Problem of Divine Freedom

[Counterapologistblog]

1. God is all powerful, yet constrained by logic.

Can God lift a rock too heavy to lift = can God create square circles = can God do the illogical

2. That's the story we're addressing. God had to cure the species by pruning the dead wood. Is genetic inheritance true? Then inheritance of a genetic fault could be catastrophic.

You are confusing logical with actual impossibility and so are undermining the very point on which your argument was supposed to turn.

I, as a human being of limited powers, might easily find myself in a position where in order to cure one evil, I was obliged to enact another (but in my judgment lesser) evil. To save a life, I have to amputate a limb (or to save the ants from total annihilation, I have to subject almost all of them to annihilation to use your analogy).

But that is not a logical requirement. Saving a life without amputating a limb or saving a group of ants from extinction without killing any of them are both logical possibilities. The amputation and the ant massacre are both means to an end. As limited non-omnipotent beings, we do not have the luxury of achieving all our ends without having to go through means, sometimes pretty unpleasant ones. But the same cannot be true of an omnipotent deity. If he wants to save a life, save an ant tribe or prevent the spread of evil, he only has to will it.

If you want to preserve your argument, you will have to do much more work on making out a case for why God was LOGICALLY unable to achieve his end without the drastic means of killing people.

[Neo-Scholastic]

1. God is all powerful, yet constrained by logic.

Can God lift a rock too heavy to lift = can God create square circles = can God do the illogical

2. That's the story we're addressing. God had to cure the species by pruning the dead wood. Is genetic inheritance true? Then inheritance of a genetic fault could be catastrophic.

You are confusing logical with actual impossibility and so are undermining the very point on which your argument was supposed to turn.

I, as a human being of limited powers, might easily find myself in a position where in order to cure one evil, I was obliged to enact another (but in my judgment lesser) evil. To save a life, I have to amputate a limb (or to save the ants from total annihilation, I have to subject almost all of them to annihilation to use your analogy).

But that is not a logical requirement. Saving a life without amputating a limb or saving a group of ants from extinction without killing any of them are both logical possibilities. The amputation and the ant massacre are both means to an end. As limited non-omnipotent beings, we do not have the luxury of achieving all our ends without having to go through means, sometimes pretty unpleasant ones. But the same cannot be true of an omnipotent deity. If he wants to save a life, save an ant tribe or prevent the spread of evil, he only has to will it.

If you want to preserve your argument, you will have to do much more work on making out a case for why God was LOGICALLY unable to achieve his end without the drastic means of killing people.

Why? It sounds like you expect frodo to prove a negative as in "prove that human powered flight is impossible." In order to make your point stick it seems you must show why perfect worlds without suffering are a logical necessity.

[Esquilax]

1. God is all powerful, yet constrained by logic.

Okay, here's my question: what is determining what logic is, with regards to god? Because in the same manner as creating a square circle is illogical, creating matter from nothing using words is similarly illogical. So clearly, logic to god isn't the same thing as logic to people; what other distinctions are there, and if god is still capable of breaking from what humans consider logic with his actions, isn't the idea that god is constrained by logic somewhat meaningless?

[Foxaèr]

God's logic is man's logic for man created god.

[fr0d0]

2. That's the story we're addressing. God had to cure the species by pruning the dead wood. Is genetic inheritance true? Then inheritance of a genetic fault could be catastrophic.

Are you suggesting that sin has a genetic component?

No

---

Please elaborate further on this genetic element you're suggesting. Any scientific backing would be helpful too. Educate me as much as you can on it, pretend you're talking to someone who knows nothing about it.

Thank you, I know it's a tedious request. Atheists do have empathy.

I'd have to educate myself first Senshi I won't insult your intelligence by trying to retrofit science. Unless you realised that and wanted me to anyway, which is fair enough. I will try if that's what you want.

I'm suggesting that we know of genetic imperfections that can be detrimental to survival. It's natures way of pruning dead wood, is it not?

Species naturally die out. Say the environment changes so that the species is no longer viable. Mother nature commits genocide.

With theology it's more purpose that is trying to be understood. The point behind the story is the cleansing of the earth from corruption. God is starting over, reproducing the conditions of creation. Justice is served.
This isn't anything unusual for the cultural context. Everything is seen as God working, his purpose to be taken from that.

---

You are confusing logical with actual impossibility and so are undermining the very point on which your argument was supposed to turn.

I, as a human being of limited powers, might easily find myself in a position where in order to cure one evil, I was obliged to enact another (but in my judgment lesser) evil. To save a life, I have to amputate a limb (or to save the ants from total annihilation, I have to subject almost all of them to annihilation to use your analogy).

