Doctrine of the Divine Decree

Originally posted by Halitose
It is also logically possible for God to have created humans to be impervious to pain, suffering or physical strain. He could have created us capable of photosynthesising, walking on air, transparent, etc, etc, ad nausium. So what? I find such a discussion very limited as we don't have the capability to fully understand what the ramifications of such ...[text shortened]... er free to violate it.
3. A moral choice is therefore meaningful since it was self-induced.

But you're missing the point. These three claims of yours are completely compatible with the logically possible state of affairs that we discussed earlier. Therefore, any evil that sprouts from human free will is not logically necessary for the greater good -- and certainly not logically necessary for your three claims to be satisfied.

Therefore, some God may well exist and have created a world in which your three claims are satisfied. But don't pretend like He is somehow morally perfect because it is very clear that, within His breadth of ability and knowledge, He does not always act in accordance with morally preferable states. To your credit, you already stated that He is not omnibenevolent, which is saying that He is morally imperfect. Of course that begs the question of why you would ever feel obligated to worship such an imperfect being.

It is logically possible that you could have won the lottery. Since you have not won it, this must be God's fault.

Goo! One conceivable ethical theory could stipulate that state A is morally preferable to state B just in case LemonJello is monetarily better off in state A. But that's stupid. What we are talking about here is the attainment of the greater good, and I fail to see how my winning the lottery is requisite for the greater good to obtain. I find this example of yours irritating because you are essentially saying that my beef with your God is based on a selfish I-ain't-as-handsome-or-rich-as-I-could-be third grade level. Not so. My beef concerns your God's obvious status as a malign thug. Any omnipotent, omniscient being who allows unnecessary suffering is callous at best. Any omnipotent, omniscient being who savages His little mortal minions with a wide range of natural evils is a complete douche bag. This is the manner of my discontent; my winning or not winning the lottery I don't give a rat's ass about.

Originally posted by Halitose
It is also logically possible for God to have created humans to be impervious to pain, suffering or physical strain. He could have created us capable of photosynthesising, walking on air, transparent, etc, etc, ad nausium. So what? I find such a discussion very limited as we don't have the capability to fully understand what the ramifications of such er free to violate it.
3. A moral choice is therefore meaningful since it was self-induced.

physical creatures with a moral free will (as free as possible), where they are not forced, prodded, or otherwise persuaded by character

I would also point out that your idea of character building makes no sense. You want to say that a person has no character until he systematically exercises moral judgments that collectively bear sufficient similarity that we may reasonably classify him as having a certain moral disposition; moreover, you claim that any 'predisposition' is not compatible with moral freedom. That's incoherent because the mere demonstration of such systematic behavior is indicative of a predisposition toward such moral judgments that was there from the beginning. So some predisposition is necessary for the type of character that you have in mind. And this predisposition and character inform the deliberations that enable his free choice. So your idea that 'predisposition' or being 'persuaded by character' is not compatible with moral freedom strikes me as incoherent.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]When an omnipotent being plans and executes, preordination is the result.
If this is your definition of pre-ordained, then you are in error.

If your God is somehow constrained by us merely in virtue of our status as moral agents
Here's another one for you: He is bound by His own characteristics, as well.

Which do you claim?
I ...[text shortened]... y do not mean.

This is not a question of intelligence. It is simple math, really.[/b]

Maybe you can already tell, but like everyone else I have given up on you.

I will say this, though: when arbitrarily conjecturing about the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient being, a 'decree' or predetermined course is the only framework that makes sense.* For such a being that exercises these attributes, absolutely nothing just happens against His will, and He certainly does not simply 'permit' anything on the fly. Of course the problem with this mental semen stain of a God (other than the fact that the positing of His existence is completely arbitrary as well as 'rigorously absurd', as BdN would say) is that He is obviously a douche bag and not worthy of anyone's worship. Might doesn't make right, you know; might also does not confer reverential worth or entitlement to veneration. On the contrary, it seems that if we have any obligation here in principle, it would be to oppose Him during the times when He is feeling extra douche-baggy. Of course, any such attempt at opposition is pointless in practice, since He is all-powerful and nothing happens against His will anyway.

-----------------------------------------------
*Of course, the 'decree' that you have laid out does not make any sense because, for example, 1. it is self-contradictory and 2. it also supposes that He possesses the further attribute of moral perfection, which is evidently false.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Maybe you can already tell, but like everyone else I have given up on you.

I will say this, though: when arbitrarily conjecturing about the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient being, a 'decree' or predetermined course is the only framework that makes sense.* For such a being that exercises these attributes, absolutely nothing just happens against that He possesses the further attribute of moral perfection, which is evidently false.

Whether you have given up on me or not is of little concern to me. Your arguments (being nice here) are circular and it had to be frustrating to continue repeating them. But it's not likely your fault.

You are either an unbeliever (don't recall if you responded positively to ever holding to a belief in Jesus Christ or not), and therefore unable to understand doctrine, or you are a believer unwilling to listen to it. Either way, it's your problem, not mine.

Nonetheless, if it makes you feel better to think you've scored some points by refuting the doctrine, I wouldn't want to take that good feeling away from you: sounds like it may be all you have.

However, if and when you want to face the truth, the doctrine will still be there. Good luck.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Whether you have given up on me or not is of little concern to me. Your arguments (being nice here) are circular and it had to be frustrating to continue repeating them. But it's not likely your fault.

