Doctrine of the Divine Decree

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]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 we ...[text shortened]... -doing, but merely makes it possible, FW does not guarantee success yet also makes it possible.[/b]

Who determines what is necessary--- acceptable--- and what standard is used?[

I'll volunteer to determine what is necessary, for the sake of argument. There are two people alone on an otherwise deserted island. They get in a fight and kill each other; nobody ever finds the bodies. I claim this is an unnecessary act of evil; no good can come of it.

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.

My point exactly. In the same manner, God's intervention does not preclude free will of humans.

Just as FW does not necessitate possible wrong-doing, but merely makes it possible, FW does not guarantee success yet also makes it possible.

Not if I'm trying to jump 100 feet straight up in the air! I can will that all I want, but I have no possibility of success.

Since there are so many natural limitations to free will, what harm is done by God's adding a few more? Remember, the argument does not claim that God must prevent every evil act; just the needless ones.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
[b]Who determines what is necessary--- acceptable--- and what standard is used?[

I'll volunteer to determine what is necessary, for the sake of argument. There are two people alone on an otherwise deserted island. They get in a fight and kill each other; nobody ever finds the bodies. I claim this is an unnecessary act of evil; no good can come ...[text shortened]... r, the argument does not claim that God must prevent every evil act; just the needless ones.[/b]

They get in a fight and kill each other; nobody ever finds the bodies. I claim this is an unnecessary act of evil; no good can come of it.
In that closed set, you may have an argument. However, it's impossible to extrapolate that small, closed set to cover the entire formula. When God allowed man to choose the system of good and evil over His system of 'lives,' everything came with it--- including what we deem to be the needless or senseless violence man does to man.

In the same manner, God's intervention does not preclude free will of humans.
Wait a tic. The weapons in my home cause the potential intruder to alter their free will, but somehow the possibility of an eternity spent in hell doesn't dissuade man to submit himself to the free plan of salvation?

Remember, the argument does not claim that God must prevent every evil act; just the needless ones.
Again, without God's knowledge, who can claim which acts are needless? In my opinion, anything other than God is needless--- regardless of acts of good or evil--- when considering His perfection.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]They get in a fight and kill each other; nobody ever finds the bodies. I claim this is an unnecessary act of evil; no good can come of it.
In that closed set, you may have an argument. However, it's impossible to extrapolate that small, closed set to cover the entire formula. When God allowed man to choose the system of good and evil over ...[text shortened]... God is needless--- regardless of acts of good or evil--- when considering His perfection.[/b]

I don't have to extrapolate the closed set of the deserted island murders over the whole system. All I have to do is show that God allowed one unnecessary act of evil to occur, and he is revealed as either not all-powerful, or not all-knowing, or not morally perfect (i.e., too callous to care about the loss of human life).

The weapons in your home may cause criminals to change their decision, but they are not deprived of free will. Some are brazen enough to attack anyway, given that they also have weapons. Obviously, despite the possible threat of hell, not all people will to follow a religion. Short of outright mind control by a God, his interventions do not necessarily deprive humans of free will, although they limit the efficacy of that will to a certain extent.

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?

If I am walking down the street and I see a man hitting and old lady and I interfere,
have I interfered with the man's free will? Was this act a good and righteous act?
Would my not doing this be equally good and righteous?

Nemesio

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
I don't have to extrapolate the closed set of the deserted island murders over the whole system. All I have to do is show that God allowed [b]one unnecessary act of evil to occur, and he is revealed as either not all-powerful, or not all-knowing, or not morally perfect (i.e., too callous to care about the loss of human life).

The weapons in you ...[text shortened]... deprive humans of free will, although they limit the efficacy of that will to a certain extent.[/b]

All I have to do is show that God allowed one unnecessary act of evil to occur...
Which this scenario has not shown. Remember, you said two men on an island, one kills the other and no one ever knows.

too callous to care about the loss of human life
Here, you are equating human life as the ultimate transgression. Is it? Is the denial of one man's free will more of a transgression than an action or thought opposed to perfection?

although they limit the efficacy of that will to a certain extent.
To be certain, God keeps the ball in play and will not allow any conditions to exist that would keep human history from being perpetuated until the assigned time. But that is part of the plan from the beginning, no more and no less than is absolutely necessary.

