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)
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
Excellent, im glad that came through, because these topics really are important, and important conversations without depth and nuance cease to be important I think, and conversations can easily devolve…anyway!
I think I can best respond to your points by myself raising two points.
First, instead of imagining our choices as able to fall into two buckets, namely “good choices” and “evil choices”, I want us to forget the buckets and picture all these choices occurring on a spectrum. On the far left side of the spectrum is THE MOST EVIL CHOICE YOU ARE PHYSICALLY ABLE TO MAKE and on the far right side of the spectrum is THE MOST GOOD CHOICE YOU ARE PHYSICALLY ABLE TO MAKE. I believe this addresses a couple of your points just off the bat, namely your points about
creating a universe with the potential for good choices but with our potential for evil or morally harmful choices prevented
limitations on any given person’s capacity to choose evil (or good for that matter)
For point 1), let’s imagine a universe where, according to the spectrum of choice I described, everything to the left of “I don’t care” is a choice precluded from us. So let’s say… you’re walking down the street and see someone living rough (i.e. homeless). In our (real, current, physical) world, you could shoot him, spit on him, ignore him, give him a sandwich, or invite him to stay in your guest room while he gets back on his feet. Now let’s go to the universe where God has precluded all the “evil” choices from being made, everything more evil than “I don’t care about that guy.”… well, doesn’t that just shift the definition of “evil choices”? Now, “ignore him” is the most evil thing we can do, and it’s still evil (just less so than shooting him) and we can still choose it.
So all that is to say, even with “narrowed choices” as long as our free will exists, we are always able to choose an option from the “evil” side of the spectrum. So yes the President has a wider spectrum of choices (he can actually launch nukes, or mobilize 1,000,000 soldiers to build infrastructure projects), but, and this brings me to my next point (in response to what you raised) regarding limitations on our capacity to choose evil. We can’t just use our Will to conjure a nuke and detonate it. We can’t just use our Will to conjure $1,000,000 and use it for “good”.
Could you imagine how broken the world would be if every person got their own personal Death Note (a magic book where you write someone’s name and it causes them to die)? Could you imagine a school classroom where every student believed themselves to be the teacher? It wouldn’t work! No lessons would be learned! Imagine the horrors of a world where nothing could die. Jeffery Epstein would be 2,000 years old and even more capable of evil than already possible. His victims would suffer an eternity.
I think, and I readily admit this is all in the realm of thought, as “evidence” and “proof” are almost tangential to this conversation, that this system we are in, where we are limited in our capacity to choose good and evil, and limited in our lifespans and every other metric of import, this is “the best” option of the bunch, given the (assumed/implied) purpose of existence as a “classroom” or arena for learning these massive lessons
Cheers man thanks for the reply!
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
I don't mind that we are out of step, I've said my peace as to the OP. The issue is whether you'd like to find out the truth and the resolution of the disagreement between us, or not. If you don't care and are comfortable remaining in your presuppositions (even though the forum exists to challenge people), sobeit. But if you have committed to pursue truth at all costs, it's not enough to bat away opposition with weak arguments (veganism) or to dismiss arguments as illogical without working through the definitions of the words you use.
Your initial salvo was that evil exists "due to the nature of things", which implies you presume that the corrupted state we observe is the only state this world could ever have had. However, science shows that the formation of the universe was dramatically different from its ongoing phases, and in particular that via the second law the universe was more orderly in the past than it is now (less entropic). How can we weigh the evidence of science and history together to find out the true "nature of things" together? Are you prepared to investigate your presumptions and weigh whether they are capable of nuance? From recent observations we don't have hard proof that the universe began with perfection or that it began with imperfection, either way; so we need to draw inferences from analysis of science and history, not just recent observation. Without getting to that root we wouldn't likely arrive at the same conclusion.