But that is not a logical requirement. Saving a life without amputating a limb or saving a group of ants from extinction without killing any of them are both logical possibilities. The amputation and the ant massacre are both means to an end. As limited non-omnipotent beings, we do not have the luxury of achieving all our ends without having to go through means, sometimes pretty unpleasant ones. But the same cannot be true of an omnipotent deity. If he wants to save a life, save an ant tribe or prevent the spread of evil, he only has to will it.

If you want to preserve your argument, you will have to do much more work on making out a case for why God was LOGICALLY unable to achieve his end without the drastic means of killing people.

Hi there.

I think you're joining two separate points. We were talking about the idea that God could do evil. I say that God by his nature is good, and that it's a logical impossibility that he can act to the contrary (reasons given above).

So how God achieves justice is best known to him (given that he is all knowing). Your suggestion is a logical possibility. We know (from the text) that this isn't what is claimed to have happened, so would assume the greater knowledge of God meant that justice was best served in the way that it was.

[Counterapologistblog]

You are confusing logical with actual impossibility and so are undermining the very point on which your argument was supposed to turn.

I, as a human being of limited powers, might easily find myself in a position where in order to cure one evil, I was obliged to enact another (but in my judgment lesser) evil. To save a life, I have to amputate a limb (or to save the ants from total annihilation, I have to subject almost all of them to annihilation to use your analogy).

But that is not a logical requirement. Saving a life without amputating a limb or saving a group of ants from extinction without killing any of them are both logical possibilities. The amputation and the ant massacre are both means to an end. As limited non-omnipotent beings, we do not have the luxury of achieving all our ends without having to go through means, sometimes pretty unpleasant ones. But the same cannot be true of an omnipotent deity. If he wants to save a life, save an ant tribe or prevent the spread of evil, he only has to will it.

If you want to preserve your argument, you will have to do much more work on making out a case for why God was LOGICALLY unable to achieve his end without the drastic means of killing people.

Why? It sounds like you expect frodo to prove a negative as in "prove that human powered flight is impossible." In order to make your point stick it seems you must show why perfect worlds without suffering are a logical necessity.

Nuh-uh. Frodo's claim is that it is not logically possible to save humanity without sacrcrificing some. That is what he needs to establish by argument and has failed to do (so far - if he has an argument, let's hear it).

BTW if you think that there is some philosophical rule to the effect that you cannot prove a negative, you're wrong. See here for why:


http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy...gative.pdf

[fr0d0]

1. God is all powerful, yet constrained by logic.

Okay, here's my question: what is determining what logic is, with regards to god? Because in the same manner as creating a square circle is illogical, creating matter from nothing using words is similarly illogical. So clearly, logic to god isn't the same thing as logic to people; what other distinctions are there, and if god is still capable of breaking from what humans consider logic with his actions, isn't the idea that god is constrained by logic somewhat meaningless?

"creating matter from nothing using words is similarly illogical"

Hmm - CROSS POST!

I don't think you've even begun to explore this idea in the other thread. The greek 'logos' and it's meaning when related to creation. It's quite a massive subject and to me, completely alienates the ordinary person when trying to comprehend biblical concepts. I think quoting it bare was incredibly insensitive.

Is that an illogical statement? I think you're a thousand miles from establishing that... and I make no judgement on what your educated opinion may be. Feel free to explain if you want to.

God is entirely logical... is the premise we understand God by: that his creation follows the laws that he himself devised. It's how we know what we do about God, because logically it could be no other way.

[Counterapologistblog]

Hi Frodo,

Your premise is that God cannot do wrong. If that is correct, then it follows that whatever he did in the Flood (or whatever) would have been just. But is your premise correct? That is what I (and presumably all other atheists on this site) do not accept.

[fr0d0]

Of course not. I've presented my reasoning for that. Most atheists posit the bible as evidence, which I find ridiculous. The authors define God as good, yet it is suggested that at the same time they observe the opposite.

[Esquilax]

I don't think you've even begun to explore this idea in the other thread. The greek 'logos' and it's meaning when related to creation. It's quite a massive subject and to me, completely alienates the ordinary person when trying to comprehend biblical concepts. I think quoting it bare was incredibly insensitive.

Is that an illogical statement? I think you're a thousand miles from establishing that... and I make no judgement on what your educated opinion may be. Feel free to explain if you want to.

What I'm saying is, accepting the idea that god is constrained by what is logical, god still does a lot of things in the bible that, from a human perspective, are logically impossible. This indicates that logic, such as it is, contains components that are beyond the human spectrum of experience, that god is constrained by. Barring any method by which to determine what these divine laws of logic are, saying that god is constrained by logic is itself a meaningless statement, since a corollary of that is that there is an unknown number of additional tenets of logic beyond our understanding.

It's the same as when people appeal to god's mysterious ways as a means of excusing some action of his, this idea that he possesses an understanding beyond what we can comprehend. Only in this case, it's really the only way to make this statement about god and logic stick.