Yes.
I looked at the link, and I believe it’s one which has been recommended to me before. IMO Craig’s answer boils down to little more than "God’s foreknowledge doesn’t interfere with free will, just because." He carefully skirts anything that would demolish his argument- for example, the question of what happens if you know what’s in the boxes before you choose. He comes close to addressing this by bringing up the idea that you could have a friend who could see inside the boxes without telling you what he sees. Unfortunately, that final, rather arbitrary caveat means that Craig never addresses the glaring flaw in his thesis. Craig also does nothing to address the question of whether you have free will if God uses his divine foreknowledge to exclude anyone who would make a particular choice, and that is precisely the question with the most bearing on theodicy. Why does God create people whom he knows will reject him? If, as Craig argues, divine foreknowledge does not limit your free will, then why can’t God simply forbid people to play unless he already knows that he will like their choices?
-Ben
Let me guess:
You feel that it would be unfair for God to punish the innocent simply because they have the wrong historical opinions.
Therefore, you posit that everyone is guilty, and that God sets guilty people free simply because they have the right historical opinions.
Am I right?
-Ben
The person who filed a Bet Din against G-d, btw, was Reb. Levi Yitzhak, btw. I don’t know exactly how it turned out.
I didn’t think you’re picking a fight. No offense taken (I don’t even really see how there could be offense).
**
No, the coelocanth was never defined as “extinct.” It is defined (rudimentarily) as “a type of fish.” Being extinct was merely a characteristic of it, not something intrinsic to its being. Suppose someone holds something up and says, “Hey, I found a coelocanth.” You check the definition (a type of fish), maybe check the definition of fish (something with scales, breathes through gills, etc), and then say, “No, that can’t be a coelocanth, because it’s not a fish. I propose it’s a sack of potatoes.” Characteristics can change… the weather has the characteristic of being humid or dry, hot or cold, etc. Definitions… well, I guess they can change, too, but it’s much harder. We could, I guess, say, “Ok, starting tomorrow, what was previously known as cold' shall now be known as hot.’”
Your other examples–no, homosexual love was not defined as sinful; again, that’s a characteristic. It’s defined as when two members of the same gender love each other. A black person was not defined as a slave; that’s a characteristic. A black person was defined as someone… well, someone with black skin and the physical characteristics of the Negroid anthropological group, I guess.
My first thought was that having the knowledge available does not mean that I know something. Then I realized that there is no difference in your argument between knowing something, and being able to look it up.
Ok, good examples. I can’t be certain because: (a) you may be wrong, or (b) you may be lying. But I don’t think these apply to God [Judeo-Christian God, just to be explicit] because of the other intrinsic characteristics He has. In point (a), God is Perfect… and a Perfect being doesn’t make mistakes. In point (b), God is free from sin, He is omnibenevolent, etc… He can’t lie to us. He wouldn’t want to.
**
Yeah, probably, but I think our main disagreement is going to be at the definitional level. (Let’s hear it for our mutual friend semantics). I’m defining the God of the Bible as omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent… well, basically Perfect. From there, I don’t think there’s any paradoxes or contradictions.
You’re saying defining God as such doesn’t make it true. Well, how would you define God?
I’ll grant you that I’m assuming certain things (see above) and going from there. But all logic starts with some sort of presumption, some “given.” Maybe our givens are different.
**
Well, the most formal training in logic I’ve had was in the 11th grade, and that was at 6:30 in the morning. So more formal terms would probably be superfluous, but additional explanation is always good.
Eh, if people don’t want to read a massive essay, no one is forcing them to do so. I would suggest that if we continue this back-and-forth, it be done in a separate thread. This discussion is relevant to the OP, but tangential.
Quix
Hmmm, didn’t God harden Pharoah’s heart in the old testament (Exodus 4:21)? Apparently free will wasn’t exactly en vogue with the big guy back then I guess.
Apparently G-d was found guilty.
First of all, I don’t read posts that fragment previous posts and reply to the fragments (you know what I’m talking about). They’re annoying to read and I do not condone them, endorse them, or even waste my time reading them. If some or all of my post has been mentioned before, I’m apologize.
Second of all, it may be foolish to assume that God is omnibenevolent. I won’t discuss that statement in depth in this thread because it’s not on topic, but I just want to throw that out there.
As for murder etc. being a crime…
We consider murder to be a crime because it is ending the observable part of their existence. A murderer may be sending someone to a different/better/worse plane of existence, or simply snuffing out his consiousness… forever (a much for frightening prospect than Hell, if you ask me). Since we don’t know what happens to the mind/soul/being after death, it seems prudent to avoid death as much as possible, hence the underlying “death is bad” belief on Earth.
God, however, very likely knows how death works and what it does, so the moral implications of killing (which are based pretty much entirely on the fear of the unkown) that we are subject to do not apply.
Many other crimes (if not all crimes) are likely negligible in the grand scheme of things. Besides, the term “crime” is totally subjective. We could pass a law making it illegal to be an omnipotent being; such a law would make God (the Judeo-Christian God, at least) a criminal simply for being God. That’s just silly, but so is holding God to our standards.
Alright, but that is out of character for you.
Yes.
No.
Historical opinions are all good and stuff, but an accurate historical opinion really gets you nowhere. There is a historical question, for sure, but what one does with that historical opinion, is where the rubber meets the road.
HTH.
-Ben **
[/QUOTE]
Do you believe that a person without the correct historical opinion can get into heaven?
