A Review of Antony Flew’s “Divine Omnipotence and Human Freewill”
Antony Flew shows the Freewill Defense theodicy fails since it is the case that existence of compatibilist free will is not a logical impossibility relative to what is generally thought of as Omnipotence in his essay “Divine Omnipotence and Human Freewill” featured in Peter Angeles' anthology, “Critiques of God”.
Flew begins by wrongfully, but inconsequentially so since many falsely think the following to be from Augustine’s “Confessions”, quoting [1] St Augustine : "Either God cannot abolish evil, or he will not; if he cannot, then he is not all-powerful; if he will not, then he is not all good." [2] An elegant summation nonetheless, Flew rightly pigeon holed the saying by noting that this is “Perhaps the most powerful of all skeptical arguments, this has appealed especially to the clearest and most direct minds, striking straight and decisively to the heart of the matter.” Actual EVIL, existing in contradistinction to actual moral goodness, is the substantive core of the question at issue. How can the God of classical theism exist when the world, and even more so the Universe (ie: all existence), is saturated with a cold indifference to life? Not only does observed empirical existence reveal man’s inhumanity to man, but the unimaginable sickening horror from natural disasters evidenced by an ever growing list of causalities dimly echoes within a grand canyon of animal suffering. The predator-prey and parasite-host relationships in a brutally uncaring, mechanistic, evolutionary context screams “Humans are not the point.”
In large measure, the history of human civilization has been recorded in step with efforts to understand our existence. By crafting myths, we encode ways we try to reconcile seeming contradictions between life and brutal reality. Such is the case of the world's oldest story. When Gilgamesh, the king, sends the woman Shamhat, a temple prostitute, to Enkidu, the wild-man, their sexual liaison civilizes Enkidu. After six days and seven nights of love making, he is no longer a wild beast who lives with animals. [3] Upon visiting the water hole, the animals flee from the sight of Enkidu, puzzled he asks Shamhat what it means. She wisely informs the anti-hero, “Behold Enkidu, you are become wise like unto a god.” [4] As the knowledge of sexual procreation transformed the wild Enkidu, we ordinary mortals, when we become aware of the absolute nature of existence and its identity, become transformed by recognizing that objective good arises from objective existence while evils anticipates a dearth of goodness. While these ethical qualities share a relationship like up and down or big and small, good and evil are nonetheless objective. And, even though, mutually required to make sense of the other, they can be understood in light of what is meant by values and why they are important to living beings. The Objectivist philosophers offer clear and cogent definitions.
“In ethics, one must begin by asking: What are values? Why does man need them?” Wrote Ayn Rand, and she continued: “Value” is that which one acts to gain and/or keep. The concept “value” is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? It presupposes an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative. Where no alternative exists, no goals and no values are possible.
I quote from Galt’s speech: “There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or nonexistence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.” [5]
Even so, the broad scope of animal suffering, a vast ocean of pain and terror, is like the Great Barrier Reef of objective evil, for if anything diminishes the “process of self-sustaining and self-generated action”, it is the pain, suffering, and terror of being eaten or burned alive. “Suppose in some distant forest lightning strikes a dead tree,” wrote William L. Rowe in describing the problem of evil: “resulting in a forest fire. In the fire a fawn is trapped, horribly burned, and lies in terrible agony for several days before death relieves its suffering. So far as we can see, the fawn's suffering is pointless. For there does not appear to be any greater good such that the prevention of the fawn's suffering would require either the loss of that good or the occurrence of an evil equally bad or worse. Nor does there seem to be any equally bad or worse evil so connected to the fawn's suffering that it would have had to occur had the fawn;s suffering been prevented. Could an omnipotent, omniscient being have prevented the fawn's apparently pointless suffering? The answer is obvious, as even the theist will insist, An omnipotent, omniscient being could have easily prevented the fawn from being horribly burned, or, given the burning, could have spared the fawn the intense suffering by quickly ending its life, rather that allowing the fawn to lie in terrible agony for several days. Since the fawn's intense suffering was preventable and so far as we can see, pointless, doesn't it appear that premise one (See note 6.) of the argument is true, that there do exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse? [6]
There is a problem of evil, and we recognize it concurrently with our awareness of objective morality from absolute existence. Perhaps that may be why Flew found it useful to cite John S. Mill’s posthumously published “Three Essays on Religion” to further refine the problem and challenge theology by noting Mill did not imagine “the impossible problem of reconciling infinite benevolence and justice with infinite power in the Creator of such a world as this. The attempt to do so not only involves absolute contradiction in an intellectual point of view but exhibits to excess the revolting spectacle of a jesuitical defense of moral enormities.” [7] Amen! Mill’s bold words are, however, not conclusive, for the Christian believer has faith that ways to reconcile the existence of objective evil with their God’s omni-loving, omni-compassion attributes can be found.
For that purpose theodicies have been devised. Flew notes that: “Several determined efforts have been made to escape from the dilemma. One favorite – which might be dubbed the ‘Freewill Defense’ – runs like this. The first move is to point out ,via citing Thomas Aquinas, “Nothing which implies contradiction falls under the omnipotence of God.” [8] Flew elucidates, “even God cannot do what is logically impossible; that is, if you make up a self-contradictory, a nonsense sentence it won’t miraculously become sense just because you have put the word God as its subject.” Flew follows up on this by predicating that theologians find the third formulation superior because it pinpoints the essential quality of logical impossibility as being no restriction upon the Omnipotence of God. Antony rightly disagrees with Aquinas, however, that God’s Omnipotence is indeed limited by logical impossibility. Flew could have pointed out that the forth and fifth century superstars of Christian Theology, St. Augustine, [9] and St. Jerome [10] both disagreed with Aquinas and implicitly asserted that God being all powerful means God can do anything without regard to logic. How or why the Christian view of Omnipotence evolved in the centuries between Jerome and Aquinas Flew does not ask, but it would be an interesting study.
He could have followed that thread down a rabbit hole. Instead, and to his credit, he continued to state the position he argues against. “The second move in this defense is to claim, “God gave men free will”; and that this necessarily implies the possibility of doing evil as well as good, that is to say, that there would be a contradiction speaking, it would be nonsense to speak of creatures with freedom to choose good or evil but not able to choose evil. (Which, no blame to him, is what his creatures, men have done.)” [11] Generally, Christians will not seek to specify the nature of free will and will equivocate by assuming it is understood that they mean contra-causal libertarian free will.
Antony could have, but did not, include the scriptural proof texts Christians predicate as a basis for their contra-causal and libertarian view of free will. It is interesting that the Johannine writer’s midrash in John 10:34-35 “Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, you are gods'? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came (and scripture cannot be broken),” refers back to Psa 82:6 where is read: “I say, "You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you;” . In the later passage, Elohiym is in the council of the elohiym and is exhorting his fellow gods to do justice and righteousness; and then in a fit of hissy, Elohiym condemns his fellow gods to mortality. Elohiym, in 82:6, is very clearly addressing his fellows in the council of the gods. The Johannine midrash tortures the text to make it apply to human beings (ie: the Jews). A truly brilliant man, Richard Carrier, explains what this means to Christianity. “...the Libertarian notion of free will assumes that one's own desires (among other things, like one's own reason and knowledge) also constrain one's will, rendering it unfree. In other words, our personality, knowledge, wishes, are themselves chains that bind our will. But your proximate, causing desire is your will. It therefore cannot be considered as something “outside” of the will that constrains it – your strongest desire and your will are one and the same.” [12] Later, as we will see, Flew’s argument hinges on the fact that human free will is not Libertarian.
The third premise of the free will defense listed by Flew is: “…certain good things, namely, certain virtues, logically presuppose not merely beings with freedom of choice (which alone are capable of either virtue or vice), and consequently the possibility of evil, but also the actual occurrence of certain evils. That what we might call the second-order goods of sympathetic feeling and action logically could not occur with out (at least the appearance of) the first-order evils of suffering or misfortune. And the moral good of forgiveness presupposes the prior occurrence of (at least the appearance of) some lower-order moral evil to be forgiven.” [13] Flew goes on to elaborate and explain this premise by noting the subjective nature of good and evil assumed by the F.W.D. Certain moral virtues “logically presuppose the possibility of correlative evils” [14] This leads to the conclusion that it “makes no sense to suppose that God “might have chosen to achieve these goods without the possibility in the one case, the actuality in the other of the correlative and presupposed evils.” [15] Flew's acceptance of subjective definitions of good and evil is contrary to Objectivism; that notwithstanding, his argument still has value to those humans who seek to live and thus make a conscious choice not to lie down and die. (It is beyond the scope to this brief essay, however, to show how Flew and Objectivism can be harmonized.)
Antony assesses the argument as disconcerting to the skeptic, and yet he excuses the usual counter arguments as lacking simplicity or a decisive presence compared to the original dilemma in that they allow the believer room to counter argue. Having set up a dissonance, in dialectical fashion, he then offers a penetrating foil towards coherent synthesis. His attack is directed at the central idea of the F.W.D.; it would be fatal to the notion of the Christian God that if it were not the case that a contradiction obtains such that God could not create a free will where people always choose to do the good. If it is logically possible for God to make a free will that is truly free and also determined so that people always freely choose to do good, then Omnipotence could have “made a world inhabited by wholly virtuous people.”[16] Then the F.W.D. collapses, and the problem of evil destroys any reasoned basis for God belief.
