Thanks u/Plemethrock
We can have a discussion on whether or not free will exists. Discuss if every action we do is already predetermined by how our brain is wired, with the environment around us being the inputs.
We can also have a discussion on whether or not humans have souls and analyze the evidence for and against us just being our bodies
(I made an error and had to repost, apologies)
God created all things good. His foreknowledge doesn't make Him an accomplice. What you're saying is basically this: you having children makes you evil, because you have them while knowing they will inevitably suffer and experience evil. But having children is still a net good and you go ahead. What appears bad to us, God uses to make good. Christ was betrayed and crucified but out of this a much greater good came to the world. This is how God operates and us having limited knowledge means we can't foresee and judge how thing ultimately end up. God can do only good because that's His nature.
No, that's a common mistake when critiquing theodicy (problem of evil). Knowing something in advance doesn't make you the cause of it. You conceive of only one type of causality (the domino effect one) - this is the result of materialism being the ruling paradigm in our modern world. But there are other types of causality that were widely accepted before metaphysics was done away with. Humans are secondary causal agents, meaning our will is separate from God's will and what we cause in the world is separate from God's causes.
There's no love without free will but free will inevitably leads to the possibility of evil (not choosing the good). God made us in His image having free will and being capable of love, even at the cost of evil and suffering entering His creation. Therefore love is greater than evil and triumphs in the end when all evil will be destroyed at the final judgement.
The key difference is you or I did not create the universe and all the conditions within it. Evil arises due to the nature of things. We live in a world where essentially every single thing must kill or at the very least rely on death (plants needing decaying organic matter in the soil) to survive. Where primal desires fuel all, or almost all (depending on your perspective) behaviors. Equivocating someone born into this system reproducing to a Being that ostensibly constructed the system this way is not honest
That's the world as we know it after the fall which is cosmic in scope. Before that there was no death or evil. The Earth was paradise, Eden.
Exactly. I'm not the one equivocating though - I specifically said God's uncreated will is the primary cause and our created wills are secondary causes. There's a very clear distinction between God's nature and our human nature.
You are equivocating them by using your hypothetical question of "if your son becomes a murderer are you responsible?" in response to the argument you're responding to. The person having a son did not create the world where murder is possible, where the son will have instincts that drive him to want to commit murder, the human father does not know his son WILL commit murder and let it happen anyway, etc etc. it's a false equivalence whether you want it to be or not
Sure, in another comment I said the analogy is not 1 to 1 because we're secondary agents.
God didn't create that world either. There was no death before the fall. As I said, you're describing the world after the fall. Your contention ultimately boils down to this: "Why did God made us in His image having free will and being capable of not loving Him and disobeying His command? Why didn't He create us as automatons so that no ill could come out of the creation?"
The answer as I already said is because there's no love without freedom of choice. Maybe people who think marrying their AI gf (golems) is an option may disagree, but frankly they are degenerates and they're too far gone in their metaverse minds. God allowed evil to enter the world via our own choices because He ultimately knows He can make a greater good this way. This is why I made the analogy with the child - you know the child will suffer and die eventually, but you still have the child because life is a greater good even considering all that.
Scripture and tradition alike tell us that it wasn't always that way and science tells us all these things are designed to live optimally in a world without death, but that the use of death is always an adaptation.
Either there is evil and so there is free will, or there is no free will and so there is no evil. You are free to choose the horrid consequences of the latter.
I would be interested to understand how the physiology of say a lion or cheetah work better without death. Remember, plants are alive too so anything eating plants is killing them, they cry out for help when being cut down. And what of decaying organic matter? It seems like you must be working towards a foregone conclusion to find such evidence but I'm open to it so let's get into it.
You are presupposing those are the only options and in doing so you are limiting God's power from omnipotence. Your assertions, to be true, require that He could only create things with either free will and evil or neither. That doesn't sound reasonable for a Being to Whom all of existence is ascribed
I’ve enjoyed reading much of the discussion in this thread - so please don’t see the following as in any way “ganging up”, I’d just like to hear more of your thoughts. You say:
I don’t really see the flaw here? Forgive the analogy, but let’s imagine two different video games (potential universes God could have made). In one of the video games, the player follows a straight line of progression, going from event A>B>C and reaches the games “ending”. In the other game, at each event (A, B, C) the player is presented with a “choice” to pick the “good option” or the “bad option”. Depending on which options you pick, you can get a “good ending”, “bad ending”, or “mixed ending”.
In the first game, there is no free will. Thus there is no “bad choices” nor a “bad ending”. Thus “evil” (atleast our analogy thereof) doesn’t exist without the free will to choose it.
You seem to propose that God “could have” designed a game with free will but which simultaneously lacks the capacity for evil. This seems like a contradiction to me, why not to you?
Feel free to ignore the wrapping of the analogy if you want
No, eating plants isn't always killing them, you might just be eating their fruit. Yes, vegetarians have worked out safe plant-based diets for cats, although the real issue is adaptation. Since evolutionists believe plant-processing synthesis was adapted in other species, and since creationists believe cats once had it, they should agree that death is not the issue.
Sounds like special pleading.
God cannot create a contradiction, being is not nonbeing. All realities we can imagine (except nihilism) have this logical requirement. If freewill without evil, or evil without freewill, were a logical possibility, then we could talk about it. If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't.
You just agreed with my position (that God causing all the evil in the world doesn't make him evil) while claiming to be arguing against me.
