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)
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.
You are again being extremely limiting on the ways the world could be created. You're changing my contention to fit your framework. What is death? Did God create death? If not, where did it come from? Why did it exist after the fall? Did God change creation after the fall? If not, by what mechanism was it changed? Did God create that mechanism, or...? But even arguing in this framework is presupposing your beliefs, to which I'd still ask for an actual breakdown of how animal physiology supports a world without death (and how that effects plant death, why animals have to experience death if humans were the ones who made the mistake, etc). Still I'm interested in your answers to these questions.
So, let's talk a different way. I have free will but that doesn't mean I can do anything I want. I cannot fly. No matter how much I will it, I am limited by physical reality, a set of systems God put in place. So, how is it not possible to still have free will and have constraints on evil? Perhaps a man could only become physically aroused in the presence of a woman he made a sacred marriage pact with, surely God could make that happen. If free will itself were so important, we should all be living in our own simulations and be able to impose our wills however we want, to truly see what we would do. Otherwise our free will is held in check by the limitations of our physical reality which certainly could have been made more restrictive to remove or reduce evil, OR less restrictive so there is even greater capacity for evil. Free will is already not unlimited, so why would further limits contradict the importance of free will? Why wouldn't fewer limits highlight it?
Do not boil my argument down to automatons and AI girlfriends, you are trying to make a dumbed down argument to respond to so you can impose your already existing belief frameworks onto this debate
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
This is something which is very difficult to wrap one's head around because we are only accustomed to the universe we live in. But if we are to use your analogy, you could be in a video game where there are infinitely many choices but the evil ones are still in some ways precluded. Let's say you could do anything but kill another person, the laws of physics could be changed (like in a game) to somehow not allow this. There are still infinite choices. Even better, if you're trying could know whether or not you attempted to kill someone, but prevent them from actually getting killed. But regardless, there are infinitely many ways the universe could have been created. If we were created without the need to eat other organisms to survive, to need to compete over finite resources etc, much of what we see as evil would not exist. Further still, humans would still find interest in all sorts of things and all sorts of pursuits in the absence of evil, there would still be an expression of self and free will. If we accept that the universe could be structured in a way that still allows humans to act in infinite ways but avoids evil being possible, the question becomes, "why is evil necessary?". The typical answer posited is "because it's a test".
This goes back to my analogy about how I cannot actually fly, because there are physical limitations. No matter how much I may will it, I cannot break these laws. One might ssk why aren't they more restrictive of evil? But if one accepts that this existence is a test there are other questions to ask: why aren't the laws of physics, or any other universal law we're governed by, then even more tolerant of evil? If the point of all this is to show whether or not I'm evil, wouldn't it be better for my physical limitations to not exist? What if I were very powerful, would I abuse it? If I were extremely attractive would I be a womanizer? Because I'm not I get to slip by as good? Why, if we need to go through this evil to be tested, are we not all being tested at the limits? Why do some face great temptation and falter while others who would likely falter facing the same temptation never face it?
Also I very much appreciate the way you engaged with this I don't see it as ganging up at all, I realize my viewpoint is in the minority. I appreciate that you're really attempting to understand, even if we don't end up seeing eye to eye
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 bring up a good edge case. The fruit then likely loses out on the potential of its own continuing through seeds, but that's not the same as death. Vegan cats are super unhealthy, and a diet that relies on human supply chains and the such, while still being suboptimal, certainly is not something that would have happened in nature. So if you grant only fruits were ever being eaten by all animals, and that primarily carnivorous animals for some reason have a bunch of characteristics and instincts that are specialized for hunting and killing that were simply pointless before the fall, sure, why not. It's an incredible stretch with essentially no backing but you're welcome to believe it.
The rest of this is pseudo philosophical nonsense. It can't be possible because you said so