This idea is reinforced by Raymond D. Bradley, who argued from international criminal law: “according to the moral principles concerning Command Responsibility as recognized by Ping Fa around 500 B.C.E., principles that were eventually enshrined in the Hague Conventions of 1907, the Geneva Conventions of 1948, and the Nuremberg Charter of 1950 (Principles III and VI of which explicitly assign responsibility to Heads of State who have "planned" and "initiated" crimes against humanity). And, quoting from Article 7 (3) of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, they pointed out that the fact that a subordinate committed crimes does not relieve his superior of criminal responsibility if he knew or had reason to know that the subordinate was about to commit such acts or had done so and the superior failed to take the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent such acts. This principle, they observed, is a particular instance of the more general moral truth:
If a person knows that evil of any kind (natural or moral) will occur or continue to occur unless they prevent it from occurring, and has the ability to prevent it from occurring, then that person is morally culpable for the occurrence of that evil. By virtue of his omnipotence and omniscience, God was found to be an accessory, before, during, and after, the fact of all evils.” [17]
This sets the stage for Flew's blitzkrieg. The first pincer entails defining what it means to act freely. He asks what is meant by “being free to choose”? His insight is that being free to choose does not necessarily mean the choice is unpredictable or uncaused. Paradigmatically, he spins a touching tale about two young lovers with nothing better to do than get married. Murdo exercised his freedom by asking his love, Mairi. Being madly in love with Murdo, she gladly acquiesced. Murdo's and Mairi's actions were not uncaused or in principle unpredictable, nor were they compelled. Yet even if in an all too near future, it becomes a predictable norm that such pairings or nascent behaviors are completely predictable , still Homo Sapiens will be able to choose to do what they want. They will still be able to choose between alternatives that are most appealing. Flew argues that “Unless they (advocates of hard determinism) produce evidence that there was obstruction or pressure or an absence of alternatives, their discoveries will not even be relevant to questions about his freedom of choice, much less a decisive disproof of the manifest fact that sometimes he has complete, sometimes restricted, and sometimes no freedom.” [18]
When we use expressions that characterize an action as either freely chosen or compelled in some fashion, we are not saying that what was done was in theory unpredictable and neither are we asserting that the action was contra-casual. But we are saying that there were viable alternatives. Pivoting on the phrase “could have helped it”, Flew explains that by examining simple “paradigm” cases where writers freely choose from a variety of lexical tools to craft their missives, we can find a wealth of examples of free actions. And if not, then they'll do till the real thing comes along.
Flew's prophecy was fulfilled. Behold - brilliance. “Even if my choices are entirely determined in advance,” expounded Dr. Richard Carrier regarding what free will actually means: “I still make decisions, and my decisions are still caused by who I am and what I know – my thoughts and desires and personality - just as they must be if I am to be “free” in any sense that matters. And because I am still their cause, I can still be praised or blamed for them. This is why compatibilism makes more sense: free will is doing what you want – nothing more, nothing less. And being responsible is being the cause - nothing more, nothing less.”[19]]
Plop-plop-fizz-fizz goes the cathode! After such crafty word smithy, for Flew to just pour his premise like Alka-Seltzer is almost anti-climatic, yet soothing. “...there is no contradiction involved in saying that a particular action or choice was: both free, and could have been helped, and so on; and predictable, or even foreknown, and explicable in terms of caused causes.” He admits that he cannot here demonstrate the premise sound, but he does note that Hume, Hobbes and even Aristotle took a similar line of reasoning. Meanwhile back at the anode, the Catholic Church predicates that it's God has foreknowledge that is not incompatible with human freedom. Raising the bet, he turns the kicker and amusingly observes that, if compatibilism is error, then human free will hitch hikes on God of the Gaps arguments and like God hides in human ignorance. Flew's spartan rhetorical question polishes the first pincer. “... if it is wrong, then it is hard to see what meaning those expressions (“could have helped it”) have and how if at all they could ever be taught, understood, or correctly used.”
Having saved his Panzer divisions, he now deploys them into the other pincer and closes on the salient. “... not only is there no necessary conflict between acting freely and behaving predictably and/or as a result of caused causes; but also Omnipotence might have, could without contradiction be said to have, created only people who would have already as a matter of fact freely have chosen to do the right thing.” [20] Observing that a person's endocrine glands are not the same as a person, and that whatever physiological cause may be accorded responsible for a person's action, it is not contradictory to say that if people can sometimes help doing what they do, they still act freely. He argues against the objection that physiological causes of actions exclude the possibility of doing what is desired. Emphasizing that the absence of proposed physiological causation would imply absence of effect, he contra-distinguishes mental motives to accent a disconnect between the two. By way of analogy he points out that “... if I think as I do because of such and such physiological causes or because of such and such motives; then it cannot also be the case that there are, and I have sufficient reasons, arguments, grounds for thinking as I do.” This hinges on how “because” equivocates multiple ambiguities. There are many explanations which do not exclude one another.
Carrier speaks to the fallacy here identified by Flew when he argues in defense of compatibilism against J.P. Moreland. “Moreland says, for example, that on compatibilism “a reason for acting turns out to be a certain type of state in the agent, a belief-desire state, that is a real efficient cause of the action”. He (Moreland) argues this excludes the possibility of final causes. But since a belief-desire state is an intention, and an intention is a final cause, it follows that final causes can and do exist under compatibilism. A final cause is simply a thought process: a prior calculation form ends to means, which in turn participates in the causal chain that ends in acting. The visualized 'end' is caused by a desire (“I want the second ball to land in the corner pocket”), and the conceptualization of the 'means' is caused by an application of reason and knowledge to that desired end (“If I collide the first ball into the second just so, then I will achieve what I want”). That is all a final cause is, a thought process, and that's an efficient cause: without the final cause (the desired end) there would be no act. So Moreland is attempting to state a tautology (A is B) as if it were a distinction (A is not B), a fundamental violation of basic logic.” [21] The same fallacy was committed by those determinists Flew argued against who claimed physiological causes precluded mental motives. If it is objected that Murdo and Mairi were influence by their glands, again it is pointed out that glands are not people. Murdo and Mairi made their own decision. Despite this it is also true that we can do what we want but that we cannot want whatever we want.
At this point in his essay, Flew serves the 800 pound Gorilla. What becomes of the keystone of the Freewill Defense, if there does not exist a contradiction in thinking that God could have arranged things so that human beings always freely choose the good? If it really is possible for a person's action to be freely chosen and fully determined by caused causes, then doesn't the theodicy collapse? All goods of whatever order presuppose not only corresponding lower order evils but also freedom. Even virtues like honesty and intellectual integrity while not parasitic upon antecedent evils are still contingent to freedom. If there is no contradiction, then there is no need for any soul making theodicy either. The resultant people, no matter the challenge, would always choose the right without the evils of those who choose damnation or that required for higher order goods and virtues. The deity could have evolved humans trustworthy in all situations without need for acquiring trustworthiness via fortitude, suffering, or pain. However, in that case it would be senseless to suggest that God would still be required to forgive or display fortitude.
Nonetheless, subtly reworded versions of Predestination or Determinism could be hurled at the argument. “...but that there is not contradiction in speaking of a world in which there are always antecedent conditions of all human action sufficient to ensure that agents always will as a matter of fact freely chose the right.” [22] The distinction turns on crucial differences in the character of the deity. If the former is asserted, then God's character would be that of a quasi-personal being that has fixed everything that everyone will do, choose, and suffer. If the latter, then the deity is not thought of a puppet master or master hypnotist, rather it just happens to be the case that antecedent conditions predisposing humans to act in a particular, instead of some other, fashion always have, do, and will always obtain. The counter thesis would specify that determinism is perhaps compatible with human freedom and responsibility, but that predestination is assuredly not.
The error here is that predestination alleviates all human responsibility no matter what. Flew wrote: “The first reaction to the idea of God, the Great Hypnotist, is that this would mean that no one ever was or had been or would be really responsible, that none of the people who we should otherwise have been certain could have helped doing things really could. ... But this is very misleading. Certainly it would be monstrous to suggest that anyone, however truly responsible to and in the eyes of men, could fairly be called to account and be punished by the 'God who had rigged his every move. All the bitter words which have ever been written against the wickedness of the God of predestinationism – especially when he is also thought of as filling Hell with all but the elect – are amply justified.” [23] By reminding the reader that the paradigmatic cases defining key phrases exemplifying human liberty are impervious to the predestination doctrine as no theological information can alter their meaning, Flew counters the objection.
Refining the position: “...there is no contradiction in speaking of God as so arranging the laws of nature that all men always as a matter of fact freely choose to do the right.” What infuriates is still the idea that providence punishes anyone for freely choosing the wrong in the case that omnipotence had arraigned the antecedent conditions so that his victim would so act. Flew concludes: “...the Calvinist picture – the Great Hypnotist – is appropriate in its appreciation of the implications of Omnipotence; it is morally obnoxious insofar as it presents human creatures justly accountable to that Omnipotence.” [24]
Flew couldn't resist his sense of symmetry. Although his free choice was likely determined, still he wrote what he wanted, and that's compatibilist free will. As it was in the beginning, so he closes. "Either God cannot abolish evil, or he will not; if he cannot, then he is not all-powerful; if he will not, then he is not all good."
[1] Anthony Flew, ‘Divine Omnipotence and Human Freedom’, p.227, in “Critiques of God: A major statement of the case against belief in God”, edited by Peter Angeles, copyright 1976.
[2] Flew acknowledged his error in wrongly attributing the given quotation to St. Augustine, and he thanked Dr. John Burnaby of St. John’s College for pointing out that St. Augustine did not write the line. The author of the present essay was unsuccessful in finding the actual source of the quote.
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh
[4] Dr. Robert Price makes this point in his Bilbegeek Genesis #2 podcast.
[5] Ayn Rand, 'The Objectivist Ethics,' p.15, in “The Virtue of Selfishness”
[6] William L. Rowe, 'The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism', p.253, in “The Improbability of God”, edited by Michael Martin and Ricki Monnier
(Premise 1. “There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.”
Premise 2. “An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.”) - quoted from Rowe, ibid., p.251
[7] John S. Mill, “Three Essays on Religion”, p.186-87 as quoted by Flew, ibid. p.228
[8] Flew, ibid. p.228 citing Aquinas from “Summa Theologica”, IA XXV, Art. 4.