That was never my argument. My argument is this. If a non-deterministic action A makes outcome X a certainty when an alternative action B would have made not-X a certainty then A is the ultimate cause of X. If additionally A is performed by an agent who is aware that A will make X happen while B would have avoided X then the agent deliberately causes X. Therefore if God wasn't pre-determined to create a universe that certainly (as proved by his foreknowledge) led to evil (action A leading to X) and could have chose not to create (action B leading to not-X), but yet he did, it follows that God creating the universe was the ultimate cause of evil in the universe. Additionally God was aware this action would lead to evil in the universe while the alternative would have avoided it, so therefore God deliberately caused evil in the universe.
Which part of this argument is wrong? Notice I said nothing about causing evil being evil, God being morally accountable for causing evil or humans lacking accountability for their role in bringing the evil about.
You need to define what a secondary causal agent is. In a row of dominoes ending with a button you can call the second domino a "secondary causal agent" but it doesn't change the fact that if laws of physics are deterministic then the fall of the first domino causes the button to get pressed. Same thing if a general orders a soldier to kill someone - we say the general caused the death, regardless of the fact that there was a soldier who also caused the death and could have opted to disobey orders.
Citation needed. We all know people can love and make choices yet it is conceivable that these things happen via deterministic mental processes. If you say that a deterministic love cannot be love then you are simply defining love to be something that humans may not be capable of.
That's a strawman. I explicitly said God doesn't cause ANY evil in any way shape or form because it's contrary to His nature. Everything God does is good, true and just.
The part that's wrong is that you equivocate between primary and secondary causation. But the argument is not even valid when talking about secondary causation (created causes). Here's a very clear example:
If I have a son and I do a great job being a good father, but still my son, who's now an adult, falls into bad habits and eventually commits murder, am I responsible for the evil caused by him?
I'd say the whole argument as you put it begs the question because it assumes determinism and takes away the ability of real choice from the equation. Just like I said in the comment above - you presuppose physicalist domino-effect causality (A-> B-> C) where each each cause is the predetermined effect of a previous cause and acts a certain with no free will - basically it behaves like an inanimate physical object (so naturally, you arrive to determinism and the circle is complete).
Aristotle is cool and all, but like all ancient philosophers, he took a lot of things for granted because at that point no one was questioning the foundational ideas about metaphysics and epistemology. Many centuries passed before Descartes and later Hume, Kant and the existentialists had the ball rolling questioning foundational beliefs.
Secondary causation refers to the created causes we normally talk about (fire causes heat, choices cause actions, medicine causes healing, etc.) These causes are real and effective, operating according to their own natures.
No, you can't because a domino is an inanimate object and not an agent. Agent refers to a rational being capable making choices which influences other objects and agents in the universe.
That's because in that context, the soldier is supposed to defer his personal assessment and act as a tool, an extension of the higher-up's will. Also, in the many cases soldiers are also held responsible for not disobeying orders on some occasions like the nazi executions. This a deontological and ethical question about when "I was just following orders" is appropriate and when it's not (and who gets to decide where the line is drawn).
But if determinism is true, the general isn't responsible too, because he's simply a domino down the causal chain. Responsibility, justice or any moral judgement is nonsensical in that system.
First of all, if determinism is true it's not simply about people not having free will and choice - that's just the surface of the problem as normies see it. Philosophically, it also leads to the impossibility of knowledge and truth. Why? Because truth necessitates a choice between the true and the false. But if every mind in existence is predetermined, no real evaluation of a given proposition ever takes place (I'm predetermined to say A is true, and you - B is true and at no tie-breaker is possible because C is also predetermined to output either A or B).
If determinism is the case, all that there is is matter governed by predetermined chemical reactions, that are effects of previous reactions and so on going back to the First cause. Where is love in that equation? Do you mean more predetermined chemical reactions? I highly doubt many people will agree on that definition (not an appeal to majority, just saying). Is the water boiling at 100 degrees any different than love? What's the meaningful distinction between me loving something vs the opposite?
You conflate free will with moral accountability. Arguing for/against one is not arguing for/against another. You also conflate determinism with materialism.
My terms were clearly defined and primary and secondary causation were not terms I used.
No, truth is true regardless of whether any agent is capable of making choices.
Love could be defined as an emotion one feels or as a disposition one has towards a thing or as actions one does in service of a thing. None of those definitions would require free will.
I don't think so. No free will necessarily leads to no moral accountability and that should be evident. Determinism usually assumes materialism. If you have another worldview then let's hear it. What other causes are there beside material causes and how are they justified?
You're arguing on a subject where those terms apply. Just because you didn't use them because you didn't know them and can't make the proper distinction, that doesn't mean they are not relevant. That's exactly why I brought it up, because this this will help you understand how God being the primary cause of everything doesn't make him the secondary cause that led to evil coming into the world.
Knowledge of truth requires choice and evaluation. This is in the sphere of epistemology. Truth's ontological existence is another matter. But since you affirm the realist position, in what way does objective truth exist and what is it grounded in?
What is an emotion and what causes it? If it's simply a causally determined reaction to outside stimuli, then it's an instinct no different than any other instinct or mechanism in the body (or in nature as a whole, because there's no meaningful distinction between what you call a human and the other causally determined instances of matter - dominos - in the universe).
PS: Come to think of it, the whole notion of evil makes no sense under determinism. There are zero objective moral values possible if strict determinism is true. Morality presupposes the ability to choose the good over not-good (evil). This ties in to culpability and moral responsibility. So your entire argument is self-refuting.
Here's the main argument refuting determinism in under a minute which I went over: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NA2mYO0CwQM
https://scored.co/c/Conspiracies/p/1ARwwogdGc/round-table-free-will-does-it-ex/c/4eZDpIRpjE1
You and u/Zyxl are arguing a semantic, primarily the meaning of "cause", but also perceived but unnecessary attributes of limited freewill. The related points above indicate the direction of resolution.
I think I presented the defeater already: