Doctrine of the Divine Decree

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The formula does not take into consideration other moral agents. Other than that, in a vaccum, it would work.

During the course of the thread, the definition was modified slightly:

"Morally Perfect (def): An entity G is morally perfect if and only if for two states of affairs A and B, where A and B are specified as fully as G’s cognitive faculties allow, if A is morally preferable to B then G prefers that A obtain rather than B, and G acts accordingly."

I don't understand why you say that it doesn't take into consideration other moral agents. If other moral agents have some bearing on whether or not A is morally preferable to B, then an omniscient God knows that, and it is properly taken into consideration.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]1. It is contradictory on many points, as has already been pointed out.
You've yet to show one contradiction. Name one, and your job is done.

2. It supposes the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God. This supposition is false, as demonstrated by the GAFE.
This from the very first post, very first page:

"This t e Bible and in history. The third sentence is dismissed by the response to the second.[/b]

Good grief. Try actually reading the posts that other posters post. I thought the whole point of poster's posting posts was so that other posters would read the posted posts.

So go back and read. The contradictions in your theory have been outlined and discussed.

Your support is found in the Bible and in history? The Bible offers circular argument that is far from compelling. And how does history support your assertions concerning a supernatural being?

Originally posted by LemonJello
Good grief. Try actually reading the posts that other posters post. I thought the whole point of poster's posting posts was so that other posters would read the posted posts.

So go back and read. The contradictions in your theory have been outlined and discussed.

Your support is found in the Bible and in history? The Bible offers circular logi ...[text shortened]... from compelling. And how does history support your assertions concerning a supernatural being?

Not to sound too redundant, but...
"Try actually reading the posts that other posters post. I thought the whole point of poster's posting posts was so that other posters would read the posted posts."
Physician, heal thyself.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Not to sound too redundant, but...
"Try actually reading the posts that other posters post. I thought the whole point of poster's posting posts was so that other posters would read the posted posts."
Physician, heal thyself.

It was a silly sentence because that's all your remarks deserve.

Originally posted by LemonJello
It was a silly sentence because that's all your remarks deserve.

Silly, but not nonsense, to be certain.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The formula does not take into consideration other moral agents. Other than that, in a vaccum, it would work.

How do the other moral agents affect the argument?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
How do the other moral agents affect the argument?

Nemesio

They don't. The actions of other moral agents will, if they bear on the moral preferability of the states of affairs in question, be included in the specification of the relevant states of affairs.

Originally posted by Nemesio
How do the other moral agents affect the argument?

Nemesio

The real system that we're in consists of human will and the sovereignty of God co-existing. The formula offered does not include the same. It's kind of an 'all things considered' proposition without 'all things' being included.

To say that God has desires which are not met by the actions of the free will agent is already in the doctrine. To equate His desires with His will is an error; it, too, is addressed in the doctrine.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The real system that we're in consists of human will and the sovereignty of God co-existing. The formula offered does not include the same. It's kind of an 'all things considered' proposition without 'all things' being included.

To say that God has desires which are not met by the actions of the free will agent is already in the doctrine. To equate His desires with His will is an error; it, too, is addressed in the doctrine.

You're just plain confused. How do you expect to refute the argument if you can't even understand the definitions involved?

Again, go back and read.

Originally posted by LemonJello
You're just plain confused. How do you expect to refute the argument if you can't even understand the definitions involved?

Again, go back and read.

I thought that I understood the definition given. How, exactly, does the definition of moral perfection take into consideration the acts (or existence, really) of other moral agents?

What would a world look like if God allowed only those actions in agreement with His perfection? Is that free will?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I thought that I understood the definition given. How, exactly, does the definition of moral perfection take into consideration the acts (or existence, really) of other moral agents?

What would a world look like if God allowed only those actions in agreement with His perfection? Is that free will?

The definition provides full well for those cases in which the actions of other moral agents affect the relative preferability of states. It also provides full well for the consideration of the existence of free will itself as a good that has bearing on the preferability of states. Again, such considerations are specified commensurate with G's cognitive faculties; of course, the G discussed here is omniscient, so such considerations are fully and perfectly specified.

Somehow, you have it in your mind that the existence of free will is a good of such supreme importance that it should trump all else. Why do you think this? In your view, it would be a worse state of affairs to deny the Nazis their free will than to prevent the Holocaust. What reasons are there to think this is true?

At any rate, you have to remember that your God is omnipotent. Accordingly, the existence of free will does not necessitate any suffering at all (let alone the degree of suffering that exists). It is certainly a logically possible states of affairs that the Nazis could have chosen, in full accordance with their free wills, to not carry out genocide. Why didn't your God act accordingly?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I thought that I understood the definition given. How, exactly, does the definition of moral perfection take into consideration the acts (or existence, really) of other moral agents?

What would a world look like if God allowed only those actions in agreement with His perfection? Is that free will?

What would a world look like if God allowed only those actions in agreement with His perfection? Is that free will?

God would only act in accordance with morally preferable states. How would this preclude free will of a compatibilist sort? It may well preclude libertarian free will, but so what? I for one would be glad to know that libertarian free will is false because I don't really like the idea that the content of my willings may be determined by absolutely nothing at all.

Originally posted by LemonJello
The definition provides full well for those cases in which the actions of other moral agents affect the relative preferability of states. It also provides full well for the consideration of the existence of free will itself as a good that has bearing on the preferability of states. Again, such considerations are specified commensurate with G's cognitive ...[text shortened]... rdance with their free wills, to not carry out genocide. Why didn't your God act accordingly?

It appears the argument is headed for the same circle it found itself in previously. As is stated in the doctrine, some action is God's and all other action comes from other agencies (angelic and man). If you are wanting God to intervene in every matter, where does free will enter?

What is the basis of your assertion that all Nazi action should have been disallowed, over against, say, a single act of bullying done by a third grader to one of his peers? As soon as Adam failed the test, should God have passed judgment and sentenced him immediately?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
If you are wanting God to intervene in every matter, where does free will enter?

The argument does not claim that God should intervene in every matter, but only to stop unneccessary acts of evil.

Furthermore, stopping an act of evil does not affect free will. Free will does not mean that I can literally do anything that I want to do; if it could, I'd be omnipotent. Instead, I am limited in what I can actually do by the laws of physics, and the will of other entities to stop me from doing certain things. Free will is no guarantee of success at any endeavor.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
The argument does not claim that God should intervene in every matter, but only to stop unneccessary acts of evil.

Furthermore, stopping an act of evil does not affect free will. Free will does not mean that I can literally do anything that I want to do; if it could, I'd be omnipotent. Instead, I am limited in what I can actually do by the l ...[text shortened]... ies to stop me from doing certain things. Free will is no guarantee of success at any endeavor.

unneccessary acts of evil
And it is on this point (among others) that the argument breaks down. Who determines what is necessary--- acceptable--- and what standard is used?

Furthermore, stopping an act of evil does not affect free will.
And yet we restrain (or at least make overtures) the free will of criminals every day. The loaded weapons in my house affect the free will of passersby, up to the current time.

Free will does not mean that I can literally do anything that I want to do; if it could, I'd be omnipotent.
No one suggested you could do anything you wanted. However, within the limits of what is possible to do, you have free will.

Free will is no guarantee of success at any endeavor.
Just as FW does not necessitate possible wrong-doing, but merely makes it possible, FW does not guarantee success yet also makes it possible.