[9] St. Augustine, “…for certainly He is called Almighty only because He is mighty to do all He will…”; “City of God”, Book XXI, p.458, “NPNF1-02. St. Augustin's City of God and Christian Doctrine” - http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102/Page_458.html
[10] St. Jerome, “But I do not presume to limit God's omnipotence…”; “EPISTLE 58: TO PAULINUS”, Art. 3, - http://www.voskrese.info/spl/jerome058.html
[11] Flew, ibid. p.228
[12] Richard Carrier, “Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism”, p.109
[13] Flew, ibid. p.228
[14] ibid. p.229
[15] ibid. p.229
[16] ibid. p.229
[17] http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/raymond_bradley/fwd-refuted.html#failure
[18] Flew, ibid. p.230
[19] Carrier, ibid., p.109
[20] Flew, ibid., p.231
[21] Carrier, ibid., p.107
[22] Flew, ibid., p.233
[23] ibid., p.235; “The recognition, for example, of the object of highest worship in a being who could make a Hell; and who could create countless generations of human being with the certain foreknowledge that he was creating them for this fate ... Any other of the outrages to the most ordinary justice and humanity involved in the common Christian conception of the moral character of God sinks into insignificance beside this dreadful idealization of wickedness.” (quoted from Mills, “Three Essays On Religion”, p.113-14)
[24] ibid., p.235
Flew begins by wrongfully, but inconsequentially so since many falsely think the following to be from Augustine’s “Confessions”, quoting [1] St Augustine : "Either God cannot abolish evil, or he will not; if he cannot, then he is not all-powerful; if he will not, then he is not all good." [2] An elegant summation nonetheless, Flew rightly pigeon holed the saying by noting that this is “Perhaps the most powerful of all skeptical arguments, this has appealed especially to the clearest and most direct minds, striking straight and decisively to the heart of the matter.” Actual EVIL, existing in contradistinction to actual moral goodness, is the substantive core of the question at issue. How can the God of classical theism exist when the world, and even more so the Universe (ie: all existence), is saturated with a cold indifference to life? Not only does observed empirical existence reveal man’s inhumanity to man, but the unimaginable sickening horror from natural disasters evidenced by an ever growing list of causalities dimly echoes within a grand canyon of animal suffering. The predator-prey and parasite-host relationships in a brutally uncaring, mechanistic, evolutionary context screams “Humans are not the point.”
In large measure, the history of human civilization has been recorded in step with efforts to understand our existence. By crafting myths, we encode ways we try to reconcile seeming contradictions between life and brutal reality. Such is the case of the world's oldest story. When Gilgamesh, the king, sends the woman Shamhat, a temple prostitute, to Enkidu, the wild-man, their sexual liaison civilizes Enkidu. After six days and seven nights of love making, he is no longer a wild beast who lives with animals. [3] Upon visiting the water hole, the animals flee from the sight of Enkidu, puzzled he asks Shamhat what it means. She wisely informs the anti-hero, “Behold Enkidu, you are become wise like unto a god.” [4] As the knowledge of sexual procreation transformed the wild Enkidu, we ordinary mortals, when we become aware of the absolute nature of existence and its identity, become transformed by recognizing that objective good arises from objective existence while evils anticipates a dearth of goodness. While these ethical qualities share a relationship like up and down or big and small, good and evil are nonetheless objective. And, even though, mutually required to make sense of the other, they can be understood in light of what is meant by values and why they are important to living beings. The Objectivist philosophers offer clear and cogent definitions.
“In ethics, one must begin by asking: What are values? Why does man need them?” Wrote Ayn Rand, and she continued: “Value” is that which one acts to gain and/or keep. The concept “value” is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? It presupposes an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative. Where no alternative exists, no goals and no values are possible.
I quote from Galt’s speech: “There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or nonexistence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.” [5]
Even so, the broad scope of animal suffering, a vast ocean of pain and terror, is like the Great Barrier Reef of objective evil, for if anything diminishes the “process of self-sustaining and self-generated action”, it is the pain, suffering, and terror of being eaten or burned alive. “Suppose in some distant forest lightning strikes a dead tree,” wrote William L. Rowe in describing the problem of evil: “resulting in a forest fire. In the fire a fawn is trapped, horribly burned, and lies in terrible agony for several days before death relieves its suffering. So far as we can see, the fawn's suffering is pointless. For there does not appear to be any greater good such that the prevention of the fawn's suffering would require either the loss of that good or the occurrence of an evil equally bad or worse. Nor does there seem to be any equally bad or worse evil so connected to the fawn's suffering that it would have had to occur had the fawn;s suffering been prevented. Could an omnipotent, omniscient being have prevented the fawn's apparently pointless suffering? The answer is obvious, as even the theist will insist, An omnipotent, omniscient being could have easily prevented the fawn from being horribly burned, or, given the burning, could have spared the fawn the intense suffering by quickly ending its life, rather that allowing the fawn to lie in terrible agony for several days. Since the fawn's intense suffering was preventable and so far as we can see, pointless, doesn't it appear that premise one (See note 6.) of the argument is true, that there do exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse? [6]
There is a problem of evil, and we recognize it concurrently with our awareness of objective morality from absolute existence. Perhaps that may be why Flew found it useful to cite John S. Mill’s posthumously published “Three Essays on Religion” to further refine the problem and challenge theology by noting Mill did not imagine “the impossible problem of reconciling infinite benevolence and justice with infinite power in the Creator of such a world as this. The attempt to do so not only involves absolute contradiction in an intellectual point of view but exhibits to excess the revolting spectacle of a jesuitical defense of moral enormities.” [7] Amen! Mill’s bold words are, however, not conclusive, for the Christian believer has faith that ways to reconcile the existence of objective evil with their God’s omni-loving, omni-compassion attributes can be found.
For that purpose theodicies have been devised. Flew notes that: “Several determined efforts have been made to escape from the dilemma. One favorite – which might be dubbed the ‘Freewill Defense’ – runs like this. The first move is to point out ,via citing Thomas Aquinas, “Nothing which implies contradiction falls under the omnipotence of God.” [8] Flew elucidates, “even God cannot do what is logically impossible; that is, if you make up a self-contradictory, a nonsense sentence it won’t miraculously become sense just because you have put the word God as its subject.” Flew follows up on this by predicating that theologians find the third formulation superior because it pinpoints the essential quality of logical impossibility as being no restriction upon the Omnipotence of God. Antony rightly disagrees with Aquinas, however, that God’s Omnipotence is indeed limited by logical impossibility. Flew could have pointed out that the forth and fifth century superstars of Christian Theology, St. Augustine, [9] and St. Jerome [10] both disagreed with Aquinas and implicitly asserted that God being all powerful means God can do anything without regard to logic. How or why the Christian view of Omnipotence evolved in the centuries between Jerome and Aquinas Flew does not ask, but it would be an interesting study.
He could have followed that thread down a rabbit hole. Instead, and to his credit, he continued to state the position he argues against. “The second move in this defense is to claim, “God gave men free will”; and that this necessarily implies the possibility of doing evil as well as good, that is to say, that there would be a contradiction speaking, it would be nonsense to speak of creatures with freedom to choose good or evil but not able to choose evil. (Which, no blame to him, is what his creatures, men have done.)” [11] Generally, Christians will not seek to specify the nature of free will and will equivocate by assuming it is understood that they mean contra-causal libertarian free will.
Antony could have, but did not, include the scriptural proof texts Christians predicate as a basis for their contra-causal and libertarian view of free will. It is interesting that the Johannine writer’s midrash in John 10:34-35 “Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, you are gods'? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came (and scripture cannot be broken),” refers back to Psa 82:6 where is read: “I say, "You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you;” . In the later passage, Elohiym is in the council of the elohiym and is exhorting his fellow gods to do justice and righteousness; and then in a fit of hissy, Elohiym condemns his fellow gods to mortality. Elohiym, in 82:6, is very clearly addressing his fellows in the council of the gods. The Johannine midrash tortures the text to make it apply to human beings (ie: the Jews). A truly brilliant man, Richard Carrier, explains what this means to Christianity. “...the Libertarian notion of free will assumes that one's own desires (among other things, like one's own reason and knowledge) also constrain one's will, rendering it unfree. In other words, our personality, knowledge, wishes, are themselves chains that bind our will. But your proximate, causing desire is your will. It therefore cannot be considered as something “outside” of the will that constrains it – your strongest desire and your will are one and the same.” [12] Later, as we will see, Flew’s argument hinges on the fact that human free will is not Libertarian.
The third premise of the free will defense listed by Flew is: “…certain good things, namely, certain virtues, logically presuppose not merely beings with freedom of choice (which alone are capable of either virtue or vice), and consequently the possibility of evil, but also the actual occurrence of certain evils. That what we might call the second-order goods of sympathetic feeling and action logically could not occur with out (at least the appearance of) the first-order evils of suffering or misfortune. And the moral good of forgiveness presupposes the prior occurrence of (at least the appearance of) some lower-order moral evil to be forgiven.” [13] Flew goes on to elaborate and explain this premise by noting the subjective nature of good and evil assumed by the F.W.D. Certain moral virtues “logically presuppose the possibility of correlative evils” [14] This leads to the conclusion that it “makes no sense to suppose that God “might have chosen to achieve these goods without the possibility in the one case, the actuality in the other of the correlative and presupposed evils.” [15] Flew's acceptance of subjective definitions of good and evil is contrary to Objectivism; that notwithstanding, his argument still has value to those humans who seek to live and thus make a conscious choice not to lie down and die. (It is beyond the scope to this brief essay, however, to show how Flew and Objectivism can be harmonized.)
Antony assesses the argument as disconcerting to the skeptic, and yet he excuses the usual counter arguments as lacking simplicity or a decisive presence compared to the original dilemma in that they allow the believer room to counter argue. Having set up a dissonance, in dialectical fashion, he then offers a penetrating foil towards coherent synthesis. His attack is directed at the central idea of the F.W.D.; it would be fatal to the notion of the Christian God that if it were not the case that a contradiction obtains such that God could not create a free will where people always choose to do the good. If it is logically possible for God to make a free will that is truly free and also determined so that people always freely choose to do good, then Omnipotence could have “made a world inhabited by wholly virtuous people.”[16] Then the F.W.D. collapses, and the problem of evil destroys any reasoned basis for God belief.