Originally posted by Nemesio
If I am walking down the street and I see a man hitting and old lady and I interfere,
have I interfered with the man's free will? Was this act a good and righteous act?
Would my not doing this be equally good and righteous?

Nemesio

In that small, isolated situation, of course. Whenever possible, we are called upon to do our best, we are called upon to pray, we are called upon to act in the right way.

I doubt, however, that you claim to know the big picture for all of human history.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]All I have to do is show that God allowed one unnecessary act of evil to occur...
Which this scenario has not shown. Remember, you said two men on an island, one kills the other and no one ever knows.

too callous to care about the loss of human life
Here, you are equating human life as the ultimate transgression. Is it? Is the ...[text shortened]... that is part of the plan from the beginning, no more and no less than is absolutely necessary.[/b]

Remember, you said two men on an island, one kills the other and no one ever knows.

I didn't say one kills the other. They kill each other, and nobody finds the bodies. I claim that no possible good can come of this double act of evil; therefore, it was unnecessary.

Here, you are equating human life as the ultimate transgression. Is it? Is the denial of one man's free will more of a transgression than an action or thought opposed to perfection?

No I'm not. I'm not attempting to define the ultimate transgression; I'm looking for an act of evil; the magnitude of the evil isn't very important.

As a Christian, you're going to get into trouble if you claim that perfect God values free will so highly that he does not intervene in human affairs. The Bible records numerous instances of God doing so.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Remember, you said two men on an island, one kills the other and no one ever knows.

I didn't say one kills the other. They kill each other, and nobody finds the bodies. I claim that no possible good can come of this double act of evil; therefore, it was unnecessary.

Here, you are equating human life as the ultimate transgression. Is i oes not intervene in human affairs. The Bible records numerous instances of God doing so.

no one ever knows.
No one but you, apparently.

As a Christian, you're going to get into trouble if you claim that perfect God values free will so highly that he does not intervene in human affairs. The Bible records numerous instances of God doing so.
Right, just as already addressed previously. What you are trying to argue is that you can think of other scenarios wherein the intervention of God was warranted and 'right.' Further, how dare God not see things the same way. How is this an argument, again?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]no one ever knows.
No one but you, apparently.

As a Christian, you're going to get into trouble if you claim that perfect God values free will so highly that he does not intervene in human affairs. The Bible records numerous instances of God doing so.
Right, just as already addressed previously. What you are trying to argue is that you ...[text shortened]... 'right.' Further, how dare God not see things the same way. How is this an argument, again?[/b]

No one but you, apparently.
Given ~7-8 billion humans on the planet, I'm convinced that my hypothetical has happened at least once. Even in today's America, with all of our technology and information, there are still unsolved crimes.

The hypothetical links to real examples.

The recent tsunamis in the far east killed millions. The unknown dead are like the two men on the island, except that a natural evil took their life.

Further, how dare God not see things the same way. How is this an argument, again?

Why should God stop some evils and not others? I'm sure you'll assert until blue in the face that God has his reasons, no matter how inconsistent or unjust they appear to a skeptic. The problem is, you are no more able to explain God's motivations. You're bound by God's speech at the end of Job. Realization of this ought to make you tread more carefully when countering the argument from evil.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
[b]No one but you, apparently.
Given ~7-8 billion humans on the planet, I'm convinced that my hypothetical has happened at least once. Even in today's America, with all of our technology and information, there are still unsolved crimes.

The hypothetical links to real examples.

The recent tsunamis in the far east killed millions. The unknow ...[text shortened]... on of this ought to make you tread more carefully when countering the argument from evil.[/b]

I'm convinced that my hypothetical has happened at least once.
Whether it has happened once or a million times doesn't erase the fact that the possibility became a reality with Adam's decision to live in a 'good and evil' system. As you recall, the only trespass possible in the Garden was eating a piece of fruit. No sin occured when the woman simpy considered the fruit or what she could gain (!) from partaking of it. Contrast this with what God says regarding our thought lives in Jesus' words on such matters as adultery.
What we call 'moral' today is very much bound up within that system, and to think that abstaining from certain taboos will somehow put us on a level of acceptance with God is foolish.

