Originally posted by LemonJello
what in the world are you talking about? he's omnipotent for pete's sake! he can inflict any type of logically possible evil that he wants to! but then he of course becomes a morally repugnant monster. so what you really meant is that you see no other way such a god can allow evil and not be a morally repugnant monster.
my thinking is that he is ...[text shortened]... na as a natural occurrence which just happens to be very unfortunate and very sad for very many.
what in the world are you talking about? he's omnipotent for pete's sake! he can inflict any type of logically possible evil that he wants to! but then he of course becomes a morally repugnant monster. so what you really meant is that you see no other way such a god can allow evil and not be a morally repugnant monster.
Right. I keep forgeting that you're not a mind reader like some of the others on the forum 😛 I shant mention any names.
my thinking is that he is morally responsible if any evil occurs whatsoever, no matter how you slice it, and no matter whether free will exists or not. i just don't think free will can successfully relieve this god of moral responsibility. the attributes of omniscience and omnipotence are incredibly strong: essentially, if he exercises these attributes, absolutely nothing can just happen spuriously against his will.
Okay. If I follow you correctly, you are saying that because God allows evil, He is morally responsible for it.
I'm sure you are familiar with the biblical arguments for free will, so I won't bother explaining the why of the why (unless you want me to).
The bottom line of the free will argument is that God allows mankind the freedom to basically do what he likes within the confines of the physical laws of our universe. By allowing this, God obviously doesn't interfere with our actions. That doesn't mean that God callously sits and watches. The onus just shifts from one of prevention to one of justice. Lets take a common example, where most people would agree that it is evil: rape.
God allows the rapist to exercise his free will without interfering, but that is not where this ends. Justice will always be served. I think as humans with our myopic, three-dimentional, perspective that is trapped in time and space, we can't grasp eternity. We can look at a glass of water and understand what we see, but we can't really fathom all the water in the oceans. That rapist will be judged by God for his action and I don't think we can grasp an eternity without God.
So too with the raped woman. From an eternal perspective the psychological effect of a rape is like a drop in the bucket. That doesn't mean we shouldn't help these women and give them as much love and support as possible.
absolutely any specific event that takes place does so because, at the very least, this god did not deem it necessary to prevent said event from occurring. thus, every event is at least willfully allowed to occur by this god; additionally, in every case, he could have (very easily mind you) acted otherwise to prevent the event from occurring, and he knows that. these constitute a pretty solid foundation for moral responsibility.
True. But God is above our petty laws of moral responsibility. Surely the created would be responsible to the creator, not the other way around.
it really doesn't matter whether we have free will or not in my opinion. there are many other further reasons why i don't think free will gets around the problem of evil, but i have already expounded on many of them in other threads.
Darn. As a newbie I missed em.
as an aside, everybody seems to think free will is a good of supreme importance, and i tend to agree that the existence of free will would be superior to the non-existence of free will on at least an aesthetic level; however, why is there reason to think that the good afforded by free will necessarily outweighs the good that would result from an absence of suffering, or simply the existence of less suffering (if indeed free will does necessitate suffering, which i am not convinced it does)? in other words, if free will does necessitate suffering, why is there reason to think such suffering is logically necessary?
The reason why IMHO it is logically necessary is because in a world without free will, love would not exist. You cannot program something to love you. For example, one could program a computer to say "I love you" - but naturally that would not be real love. I believe God created humans to love Him and so He could have eternal fellowship with them.
of course, free will has nothing to do with natural evils. all you have to do is look at the devastation left by katrina, and i think it's pretty apparent what conclusion will emerge: IF an omniscient, omnipotent god exists, THEN he is morally repugnant, at least some of the time.
Right. Katrina is perfectly explained scientifically as a natural event caused by meteorological phenomenon. God allowed nature to take its course. My reasoning here is again that from an eternal perspective life here on earth is but a drop in the ocean. I think many people are happier now than they would have been.
i certainly hope that if god exists, he is not omniscient and omnipotent (or at least does not exercise such capacities). such attributes are so absurdly strong anyway, that we would do just fine with a god who is only pretty darn powerful and only pretty darn smart.
Hmmm... 😕
if, on the other hand, he's an omni-whatnot god who also happens to be callous, then fine. that would actually explain a lot. but i would just like to hear a christian admit his callousness.
Well that is where I think we might interpret the pardox of God's love and justice as callous.
given the lack of evidence for His existence to begin with, i tend to just see katrina as a natural occurrence which just happens to be very unfortunate and very sad for very many.
Sure.