This idea is reinforced by Raymond D. Bradley, who argued from international criminal law: “according to the moral principles concerning Command Responsibility as recognized by Ping Fa around 500 B.C.E., principles that were eventually enshrined in the Hague Conventions of 1907, the Geneva Conventions of 1948, and the Nuremberg Charter of 1950 (Principles III and VI of which explicitly assign responsibility to Heads of State who have "planned" and "initiated" crimes against humanity). And, quoting from Article 7 (3) of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, they pointed out that the fact that a subordinate committed crimes does not relieve his superior of criminal responsibility if he knew or had reason to know that the subordinate was about to commit such acts or had done so and the superior failed to take the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent such acts. This principle, they observed, is a particular instance of the more general moral truth:
If a person knows that evil of any kind (natural or moral) will occur or continue to occur unless they prevent it from occurring, and has the ability to prevent it from occurring, then that person is morally culpable for the occurrence of that evil. By virtue of his omnipotence and omniscience, God was found to be an accessory, before, during, and after, the fact of all evils.” [17]
This sets the stage for Flew's blitzkrieg. The first pincer entails defining what it means to act freely. He asks what is meant by “being free to choose”? His insight is that being free to choose does not necessarily mean the choice is unpredictable or uncaused. Paradigmatically, he spins a touching tale about two young lovers with nothing better to do than get married. Murdo exercised his freedom by asking his love, Mairi. Being madly in love with Murdo, she gladly acquiesced. Murdo's and Mairi's actions were not uncaused or in principle unpredictable, nor were they compelled. Yet even if in an all too near future, it becomes a predictable norm that such pairings or nascent behaviors are completely predictable , still Homo Sapiens will be able to choose to do what they want. They will still be able to choose between alternatives that are most appealing. Flew argues that “Unless they (advocates of hard determinism) produce evidence that there was obstruction or pressure or an absence of alternatives, their discoveries will not even be relevant to questions about his freedom of choice, much less a decisive disproof of the manifest fact that sometimes he has complete, sometimes restricted, and sometimes no freedom.” [18]
When we use expressions that characterize an action as either freely chosen or compelled in some fashion, we are not saying that what was done was in theory unpredictable and neither are we asserting that the action was contra-casual. But we are saying that there were viable alternatives. Pivoting on the phrase “could have helped it”, Flew explains that by examining simple “paradigm” cases where writers freely choose from a variety of lexical tools to craft their missives, we can find a wealth of examples of free actions. And if not, then they'll do till the real thing comes along.
Flew's prophecy was fulfilled. Behold - brilliance. “Even if my choices are entirely determined in advance,” expounded Dr. Richard Carrier regarding what free will actually means: “I still make decisions, and my decisions are still caused by who I am and what I know – my thoughts and desires and personality - just as they must be if I am to be “free” in any sense that matters. And because I am still their cause, I can still be praised or blamed for them. This is why compatibilism makes more sense: free will is doing what you want – nothing more, nothing less. And being responsible is being the cause - nothing more, nothing less.”[19]]
Plop-plop-fizz-fizz goes the cathode! After such crafty word smithy, for Flew to just pour his premise like Alka-Seltzer is almost anti-climatic, yet soothing. “...there is no contradiction involved in saying that a particular action or choice was: both free, and could have been helped, and so on; and predictable, or even foreknown, and explicable in terms of caused causes.” He admits that he cannot here demonstrate the premise sound, but he does note that Hume, Hobbes and even Aristotle took a similar line of reasoning. Meanwhile back at the anode, the Catholic Church predicates that it's God has foreknowledge that is not incompatible with human freedom. Raising the bet, he turns the kicker and amusingly observes that, if compatibilism is error, then human free will hitch hikes on God of the Gaps arguments and like God hides in human ignorance. Flew's spartan rhetorical question polishes the first pincer. “... if it is wrong, then it is hard to see what meaning those expressions (“could have helped it”) have and how if at all they could ever be taught, understood, or correctly used.”
Having saved his Panzer divisions, he now deploys them into the other pincer and closes on the salient. “... not only is there no necessary conflict between acting freely and behaving predictably and/or as a result of caused causes; but also Omnipotence might have, could without contradiction be said to have, created only people who would have already as a matter of fact freely have chosen to do the right thing.” [20] Observing that a person's endocrine glands are not the same as a person, and that whatever physiological cause may be accorded responsible for a person's action, it is not contradictory to say that if people can sometimes help doing what they do, they still act freely. He argues against the objection that physiological causes of actions exclude the possibility of doing what is desired. Emphasizing that the absence of proposed physiological causation would imply absence of effect, he contra-distinguishes mental motives to accent a disconnect between the two. By way of analogy he points out that “... if I think as I do because of such and such physiological causes or because of such and such motives; then it cannot also be the case that there are, and I have sufficient reasons, arguments, grounds for thinking as I do.” This hinges on how “because” equivocates multiple ambiguities. There are many explanations which do not exclude one another.
Carrier speaks to the fallacy here identified by Flew when he argues in defense of compatibilism against J.P. Moreland. “Moreland says, for example, that on compatibilism “a reason for acting turns out to be a certain type of state in the agent, a belief-desire state, that is a real efficient cause of the action”. He (Moreland) argues this excludes the possibility of final causes. But since a belief-desire state is an intention, and an intention is a final cause, it follows that final causes can and do exist under compatibilism. A final cause is simply a thought process: a prior calculation form ends to means, which in turn participates in the causal chain that ends in acting. The visualized 'end' is caused by a desire (“I want the second ball to land in the corner pocket”), and the conceptualization of the 'means' is caused by an application of reason and knowledge to that desired end (“If I collide the first ball into the second just so, then I will achieve what I want”). That is all a final cause is, a thought process, and that's an efficient cause: without the final cause (the desired end) there would be no act. So Moreland is attempting to state a tautology (A is B) as if it were a distinction (A is not B), a fundamental violation of basic logic.” [21] The same fallacy was committed by those determinists Flew argued against who claimed physiological causes precluded mental motives. If it is objected that Murdo and Mairi were influence by their glands, again it is pointed out that glands are not people. Murdo and Mairi made their own decision. Despite this it is also true that we can do what we want but that we cannot want whatever we want.
At this point in his essay, Flew serves the 800 pound Gorilla. What becomes of the keystone of the Freewill Defense, if there does not exist a contradiction in thinking that God could have arranged things so that human beings always freely choose the good? If it really is possible for a person's action to be freely chosen and fully determined by caused causes, then doesn't the theodicy collapse? All goods of whatever order presuppose not only corresponding lower order evils but also freedom. Even virtues like honesty and intellectual integrity while not parasitic upon antecedent evils are still contingent to freedom. If there is no contradiction, then there is no need for any soul making theodicy either. The resultant people, no matter the challenge, would always choose the right without the evils of those who choose damnation or that required for higher order goods and virtues. The deity could have evolved humans trustworthy in all situations without need for acquiring trustworthiness via fortitude, suffering, or pain. However, in that case it would be senseless to suggest that God would still be required to forgive or display fortitude.
Nonetheless, subtly reworded versions of Predestination or Determinism could be hurled at the argument. “...but that there is not contradiction in speaking of a world in which there are always antecedent conditions of all human action sufficient to ensure that agents always will as a matter of fact freely chose the right.” [22] The distinction turns on crucial differences in the character of the deity. If the former is asserted, then God's character would be that of a quasi-personal being that has fixed everything that everyone will do, choose, and suffer. If the latter, then the deity is not thought of a puppet master or master hypnotist, rather it just happens to be the case that antecedent conditions predisposing humans to act in a particular, instead of some other, fashion always have, do, and will always obtain. The counter thesis would specify that determinism is perhaps compatible with human freedom and responsibility, but that predestination is assuredly not.
The error here is that predestination alleviates all human responsibility no matter what. Flew wrote: “The first reaction to the idea of God, the Great Hypnotist, is that this would mean that no one ever was or had been or would be really responsible, that none of the people who we should otherwise have been certain could have helped doing things really could. ... But this is very misleading. Certainly it would be monstrous to suggest that anyone, however truly responsible to and in the eyes of men, could fairly be called to account and be punished by the 'God who had rigged his every move. All the bitter words which have ever been written against the wickedness of the God of predestinationism – especially when he is also thought of as filling Hell with all but the elect – are amply justified.” [23] By reminding the reader that the paradigmatic cases defining key phrases exemplifying human liberty are impervious to the predestination doctrine as no theological information can alter their meaning, Flew counters the objection.
Refining the position: “...there is no contradiction in speaking of God as so arranging the laws of nature that all men always as a matter of fact freely choose to do the right.” What infuriates is still the idea that providence punishes anyone for freely choosing the wrong in the case that omnipotence had arraigned the antecedent conditions so that his victim would so act. Flew concludes: “...the Calvinist picture – the Great Hypnotist – is appropriate in its appreciation of the implications of Omnipotence; it is morally obnoxious insofar as it presents human creatures justly accountable to that Omnipotence.” [24]
Flew couldn't resist his sense of symmetry. Although his free choice was likely determined, still he wrote what he wanted, and that's compatibilist free will. As it was in the beginning, so he closes. "Either God cannot abolish evil, or he will not; if he cannot, then he is not all-powerful; if he will not, then he is not all good."
[1] Anthony Flew, ‘Divine Omnipotence and Human Freedom’, p.227, in “Critiques of God: A major statement of the case against belief in God”, edited by Peter Angeles, copyright 1976.
[2] Flew acknowledged his error in wrongly attributing the given quotation to St. Augustine, and he thanked Dr. John Burnaby of St. John’s College for pointing out that St. Augustine did not write the line. The author of the present essay was unsuccessful in finding the actual source of the quote.
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh
[4] Dr. Robert Price makes this point in his Bilbegeek Genesis #2 podcast.
