave that there esq. I think we understand one another.

[Tonus]

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.

I'm trying to remember how I would have approached this when I was a believer. I am pretty sure that I would have said that god could indeed perform evil acts if he so chose, but would not do so as there was no reason for it (as the most powerful being in the universe, he cannot be coerced). There was the Bible verse that said that "it is impossible for god to lie." I took that to mean that god was capable of lying, but had no cause to-- who would he need to lie to?

For the question of why there is evil in the world I would probably have gone with a modified version of the "we chose" approach. Something along the lines of freedom to choose would necessarily entail the freedom to do what was evil in the face of known consequences, otherwise it was not real freedom. I still think that works on some level, though I think that a literal reading of Genesis creates many more problems that cannot be so easily explained away.

I think that in the end it comes down to looking at what we ended up with, and having to accept that this was the best possible solution to the problem of two clueless humans who couldn't follow a direct order when it was countermanded by a talking snake. I... can't accept that.