You are either an unbeliever (don't recall if you responded positively to ever holding to a belief in Jesus Christ or not), and therefore unable to und ever, if and when you want to face the truth, the doctrine will still be there. Good luck.

Go read any coherent formulation of the evidential problem of evil. There is nothing 'circular' about the argument.

If you actually believe your own theory, then of course it's not my 'fault'. It's your God's fault. After all, He deemed it logically necessary for the greater good that I and everyone else here fail to accept your seemingly arbitrary claims; and He made it so. In fact, He decreed it, and planned/caused my non-belief. And remember: we live in the best of all possible worlds. So your wishing to deprive me of any feeling -- good or bad -- would be very foolish indeed.

Go on worshipping a figment if you want to, Freaky. I certainly hope you don't try to force this trash on any more malleable minds, though.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Go read any coherent formulation of the evidential problem of evil. There is nothing 'circular' about the argument.

If you actually believe your own theory, then of course it's not my 'fault'. It's your God's fault. After all, He deemed it logically necessary for the greater good that I and everyone else here fail to accept your seemingly arbitrary ...[text shortened]... I certainly hope you don't try to force this trash on any more malleable minds, though.

As has been proven, the 'evidential problem of evil' is nothing more than empty words cleverly strung together equaling less than zero. It requires a suspension of belief that--- in comparison--- makes an assumption of the biblical God as obvious as the nose on one's face.

Just think: you could prove the whole thing wrong by accepting the work that Jesus Christ did on your behalf. That would show God, now wouldn't it?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Just think: you could prove the whole thing wrong by accepting the work that Jesus Christ did on your behalf. That would show God, now wouldn't it?

Actually, it is either tacit acceptance or outright denial.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Actually, it is either tacit acceptance or outright denial.

Sorry, but you lost me on that one. What did you mean with that comment?

Originally posted by LemonJello
Go read any coherent formulation of the evidential problem of evil. There is nothing 'circular' about the argument.

If you actually believe your own theory, then of course it's not my 'fault'. It's your God's fault. After all, He deemed it logically necessary for the greater good that I and everyone else here fail to accept your seemingly arbitrary ...[text shortened]... I certainly hope you don't try to force this trash on any more malleable minds, though.

And remember: we live in the best of all possible worlds. So your wishing to deprive me of any feeling -- good or bad -- would be very foolish indeed.

I beg to differ. Heaven is the best of all possible worlds. Earth is merely the selection process of attaining it. Ergo, Earth is the best possible way to the best possible world.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]And remember: we live in the best of all possible worlds. So your wishing to deprive me of any feeling -- good or bad -- would be very foolish indeed.

I beg to differ. Heaven is the best of all possible worlds. Earth is merely the selection process of attaining it. Ergo, Earth is the best possible way to the best possible world.[/b]

Therefore the union of Earth and Heaven is the "best of all possible worlds." LJ is saying the same thing you are.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
As has been proven, the 'evidential problem of evil' is nothing more than empty words cleverly strung together equaling less than zero. It requires a suspension of belief that--- in comparison--- makes an assumption of the biblical God as obvious as the nose on one's face.

Just think: you could prove the whole thing wrong by accepting the work that Jesus Christ did on your behalf. That would show God, now wouldn't it?

Absurd. You haven't even mentioned the substance of the evidential argument from evil, and you haven't proven anything (or even uttered anything sensible) about the general argument from evil. In fact, I'd bet that up til now you thought these two arguments were the same. That you think you have even raised an objection to either argument is one of the funnier things I've heard in the forums.

Originally posted by bbarr
Absurd. You haven't even mentioned the substance of the evidential argument from evil, and you haven't proven anything (or even uttered anything sensible) about the general argument from evil. In fact, I'd bet that up til now you thought these two arguments were the same. That you think you have even raised an objection to either argument is one of the funnier things I've heard in the forums.

Back away from the glue. As is noted by those funny looking inverted commas before "evidential" and after "evil," in the quote you are using, I am citing LJ's use of the term.

The arguments have been posted and shredded, and they are little more than vapor disguised as thought. Laugh, and the world laughs with you. Cry, and the world laughs derisively. Either way, your psuedo-intellectualism merely adds morbidity to your arguments' deprivation.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Back away from the glue. As is noted by those funny looking inverted commas before "evidential" and after "evil," in the quote you are using, I am citing LJ's use of the term.

The arguments have been posted and shredded, and they are little more than vapor disguised as thought. Laugh, and the world laughs with you. Cry, and the world laughs derisivel ...[text shortened]... her way, your psuedo-intellectualism merely adds morbidity to your arguments' deprivation.

Back away from the thesaurus, it makes you look needy. So, which premise of the general argument from evil do you reject, and why?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
As has been proven, the 'evidential problem of evil' is nothing more than empty words cleverly strung together equaling less than zero. It requires a suspension of belief that--- in comparison--- makes an assumption of the biblical God as obvious as the nose on one's face.

Just think: you could prove the whole thing wrong by accepting the work that Jesus Christ did on your behalf. That would show God, now wouldn't it?

No it wouldn't show anything except an unfounded belief.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The arguments have been posted and shredded, and they are little more than vapor disguised as thought. Laugh, and the world laughs with you. Cry, and the world laughs derisively. Either way, your psuedo-intellectualism merely adds morbidity to your arguments' deprivation.

I guess your vote is denial.