[5] Ayn Rand, 'The Objectivist Ethics,' p.15, in “The Virtue of Selfishness”
[6] William L. Rowe, 'The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism', p.253, in “The Improbability of God”, edited by Michael Martin and Ricki Monnier
(Premise 1. “There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.”
Premise 2. “An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.”) - quoted from Rowe, ibid., p.251
[7] John S. Mill, “Three Essays on Religion”, p.186-87 as quoted by Flew, ibid. p.228
[8] Flew, ibid. p.228 citing Aquinas from “Summa Theologica”, IA XXV, Art. 4.
[9] St. Augustine, “…for certainly He is called Almighty only because He is mighty to do all He will…”; “City of God”, Book XXI, p.458, “NPNF1-02. St. Augustin's City of God and Christian Doctrine” - http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102/Page_458.html
[10] St. Jerome, “But I do not presume to limit God's omnipotence…”; “EPISTLE 58: TO PAULINUS”, Art. 3, - http://www.voskrese.info/spl/jerome058.html
[11] Flew, ibid. p.228
[12] Richard Carrier, “Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism”, p.109
[13] Flew, ibid. p.228
[14] ibid. p.229
[15] ibid. p.229
[16] ibid. p.229
[17] http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/raymond_bradley/fwd-refuted.html#failure
[18] Flew, ibid. p.230
[19] Carrier, ibid., p.109
[20] Flew, ibid., p.231
[21] Carrier, ibid., p.107
[22] Flew, ibid., p.233
[23] ibid., p.235; “The recognition, for example, of the object of highest worship in a being who could make a Hell; and who could create countless generations of human being with the certain foreknowledge that he was creating them for this fate ... Any other of the outrages to the most ordinary justice and humanity involved in the common Christian conception of the moral character of God sinks into insignificance beside this dreadful idealization of wickedness.” (quoted from Mills, “Three Essays On Religion”, p.113-14)
[24] ibid., p.235
80 comments:
Once again, I thank John Loftus and all the contributors here at DebunkingChristianity for allowing me to contribute and post. If I committed an error in the essay, I apologize and will edit to correct it. Thanks and Best Regards to All.
Flew used
"Either God cannot abolish evil, or he will not; if he cannot, then he is not all-powerful; if he will not, then he is not all good."
as the opening quote of his essay in Critiques of God and acknowledged that it was not actually attributable to Augustine. In his end notes, Flew acknowledged his error in wrongly attributing the given quotation to St. Augustine, and he thanked Dr. John Burnaby of St. John’s College for pointing out that St. Augustine did not write the line. I was unsuccessful in finding the actual source of the quote. If anyone knows where the saying originates, I'd love to learn the source.
I think it was Epicurus.
Problem of Evil: as formulated by Epicurus according to wiki.epicurus.info)
http://wiki.epicurus.info/Problem_of_evil
"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?"
This version differs from the unknown quote. Perhaps some anonymous author pared down Epicurus and attributed it to Augustine somewhere along the line.
Or it's a different translation.
You all better look out it appears that the Canadian Free Press is on to you. Also I guess your article is rendered mute by the CFP.
They released an article called
"Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound"
I should of added this one also. This was a great article that I read over this weekend and I thought I would share it with all of you.
It was called "Never Stop Questioning"
Both these articles make clear statements. That we, as Christians, aren't going anywhere and we will scream the truth from every roof top. Without logic atheists are doomed to fail. You will fail by you illogical intellect and you will have wasted a great deal of time and effort for nothing. I always found it odd that people like John or Robert, who I guess is on the payroll now, fight so very hard to turn people away from hope and salvation to a brick wall destination. As Padmé said in Star Wars " So this is how liberty dies - with thunderous applause" Give a hand for yourselves, You are creating a den of despair.
I read the section Dan Marvin posted as a link to the “Canadian Free Press” and the use of the vague term “Divine creator” is it’s down fall as far a people like Dan Marvin is concerned with his rigid Christian dogmas.
So lets say this “Divine creator” is El or Baal in the Canaanite pantheon. Our Christian “Rev.” Dan Marvin would be just as opposed to this as he is to evolution.
I had been active in Christianity for three decades; attending scholarly meetings both nationally and at most seminaries and universities in the southeastern U. S. and I never once heard of an Anthony Few nor ever heard him quoted in a paper read at a meeting nor cited in a discussion until I read posts and comments here at D.C. Now, it seems that Anthony Few is the guru authority on whether or not there is a creator.
So if this Anthony Few claimed there is some “Divine creator” and this creator was in the Hindu religious tradition named Krishna as the one who created the universe, he nad his belief would be no more welcome than an atheistic evolutionist by the Christian community! So just what good in a philosophical belief by some Anthony Few that no Creedal Christian would support?
As to the last topic in the Canadian Free Press discussion as proofs of the truth of the Bible, it must be noted that all so called "proofs" were taken for the Old Testament, while virgins giving birth and stars hovering over a manger sites which lead the “Wise Men” is so far from reality that even the writer in the Canadian Free Press would be embarrassed to quote it as a proof of Biblical truth!
I could not care less Dan Marvin has to say about my disbelief or his insistence that his position is more logical than my own. But I do rise in defense of Dr. Flew and his exceptional work.
You see Dr. Flew played the same role that Ayn Rand played for others here - it was his writing that cleared away the last bit of fog and I saw my Christianity for what it was. My error was my willingness to grant every excuse to Christianity -- under the argument it might be possible, we cannot disprove it and the like. In his very brief gardner essay, Dr. Flew showed me the folly of this position. And from this 1050 essay I went on to read most of Dr. Flew's other writings. I like to imagine Dr. Flew and Dr. (C.S.) Lewis both debating at the top of their game, though Flew is better in writing than in public speaking.
My reading of course occurred years before Dr. Flew's position change to Deist. While his position change caused me some pause, I continue to think the man was right the first time. If you watch recent youtube videos of Dr. Flew it seems clear that he is not as fully intellectually engaged as he once was. There is one video where he is being hectored to answer questions by an off camera voice, presumably Gary Habermas, and you can see his disinterest and nonengagement.
I have glanced through the book supposedly authored by Dr. Flew and don't believe he wrote it. It makes arguments against his former postions which to my knowledge he has not disavowed. And frankly the writing and argument is not solid.
I have been asked by some what I think the 'athiest' community should do about this. And my answer is nothing. If the believers are going to keep poking him like a trained bear to get answers our entering into the fray will only mean the bear gets poked more. The best we can do for Dr. Flew is leave him in peace. It's not like he is going to atheist hell for his position change.
Thanks for the essay Robert.
Barry Leder
The article 'Never Stop Questioning' merely illustrates that many Christians are flat earthers.
They haven't gone away either.
Christians ignore literally rock-solid evidence when they claim that Homo sapiens have not evolved from other species.
The other article is a laugh.
'They believe that not only did whole planets appear spontaneously, but also believe that the fact that these planets do not collide as meteors do...'
Who claims planets can never collide and that they appear spontaneously?
'would it then be possible for billions of species to spontaneously come about, each with a male and female of each kind so that they could exist in the long run?'
Most species of life on earth are not divided into male and female.
Why do some Christians think that ignorance of high-school biology is a really good debating tactic?
She got the question totally wrong, but the answer is perfectly sound...
"The answer lies in the unquestioning acceptance by most people that what they've been told is true--especially if it falls in line with what they want to believe anyway. It lies in the unquestioning acceptance by those in authority that this is the public stance they need to take, even if they privately know better. And it lies in the fact that those who have power almost never give it up voluntarily, with the corollary that they will do whatever they have to in order to keep it."
Oh yeah the CFP article. No-one noticed the byline?
"By Yomin Postelnik"
Nuff said. This is the same article that has already been soundly thrashed, and which led Postelnik to make an arse of himself on the internets. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yomin_Postelnik
dan marvin - greetings: The topic on this thread is Dr. Antony Flew's rebuttal of the free will defense. I have to point this out to honor my commitment to the blog. As I've said elsewhere, I like you as a person even though your religious beliefs are disturbingly obnoxious.
Flew cites John S. Mill; who wrote: “the impossible problem of reconciling infinite benevolence and justice with infinite power in the Creator of such a world as this. The attempt to do so not only involves absolute contradiction in an intellectual point of view but exhibits to excess the revolting spectacle of a jesuitical defense of moral enormities.”
I do not hold your religious beliefs against you, for I too was once duped and deceived by the siren song of Christianity. I found a way out, and you can too.
Dr. Flew's writings have helped people escape the pernicious grip of what is aptly called a delusion. The idea of gods is a fantasy. There is nothing in reality that suggests gods can exist. People fantasize beings similar to themselves as explanations for phenomena they do not understand
or do not wish to learn about.
I cobbled together a few thoughts on this that were originally written by a very smart lady, Ayn Rand.
Human beings hold knowledge in the form of concepts. Concepts are mental integrations of two or more units which are isolated by a process of abstraction and united by a specific definition. They represent classifications of observed existents according to their relationships to other observed existents.
Humans form concepts by mentally isolating a group of concretes (of distinct perceptual units), on the basis of observed similarities which distinguish them from all other known concretes (similarity is “the relationship between two or more existents which possess the same characteristic(s), but in different measure or degree”); then, by a process of omitting the particular measurements of these concretes, one integrates them into a single new mental unit: the concept, which subsumes all concretes of this kind (a potentially unlimited number). The integration is completed and retained by the selection of a perceptual symbol (a word) to designate it. “A concept is a mental integration of two or more units possessing the same distinguishing characteristic(s), with their particular measurements omitted.
To form a concept, distinct perceptual units must be detected by either sensory perception or the extension of sensory perception via instrumentation. Since the thing dan imagines as God cannot be detected by any means of perception or instrumentation, there cannot be any instance of distinct perceptual units of God in dan or any other God believer. Thus there cannot be any actual concept of God.
How then do the believers believe in God without a valid concept of God?
They simply imagine their God. Belief is defined as: "any cognitive content held as true-a vague idea in which some confidence is placed-confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof". Imagining is defined as "to form a mental image of something not actually present to the senses". From these, it is readily apparent that imagination is the source of god belief.