-Ben
Your assertion that God would be criminally negligent (or even just a bad fellow) for allowing children to die when it is within ability to save them is fundamentally flawed. You assume that saving children is better than allowing them to die (which is your perspective), but an omniscient deity may not share that belief. For example, God may see the world as monstrously overpopulated, then notices a few thousand children will die in an upcoming famine; sure, he has the ability to end the famine, causing the children to survive and reach a reproductive age and increase the population, but he dislikes overpopulation more and allows the children to starve to death. Or maybe, and here is the kicker, God sees the overpopulation and creates the famine to kill the children on purpose.
From the standpoint of world overpopulation, you could just as easily say God is criminally negligent for not talking an active hand in killing more children. He could create a pediatric plague that kills a third to half of all newborn babies to reduce population growth. Bad, naughty, wicked God for not doing this.
Or maybe it is a better idea not to judge an omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent being with a hypothetical existence by our personal standards of good and evil.
Or maybe he could just reduce fertility so that there is no over population? Or improve the yield of grain so that there is enough food? Either could nicely solve the whole “should I let children starve to death or kill them with diseases?” dilemna.
Of course, He has been found in breach of contract, but I’ve already mentioned that…
Damn, I took a nap instead of posting, and Gaudere beat me to the punch. The “this is the best of all possible worlds” argument didn’t hold water for Candide, and it sure as hell doesn’t work for me either.
They’re not my personal standards of good and evil. I don’t remember being the author of the Ten Commandments. If God can’t follow his own damned rules, he maybe should have made ones that He can follow? If a CEO decress to his employees, “No accepting gifts from our partners worth more than $50” and then goes out and receives a new BMW from said partners, that’s hypocrisy. No amount of, “Well, I’m the CEO, I know what I’m doing” makes it any less hypocritical. Even if he does know what he is doing and it does help the company, that doesn’t make it right.
Quix
I disagree. Your “one size fits all” may appease the bottom of the totem pole, but the God or the CEO must be able to bend the rules in some circumstances or define the rules to allow for exceptions. I know the CEO of my company can do some things I can’t. I don’t have a problem with that; it is just the way business is done sometimes.
But God as CEO, I think, is a poor analogy. God as Parent would be better. Parents make rules for their children (like bedtime is 8:00PM) but they don’t have to follow the rule themselves because the rule is intended for children, not parents.
Replace the word “God” with “Saddam Hussein,” “Fidel Castro,” or pick your own totalitarian dictator, and see if that excuses the act.
Quix
P.S. Sorry for the double post
Ok, let’s consider a hypothetical situation…
Because of mankinds technological genius and the cooperation of hundreds of top scientists we are able to create the one time god making machine. By chance the scientists pick Joe Bob to be the lucky recipient of God like powers.
After becoming a god Joe surveys the world…
Joe: “Hmm… there’s lots of starving children!”.
ZAP Now all people don’t even have to eat! They can absorb the necessary nutrients through their skin now!
Joe: "Hmm… lot’s of people dying for other reasons too… "
ZAP Now everyone has eternal life on this planet!
Joe: “Hmm… some people aren’t enjoying life as much as other people …”
ZAP Everyone is now happy!
Joe: “Hmm… even though people are happy now theres still inequality since not everyone lives in a nice mansion and drives an SUV”
ZAP Everyone has the same material goods and the earths natural resources are now infinite! Great!
Barring Joe’s repeated and annoying use of “Hmmm” is there anything wrong with this scenario? If so, why?
Grim_Beaker
Totalitarian dictators may think they’re God, but they’re not. All people were created equal, so judging human on human actions should be dealt equitable: e.g., if Saddam orders the execution of 10,000 children per month fearing overpopulation, other humans could stand in judgment and call his action criminal and monstrous. But since God is unequal to humans, we could not judge him because we are the lower being: e.g., humans control the overpopulation of animals by hunting, spaying and neutering, and by induced death; while many people may not like what we do to animals for population control, many would agree that population control is necessary and ultimately for the animals own good.
Again, I would say humans could not judge God with human values just as adults don’t judge children by adult values; God could, however, be judge by other Gods using God values.
I hope he’s planning on expanding the size of the planet as well, because it’d get awful damn crowded with no one dying, and everyone fat, rich and happy, reproducing like rabbits.
And I hope he’s planning on changing human nature, as well, because greed and jealousy would still make us hate each other. If you and I have an SUV I might get pissed because mine has a dent in the door, and yous doesn’t, and want to take your SUV. Maybe I want two SUVs.
Sexual jealousy, envy and hate will still be a factor. All of our human vices would have to be removed, as well. Is he planning on making us all the same color? If not, then racism still exists. He would have to make us all look the same, because, as one famous experiment proved, people can quickly learn to discriminate even based on eye color.
War will still exist, simply because we don’t all see eye to eye on things. Religion? Will that all be the same? Hell, even if we don’t have anything to fight about, we’ll MAKE a reason.
I hope he’s planning on making pollution non-existant as well, which, if we’re all driving SUVs, would make breathing no fun. Won’t the roads be hugely clogged with everyone driving?
And since we’re all rich, wouldn’t we be generating more waste? Hopefully, he’s planning on giving us a bottomless trash dump.
Well, if you assume that God can sort everything out so we’re all happy at some point (in heaven), why are you throwing up all these objections to God being able to make the world better than it is now? You seem to be arguing rather strenuously that heaven is impossible.