I'm sure you'll assert until blue in the face that God has his reasons, no matter how inconsistent or unjust they appear to a skeptic.
1. Blue in the face: I will defend the truth as appropriate, as I am sure you feel compelled to do the same.
2. God has His reasons: don't we all.
3. Inconsistent or unjust they appear to a skeptic: oh, I'd forgotten--- I shouldn't trust God's thinking on anything as important as life and the meaning thereof; I ought to be trusting the extremely limited perspective of a skeptic. Call me crazy, but I'm-a gunna stick wif God.

The problem is, you are no more able to explain God's motivations.
I think I'm starting to see what you think the problem of evil is: unless and until God gives an account worthy of satisfying your curiousty? high standards? peerless morality? God's motivations are suspect. I've got a better idea for you, and any others who honestly think that GAFE1- GAFEx pose an obstacle to the Bible's description of the integrity of God:
1. explain why God would have ever created in the first place knowing Lucifer would become Satan, let alone knowing that Adam would choose his wife over Him.
2. explain how absolute perfection could allow anything less than those with affinity to exist.

The problem is, you cannot answer these relatively simple problems and not for lack of intellect, but for lack of belief. In easily understood words, the doctrine to which all this blather is attached explained the spiritual concepts of the divine decree, and in so doing, some of the aspects of God's character. When viewed in its entirety (made of the specific parts), this doctrine considers, anticipates and satisifies all contingencies, including the meager (although not trivial) obstacle that sin puts forth.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]I'm convinced that my hypothetical has happened at least once.
Whether it has happened once or a million times doesn't erase the fact that the possibility became a reality with Adam's decision to live in a 'good and evil' system. As you recall, the only trespass possible in the Garden was eating a piece of fruit. No sin occured when the wo ...[text shortened]... , including the meager (although not trivial) obstacle that sin puts forth.[/b]

Whether it has happened once or a million times doesn't erase the fact that the possibility became a reality with Adam's decision to live in a 'good and evil' system.

We should be past this point already. Both GAFE and the Bible accept the possibility of evil.

oh, I'd forgotten--- I shouldn't trust God's thinking on anything as important as life and the meaning thereof; I ought to be trusting the extremely limited perspective of a skeptic. Call me crazy, but I'm-a gunna stick wif God.

A healthy dose of skepticism is useful for both theist and non-theist alike. If you're going to be a theist, you ought to know what you're getting into.

Is a skeptic's position really more limited? I'm willing to consider both the possibility of God's existence, and the possibility that he does not exist. You, on the other hand, only consider the former as a possibility.

I've got a better idea for you, and any others who honestly think that GAFE1- GAFEx pose an obstacle to the Bible's description of the integrity of God:

In many ways, the Bible itself seems like the best argument against the very God it claims exists. Consider 1.The flood of Noah wipes out nearly the entire human race after God 'regrets' creating it. 2.God's pissing contest with Satan causes Job's family, servants and livestock to suffer and die. 3.God wipes out 70,000 Israelites because David dared to take a simple census of the people. 4.God hardens Pharoah's heart, so he can author yet another act of evil (killing scores of Egyptian kids with a devastating plague).

You talk about high standards and peerless morality; I say that the bar is set quite low for God, and he's still failing to show even a basic standard of morality.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Whether it has happened once or a million times doesn't erase the fact that the possibility became a reality with Adam's decision to live in a 'good and evil' system.

We should be past this point already. Both GAFE and the Bible accept the possibility of evil.

oh, I'd forgotten--- I shouldn't trust God's thinking on anything as important ...[text shortened]... for God, and he's still failing to show even a basic standard of morality.