Invisible magic beings existing in other realms and communicating with people is surely just as vague an idea as it is an idea not susceptible to rigorous proof. God is defined, as an infinite personal being that is transcendent and omnipresent, supernatural, and immaterial. To be a personal being is to be finite, yet God is defined as infinite. To be transcendent is to be non-spatial, lacking dimensions or location (ie: nowhere) and non-temporal, lacking duration. To be omnipresent is to be everywhere. Supernatural means the negation of all that is natural and thus to not be part of nature and to lack any ability to interact with nature. Special Relativity informs us that E=MC^2 and thus matter and energy are equated in proportion to C^2. Immaterial means to be other than material, other than matter or energy. But to be infinite is to be everything. By virtue of self-contradiction, God is certainly vague. God then is defined as a vague contradiction that has no location, no dimensions, no duration, no ability to interact with nature, no mass, and no energy. This is the ontological equivalent of nothingness.
Placing confidence in and assigning truth status to the ontological equivalent of nothingness as a personal being of infinite scope is the ultimate act of accepting something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof. Entirely such an action must take place by forming a mental image of something not actually present to the senses since there is nothing in nature that indicates that such beings as gods might exist or perceptions from reality by which a concept of "god" may be formed. From these considerations, it is readily apparent that god belief stems from the subjective imagination.
dan marvin (and all theistic believes of whatever faith) are imagining their gods.
Best Regards and Wishes
Robert b: you say "dan marvin (and all theistic believers of whatever faith) are imagining their gods."
I would agree totally with this statement, but it does leave out one factor that I think is important. They experience and see and feel things that they think are 'evidence' for their imaginary beliefs. unless one can explain those things in a non-spiritual non-special non-supernatural way, they will think they have their proof.
as kids we believe in santa because people tell us it is true and we can imagine the man in the red suit and the sleigh (when questioned about the impossibility of that, my parents allowed it might now be a helicopter - santa interpretation by santa apologetics?) and we had hard evidence in the presents he left - but once we figured out the true source of the presents, we gave up the belief. so christians meditate deeply in what they call prayer and get to a point where they 'feel' god's presense? what is that really? They get into the great outdoors and feel awe and call it being one with the universe and experieincing the presence of God. what is that really? I suspect much of that has to do with brain functioning that we aleady know about. there is a part of the brain that tells us where our body is and where our own body begins and ends, orientation and boundary issues, and somehow, the meditative state and the senses being overloaded in nature must mess with that. some of them 'feel' healings. is that all suggestion and chance and placebo? and some of them hear the 'voice' of god. is that similar to how schizophrenics hear voices or not? same brain region activity or not? much of what we attribute to supernatural, and i have said this here before, i think has to do with different parts of the brain processing sensory input differently and with slightly different timing. the reptilian part of the brain that processes instinctive reactions probably is faster than the human layers that process them in more detail and within contexts and memories that have to be retrieved. some senses are probably even processed in one hemishpere of the human brain before the other. do we mistake that all as an external presense, another being, of some kind? some christians look at things that are flukes of statistics and call it answered prayer or protection of god. some of that happened when that bridge collapsed in Minneaoplis, where people claimed the hand of god in that there were not more injuires, but if you looked at the length of the bridge and the distance cars travel apart in traffic, exactly the predictable number of injuries happened. we need to teach people statistics.
i think we can look at the illogic of the bible and the illogic of the claims about god and know it is all impossible, but until science and biology and psychology look at these things they regard as their 'proof' and explain the brain science behind it, we will be stuck with their imainary beliefs messing up our culture for a long long time.
this site has a lot of thological books referenced and a lot of debunking books referenced, but don't we need some brain science books and articles to help with this part?
baz beat me to it. I read the first two paragraphs and thought "This sounds eerily familiar." Then I read the byline...Oh Noes! Yomin Postelnik! Whatever shall I do?
Now how long before a new user shows up on this forum and asks for my real identity so he can "discuss" some things with me? Please, oh please, continue to use Postelnik as your go-to guy, Dan. Makes our job so much easier.
You all believe in the religion of 'makes no sense'
It makes no sense! All organisms react to their environments. Humans, however, are the only creatures capable of:
*rationalization
*moral absolutes
*distinguishing “good and bad,” *“right and wrong”
*the drive to explore and understand
*artistic creativity and expression
*hunger for purpose and meaning
*the awareness that we are aware
Naturalistic science cannot explain the origin of these characteristics. Where did they come from?
Dan Marvin: good (insert time of day when reading) In way of getting back on topic, a few questions bubbled up within my toad squirming brain (TSB).
Dr. Antony Flew in his essay “Divine Omnipotence and Human Freedom” pointed out that Christianity believes its God to be omnipotent in the sense that it can do anything logically possible. Flew cited Aquinas from Suma Theologica that:
“Nothing which implies contradiction falls under the omnipotence of God.”.
Contrast Aquinas’ position with that of Augustine:
“…for certainly He is called Almighty only because He is mighty to do all He will…”, in “City of God”, Book XXI,
and Jerome:
“But I do not presume to limit God's omnipotence…”, in “EPISTLE 58: TO PAULINUS”, Art. 3.
Do you agree with Aquinas or Augustine and Jerome?
If the former, then do you accept your burden of proof to show human freewill is Contra-Causal and Libertarian? For this you must do in order to make the Freewill Defense Theodicy work?
If the later, then why does not the problem of evil falsify your God belief? After all isn’t Flew right about this saying?
"Either God cannot abolish evil, or he will not; if he cannot, then he is not all-powerful; if he will not, then he is not all good."
Was Flew wrong to frame this by writing - “Perhaps the most powerful of all skeptical arguments, this has appealed especially to the clearest and most direct minds, striking straight and decisively to the heart of the matter.”
If all three, Aquinas, Augustine, and Jerome are right, then how is it that the religious revelations of these superstars of Christian Theology could be so different? If God is omnipotent such that it can make square circles or married bachelors, then why is there a need for a Freewill Defense theodicy to solve the Problem of Evil?
"then why is there a need for a Freewill Defense theodicy to solve the Problem of Evil?"
I just don't know if there even will be free will in heaven. I know we won't want to leave and be tempted to leave. We can appreciate Gods goodness in the presence of evil. Unlike Adam who didn't know evil, Satan who didn't know evil, until they fell. We do! Because of it, we so appreciate His goodness and no matter what temptation that will come our way in heaven, if that could even happen, there would be no way, why? Because we knew how horrible evil was and now we can fully appreciate His goodness.
The presence of sin allows God to demonstrate his righteousness, the presence of sin allows God to demonstrate his love, and how else could he show the character of love that loves enemies and sinners if there were none? God endures this horrible assault on his everlasting holiness; he endures the horrifying blaspheming, history of fallen beings, he suffers it, the imposition it is on his purity to display his wrath to the fullest extent, to put himself on everlasting display.
Why are we here? What is the theological answer? To give the text book answer, to glorify God and enjoy him ever more. How do you glorify God? Here is how, you sinner, go get saved. Get saved so God can be glorified, that's it; this is the purpose of this entire universe.
God knew we would sin, He knew we would rebel, He knew we would introduce evil, He knew it. So that he can send forth a savior born of a virgin, to live under the law to save us under the curse of the law so that, we can be a little trophy of his grace, he can always point to us as a testimony to his goodness. Ephesians 2:7
We wouldn't know how God is righteous as he is, everlastingly, and give Him glory for it if it hadn't had of been for unrighteousness, we wouldn't know He's loving as He is if it hadn't been for sin, we wouldn't know He's holy if it weren't for judgment.
How holy is God? So holy that he must send out of his presence, everlastingly, anyone who is not fit. Why of all this? That He might make known the riches of His glory, that is, He did all of this in order that He might gather into heaven a redeemed humanity who would forever glorify Him for all that he is. *paraphrased from Todd Friel and Dr. John Macarthur
Dan you are full of fun today when you say that only humans are capable of:
*rationalization
*moral absolutes
*distinguishing “good and bad,” *“right and wrong”
*the drive to explore and understand
*artistic creativity and expression
*hunger for purpose and meaning
*the awareness that we are aware
How do you know this?
I imagine you'll say because no other organisms have told us they believe this but really most of what you claim up there is already proven wrong.
First, chimps and dolphins have self awareness in that they recognize themselves in a mirror. How do you know they aren't aware they are aware?
Working back up, how do you know an elephant doesn't hunger for purpose and meaning? Do you communicate with them?
Working further, there are gorillas and elephants that paint. There are bower birds that create very artistic displays. What makes the difference?
Going up ... the drive to explore? Ants have the drive to explore. Bees have the drive to explore. The drive to understand? Do you really think a cheetah doesn't have a drive to understand its prey? Do you think a wolfpack doesn't have a drive to understand the bison?
Right and wrong. Again ... how do you know we're the only ones who have this? Do you communicate with animals like Dr. Doolittle? Monkeys will starve to death rather than cause harm to other monkeys. Why do you think they do this?
Moral absolutes ... the last refuge.
Please. Give me a moral absolute that all humans recognize that should never be broken. Just one. I beg you.
"Please. Give me a moral absolute that all humans recognize that should never be broken. Just one. I beg you."
There is that website that addresses this very same question.
It's called: Proof that God exists.
Take it for a spin and let me know what you conclude.
Dan I asked you for a moral absolute ... and you pointed me to a video game site for people who like word games.
It is not correct to argue that if there is any absolute truth, there must therefore be a moral absolute.
So again I ask you. Please tell me ONE SINGLE moral absolute that is universally regarded and should never be broken. This should be the easiest thing for you in the world to do.
Knock yourself out!
"*rationalization
*moral absolutes
*distinguishing “good and bad,” *“right and wrong”
*the drive to explore and understand
*artistic creativity and expression
*hunger for purpose and meaning
*the awareness that we are aware
Naturalistic science cannot explain the origin of these characteristics."
What I think Dan means is, he can't explain these things, and he can't be arsed to go and do some research to see whether scientists have any answers. Dan, I think you'll find that science has a lot of answers to these questions. Scientists however wouldn't be so arrogant as to say they have *all* the answers. You, quite clearly, are and do.
Evan: "Please tell me ONE SINGLE moral absolute that is universally regarded and should never be broken."
No problem it is what is said in the Bible and ironically the first Commandment. Love for God with all one's being and love for neighbor as oneself.
The God who issued his moral law to his people did so with infinite wisdom and understanding of them and their sinful world. His wisdom ensures that the absolutes he has given are to be followed absolutely. He knows what is best for humankind. As a compassionate God he ordained absolutes that would not leave his people in confusion by really conflicting.
Dan thanks for playing but you lose.
Loving is a nebulous and immoral concept. It is not capable of being a rule, for different people love in different ways.
For example, under your absolute there are inevitable conflicts. What if someone's love for one's neighbor conflicts with one's God? Who is supposed to win under that commandment? Remember I asked you for an absolute.
Let me give you some hints about what an absolute would look like.
A person should never under any circumstances kill their son, even if it is to redeem others.
See how easy it is to phrase it? Of course you can't use that one cuz your God did it.
Have fun trying again.
Homosexual brain resembles that of opposite sex: study
The brains of homosexual men resemble those of heterosexual women, while lesbians' brains show similarities with those of straight men, a study published Monday showed. Researchers at the Stockholm Brain Institute in Sweden investigated "two separate parameters, both unlikely to be directly affected by learned patterns and behavior" in 90 men and women -- 50 heterosexual and 40 homosexual -- using magnetic resonance imagery (MRI)....
--snip--
If, as the study paper suggests, it is true that homosexual behavior is caused by deterministic structural peculiarities of the brain, then why is homosexuality considered a sin by Christianity? If homosexual behavior is deterministically caused, then the homosexual cannot help being a homosexual. If then that is true, how can a person claim to believe to have a religious revelation entailing that homosexuality is offensive to a deity? Such a revelation to be true would necessarily have to comport favorably with reality. Would we not be denuding the notions of justice of meaning by believing a deity to be just while at the same time condemning a fully determined behavior and attributing origins to the deity?
More significantly, is it not the case that the religious revelation of Christianity presumes that homosexuality is resultant from free volitional will? If homosexual behavior is deterministic, then the choice to be or do homosexuality is compatibilist freewill. Humans can freely choose to do whatever they want, but they cannot want whatever they want.
Would not it be morally wrong, in that case, for Christianity to condemn homosexuals? It seems clear that would be so and further the knowledge that homosexuality is a fully determined behavior in contradistinction to Christianity's prohibition of homosexuality would indicate that the religious revelation of the Apostle Paul was false. If Paul had esoteric knowledge from revelation, then that entire corpus of knowledge would have to be correct. When any of Paul's revelation is falsified, then all of it is falsified.
Even let me be more specific (to play along)
God said "Thou shalt have none other gods before me."
God said, as a moral absolute, the Ten Commandments
Remember these gems from Deuteronomy 5:
16 Honour thy father and thy mother, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
17 Thou shalt not kill.
18 Neither shalt thou commit adultery.
19 Neither shalt thou steal.
20 Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour.
21 Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour’s wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour’s house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour’s.
BTW Evan in my 39 years on earth I have never heard of Love defined as an immoral concept.
One of us is confused.
Dan your missing the point. Slowly read Epicurus' words.
"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?"
Sin is not evil, rather sin is violation of the rules/will of the deity. If God sends you out to kill all the Midianites, but you only kill the men and save the women and children to use as slaves, that is sin.
Evil is suffering, pain, starvation, natural disasters, disease, the predator-prey and parasite-host relationships, bacterial-viral infections, old age, poverty, war, crop failures Crazed Christians who thinking demons are in little boys stomp them to death , mental illness, and Christianity.
If God exists then,
"Either God cannot abolish evil, or he will not; if he cannot, then he is not all-powerful; if he will not, then he is not all good."
Dan:
You haven't lived much if you think love is always moral.
Man loves woman not his wife ... moral?
Man loves job more than his children ... moral?
Got it?
Suppose a man loves God more than he loves his neighbor, is that moral?
Love can manifest itself as both moral actions or immoral actions, depending on the lover and the beloved, therefore love itself is not of necessity moral.
Obviously over your lifetime you haven't lived much or seen much humanity if that's news to you. So I definitely agree that one of us is confused.
Moving on you finally bring up the old decalogue as your absolute morals.
So lets try those on for size.
First you quote the real first commandment.
If you're a monotheist ... what other gods are there to have before God? There are none right? So why have a commandment? Oh wait, because the commandment was being given to polytheists. Are you a polytheist Dan?
If you're not, what thing morally does that command tell you not to do that you might be doing?
I notice you skip over the next 3 since they aren't very moral ... and go right to honoring your parents.
So ... if it is a moral absolute to honor your parents, did Jesus violate this absolute when he told people to forsake their families to follow him?
If it's a moral absolute not to kill, did God violate that absolute when he sent Jesus to be killed to save us from our sins?
If it's a moral absolute not to commit adultery, would it be wrong to do so if doing it would save the lives of seven people? If it would, isn't that tantamount to violating the command not to kill which would make that law not absolute?
Also ... where does adultery begin? Is it absolutely wrong to look at someone who's not your wife? If so ... how are you ever supposed to get a wife? The absolutes are starting to get a bit thin.
Next you trot out false witness. So if a man who is going to abuse his wife in some fashion comes to your door and she is taking refuge in your house should you tell him she is there? Let me know.
And finally, exactly how are we to know that someone is committing the sin of covetousness. Let's say I buy a new car. Next week my neighbor gets a new car. Is he a sinner? Did he covet my car?
Your absolutes are nothing but a sham Dan. I'm sorry that's the best you can do, but I understand. I tried so hard to do it when I was a Christian and it's pretty hard to do.
Robert: "If, as the study paper suggests, it is true that homosexual behavior is caused by deterministic structural peculiarities of the brain, then why is homosexuality considered a sin by Christianity?"
Tell me hypocrite, what does that have to do with Antony Flew?
Remember you proudly said "The topic on this thread is Dr. Antony Flew's rebuttal of the free will defense. I have to point this out to honor my commitment to the blog."
Hay 'holier then thou' did you chuck that logic out the window also? Say what you mean, mean what you say or you will never be taken seriously. Just my advice.
Now leave me to Evan's probing questions, he is stimulating me intellectually.
Just playin around with with you Robert. I still love ya.
Dan
Dan, we break those literal commandments all the time. we kill to eat. we kill to protect ourselves. we kill to protect our families. we kill in war. WE KILL IN WAR ON A PRETTY ROUTINE BASIS. are our soldier immoral? would you steal food to feed your child if you could get it no other way? the ridiculous commandments are no more abolsote morality than 'you shall believe in santa claus' the 10 commandments are full of ifs, ands, and buts - anyone who has ever been in religion class with junior high schoolers will know that. i am herby deputizing myself as blog troll patrol and i am hereby running dan out of town as an officially declared troll. give it up dan. there is not absolute moral law that dannot be exceptioned to death with a bit of cretivity. homeosexuality is not immoral. the 10 commandments are bogus. much of the bible is bogus. if your god did exist, he would be responsible for so much that is situationally immoral that i would not want to have a thing to do with him, now or ever. fortunately, he is made up and even tho you cling to your imaginary god with desparate bravado, he does not exist. sorry. now, move on. read some science and deal with it.
Dan you seem to be confused about love. Allow me to elucidate:
Love is a human emotion not a metaphysical quality. It follows from the assignment of value to the love object. Only beings that have needs can have values. The hypothetical being in question is logically incapable of valuing anything as it is allegedly an eternal, infinite, perfect, indestructible, self-sufficient, self-contained, complete being which lacks nothing. If it did exist, it would not act in the interest of a goal. It would have no basis for goal-setting whatsoever. It will always be what it is, nothing can change it, nothing can harm it, nothing can threaten it, nothing can deprive it, nothing can be of any value to it. It would be incapable of valuing anything. It would be incapable of love. If the Christian God existed, it could do nothing for any action would diminish its perfection and perturb its sufficiency. (The foregoing is attributable to Dawson Bethrick of the Incinerating Presuppostionalism blog.)
If Yahweh/Jesus existed it could not love, nor could it be love as love is simply a human emotion that comes from assigning value to something that is needed.
Dan Exodus 20 is not the ten commandments. Instead look in Exodus 34:17-27 and especially Ex 34:28 where the foregoing ten are identified as the "ten commandments".
Exd 34:28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.
My personal favorite is 34:26 "You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk."
Hey, your not having goat stroganoff for diner, right? Now this should be on the courthouse wall and in all the schools.
But whats the deal with you, Col 2:14 and Exodus 20:1-17. Didn't you protest that the atonement frees you from the law of Moses and the ordinances of Jesus as in Luke 14:26 & 33? So why must you obey Exodus 20 or Exodus 20 rather than Exodus 34?
And if indeed you believe that Col. 2:14 takes you off the hook for the laws, then isn't obeying the laws then the ultimate disrespect for Jesus' atoning human sacrifice?
Well Dan:
Tell me hypocrite, what does that have to do with Antony Flew?
The press release describes a study paper that discusses the findings of the Stockholm Brain Institute in Sweden that "The results showed that the right-hand brain hemisphere was larger in heterosexual men and homosexual women, while homosexual men's and heterosexual women's brain hemispheres were symmetrical.
Homosexual men showed another brain similarity with heterosexual women in their amygdala connections, which process certain emotions, as did homosexual women and straight men.
"The amygdala has a key role in emotional reactions to external stimuli, including stress," the authors of the study said, hypothesizing that the amygdala of straight men and gay women could be "wired for a greater fight-or-flight response," reportedly more common in men.
This is empirical evidence supporting Flew and Carrier. The findings indicate that the homosexual desires of homosexual people are resultant from structural brain peculiarities in those subjects. This means that their freewill while not compelled or forced is determined by the physical makeup of their brains. They do what they want. That is freewill. What they want to do is determined by physical causation. This is Compatibilism.