We should be past this point already. Both GAFE and the Bible accept the possibility of evil.
Well, damned if I ain't stumped, in that case. To hear you fellers say it, even one instance of 'avoidable' evil (and, really, isn't it all avoidable?), and the whole idea of God as the Bible describes Him is out the window. No, BDP, I believe it to be the very crux of GAFE to claim that God really should have been able to figure out some system wherein evil/pain/suffering would have been avoided, so I guess we're not past that just yet.

A healthy dose of skepticism is useful for both theist and non-theist alike.
The only healthy doubt a thinking person should ever entertain is toward oneself.

If you're going to be a theist, you ought to know what you're getting into.
You mean, like in the future? Does this seem to you like something I'm merely contemplating? Man, I suck at getting a point across!

I'm willing to consider both the possibility of God's existence, and the possibility that he does not exist. You, on the other hand, only consider the former as a possibility.
How in God's name would you know what I consider? You know what I assert, but certainly not what I privately consider: don't flatter yourself.

You talk about high standards and peerless morality; I say that the bar is set quite [b]low for God, and he's still failing to show even a basic standard of morality.[/b]
The examples you gave (or any you could possibly muster out of Scripture, for that matter) only serve to show your ignorance of each unique situation. I am not saying that as a slam, even though your assertions are arrived via arrogance mixed with the ignorance. Until you know all there is to know regarding each situation cited, how dare you pass judgment on the One Judge who sees all! Ironically, He has seen fit to explain Himself (although He certainly is not obligated to us for the insight) in each of the situations. Our refusal to read the plain text of the Bible certainly offers us no excuse for not being aware of God's policies.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
In that small, isolated situation, of course. Whenever possible, we are called upon to do our best, we are called upon to pray, we are called upon to act in the right way.

I doubt, however, that you claim to know the big picture for all of human history.

Well, given that, with my limited knowledge, it would be a moral imperative to intercede
on the old lady's behalf even at the expense of interfering with the assailant's free will,
why wouldn't God be subject to the same moral imperative? Is the perfect behavior for which we are expected to strive different than perfect behavior for him?

Or, do you suggest that every time an old lady got beaten up and a person didn't intervene, this
was, in the course of the 'big picture for all of human history,' the righteous thing to have happened?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Well, given that, with my limited knowledge, it would be a moral imperative to intercede
on the old lady's behalf even at the expense of interfering with the assailant's free will,
why wouldn't God be subject to the same moral imperative? Is the perfect behavior for which we are expected to strive different than perfect behavior for him?

Or, do ...[text shortened]... e 'big picture for all of human history,' the righteous thing to have happened?

Nemesio

The most troubling part for me, in this whole exercise, is that silly little 'riddles' and 'puzzles' like this actually trouble some people. They truly have talked themselves into believing that this represents a moral dilemma of sorts that somehow makes God appear morally challenged. If it wasn't such a sad state of affairs, I'd be tempted to laugh.

The ignorance and arrogance is appalling.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The most troubling part for me, in this whole exercise, is that silly little 'riddles' and 'puzzles' like this actually trouble some people. They truly have talked themselves into believing that this represents a moral dilemma of sorts that somehow makes God appear morally challenged. If it wasn't such a sad state of affairs, I'd be tempted to laugh.

The ignorance and arrogance is appalling.

Look, you're the one who advocates the stance that all evil/suffering/pain that exists is logically necessary for the greater good. This stance of yours is either arbitrary, or you have reasons to back up your stance. If you say that all instances of suffering/pain are logically necessary for the greater good; and if this is not arbitrary and you have some reasons to back this up; then for any instance of suffering/pain (be it the Down's baby or Nemesio's example), you ought to be able to provide some reasons why this instance is logically necessary for the greater good -- instead of just trying to dodge the example. You consistently fail to give any reasons. As such, I have a strong feeling that you don't have any. Again, if your ethical treatment is simply that every actual event is logically necessary for the greater good simply because it purportedly obtains in accordance with God's decree, then that is a stupid and arbitrary concept of what is necessary for the greater good. The greater good is not some endogenous function of God's whims and fancies.