This means that the freewill theodicy of Christianity cannot render the Christian God inculpable relative to the problem of evil. Thus your God does not exist.
You do understand the problem of evil and the freewill theodicy don't you?
Robert: "This means that their freewill while compelled or forced is determined by the physical makeup of their brains."
Robert please forgive me for my rudeness and misunderstanding. You were on point but I was still a few conversations back. Egg is on my face.
Let me address your point while I wipe the egg off. Let's take alcoholism for example. Let's say scientist find a common gene to drunks. Let's say my great granddad was an alcoholic my granddad was too and even my own Dad was an alcoholic. Environment and genetics say that the likelihood of me becoming an alcoholic is very high. But that doesn't mean that I am one. Because I am not. The Bible (God) said not to be one so I am not.
Evan:" Dan:
You haven't lived much if you think love is always moral."
Please Evan, don't put words into my mouth I said "I have never heard of Love defined as an immoral concept." as you did.
"Man loves woman not his wife ... moral?" Not according to God, how about you, is that moral?
"Suppose a man loves God more than he loves his neighbor, is that moral? " That is what God commanded us to do, so yes! Personally, the love I have for my own kids seems as hate compared to the love I have for God.
"So ... if it is a moral absolute to honor your parents, did Jesus violate this absolute when he told people to forsake their families to follow him?"
I would say to obey parents except when they command that which is known to be contrary to God's revealed truth." An exception or qualification built into the absolute itself is not an exception to the absolute (for then it could no longer qualify as an absolute), but is an integral part of the absolute.
"If it's a moral absolute not to commit adultery, would it be wrong to do so if doing it would save the lives of seven people?"
You are posing these questions as if they were conflicts. So is it stealing if you take bread to feed your family? I would say absolutely YES! It's still stealing no matter how you pose it.(to goprairie) Besides are we commanded to save people or not to commit adultery?
Is it absolutely wrong to look at someone who's not your wife? Not at all admiring beauty is fine. The difference is lusting or pornography of the mind. Then it is considered adultery and a sin.
"So if a man who is going to abuse his wife in some fashion comes to your door and she is taking refuge in your house should you tell him she is there?" Why not I am not afraid of the guy I would say "she is with me but before you can see her we have to address you abusing her, come on lets talk about it" The best thing I can do to help that man is to lead him to Christ and get him repentant. That would be loving the neighbor as I love myself. There is no conflict of the absolute morality.
Divinely-given moral absolutes never truly conflict, although there are occasions when they appear to conflict. I believe there will never be a situation in which obedience to one absolute will entail disobedience to or the setting-aside of another absolute. If a friend's life will almost certainly be taken by a gun-waving maniac unless I lie concerning my friend's whereabouts, whatever else I do I must not lie. The command to speak truthfully (Eph 4:15) is an absolute that must not be violated. Nothing else I may do or should do to protect my friend is any more clear than my obligation to be truthful. I am obligated to protect the friend, because of God's absolute to love my neighbor as myself, but I am to do it without lying. I believe that all relevant absolutes can and must be followed in situations of apparent conflict.
Remember when I said this (It fits this conversation also): Understand this very basic principle of God and His plan of salvation and then you understand that we all are pridefully wicked in our hearts and deserve punishment. We think we are good when we break God's laws daily. I am sure a thief considers himself to be good compared to a rapist and that rapist considers himself good compared to someone that murdered a person and that murderer considers himself a good person compared to a serial killer and I am sure that serial killer considers himself good compared to a democrat. When we compare each other by each others standards we all seem to be good "at least I am not as bas as he is" mentality. We must be compared to the righteous standard of God's Law. We are all wicked and prideful and we need to humble ourselves to the Creator for being wicked according to His standard, the standard of the Ten Commandments.
"Next week my neighbor gets a new car. Is he a sinner?' Of course he's a sinner, we all are, we all have fallen short of the glory of God. But that means you lovingly lead him to Christ so he won't burn in hell, right?
"Your absolutes are nothing but a sham Dan. I'm sorry that's the best you can do, but I understand." Was that an Ad hominem attack? ;-(
"I tried so hard to do it when I was a Christian" Well join the club, you aren't alone here. You must understand that is why we need a savior. He died on that cross to take the punishment of past, present, and future sins. If my salvation was dependent on "MY" works to keep God's Law then send me to hell because I am guilty as charge. I work very hard at these things and my heart aches and bleeds when I fail and I am growing daily to be more Christ like. Gentle and long suffering is very hard with three screaming children running around your ankles, but I can do all thing through Christ who strengthens me.
"and it's pretty hard to do." Especially since you weren't a Christian yet, I bet it was hard. Look inside you soul to see if you were a possible stony ground hearer.
Evan I am not sure if this conversation is for you or me but thanks for getting me thinking about these things again. You are helping me focus on absolutes of God and that is a wonderful sermon that we all need.
With love,
Dan
Now I am reading other comments so let me try to clear up the murky waters. To goprairie who said"i am herby deputizing myself as blog troll patrol" TROLL, noun, often used as an acerbic, puerile, exclamatory insult -- a knee-jerk ad hominem often employed in a feeble effort to discredit another poster because one has been flummoxed, proven to be wrong, ignorant or incompetent.
Robert disappointed me with the "Love is a human emotion not a metaphysical quality. It follows from the assignment of value to the love object." thing. You reduced love to something very icky, dude. If I could ask something personal to you though to clear something up. Do you have children, Robert? If you don't I fully understand why you said these things. If you do then look at your youngest ones eyes and get back to me as to what love truly is. God is love and I see it in my child's eyes.
"The hypothetical being in question is logically incapable of valuing anything as it is allegedly an eternal" He died on the cross to save us because he loves us, any dad would do the same for his child. So that just proved your logic wrong. The difference is God did it to save my child and myself and my enemy. That is a love I cannot even fathom. He deserves more respect then you are allowing and you will pay for those things that you said.
"If it did exist, it would not act in the interest of a goal. " I addressed this already.
Dan you must love the trinity.
It pervades your way of thinking so fully that you are unable to see flat contradiction.
An exception or qualification built into the absolute itself is not an exception to the absolute (for then it could no longer qualify as an absolute), but is an integral part of the absolute.
Sorry, but an exception to an absolute makes it not an absolute. Pretty much guarantees it. Period.
Thanks for trying. You have what appears to be a good heart. You should study some biology. It may not change your mind, but it will keep you humble.
"Personally, the love I have for my own kids seems as hate compared to the love I have for God."
Dan, you really mean this? To love God you have to love your kids less, to the extent that it "seems [like] hate"?!?
This is really, really scary. I think you need to reconsider some basic values in your life.
You are saying that you would rather your kids didn't exist than accept that God doesn't exist, because you value Him more.
You can use your semantic gymnastics to try and make what you said mean something else, but the words are there for everyone to interpret.
I really do hope that you have the humility to look at your words and realise the truth of what you have said. Maybe it will shock you into thinking clearly, for once.
Dan, Dan, Dan - nice try with your "flummoxed, proven to be wrong, ignorant or incompetent."
it applies to one of us certainly.
you claim the 10 rules are absolute, we challenge that, then you offer up exceptionsand conditions for your 10 rules - thereby ADMITTING they are not absolute - and you stlll claim a win? perhaps you should ponder the definition of absolute and ponder some things considered absolute - absolute zero and absolute black. there is no 'god's law' that is absolute. absolutes do not have exceptions. this argument SHOULD be over with that statement that others have made as well.
dan said: Even let me be more specific (to play along)
God said "Thou shalt have none other gods before me."
God said, as a moral absolute, the Ten Commandments
If this commandment is universally regarded, then you must explain both the historical and current existence of billions of non-Yahweh worshipping people. You fail, by several billion people. This commandment is not universally regarded as an absolute moral truth.
There is nothing that is universally regarded as a moral truth. The closest thing to an universally regarded moral truth is that parent-child incest is wrong, and even that is not universally acknowledged.
The following Science Daily press release is significant relative to the Freewill Defense Theodicy because it directly supports Flew's and Carrier's thesis that human will is both free and determined. . The finding shows humans and honeybees perform in a similar fashion when confronting uncertainty in decision making. This implies that human freewill decision making has a casual basis that is consistent with compatiblism. If human free will is not Libertarian/Contra-casual, the Freewill Defense Theodicy fails and the Problem of Evil is fatal to the notion of God.
Decision-Making, Risk-Taking Similar In Bees And Humans
ScienceDaily (Jun. 17, 2008) — Most people think before making decisions. As it turns out, so do bees. In the journal Nature, Israeli researchers show that when making decisions, people and bees alike are more likely to gamble on risky courses of action - rather than taking a safer option - when the differences between the various possible outcomes are easily distinguishable. When the outcomes are difficult to discern, however, both groups are far more likely to select the safer option - even if the actual probabilities of success have not changed.
The findings by researchers at the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Tel Aviv University and the Hebrew University help shed light on why people are inclined to choose certainty when differences between potential outcomes - such as paybacks when gambling or returns on financial investments - are difficult to discern.
In tests with 50 college students, subjects chose between two unmarked computer buttons. Pushing one of the buttons resulted in a payoff of 3 credits with 100% certainty, while pushing the other led to a payoff of 4 credits with an 80% certainty - though participants only learned these payoffs through trial and error as they flashed on screen. Test subjects were required to make 400 such decisions each, and tended to choose the risky strategy when payoffs were represented as simple numbers (i.e. "3 credits" and "4 credits"). The results were similar when the numerals 3 and 4 were replaced with easily distinguishable clouds of 30 and 60 dots. But when the numerals were replaced with clouds of 30 or 40 dots - making it much more difficult to distinguish between the two - subjects veered towards the more certain outcome.
The researchers subjected honeybees to similar trials, using the bees' sense of smell and 2 µl drops of sugar solution payoffs of varying concentrations. The researchers first tested the bees with payoffs for risky and safe alternatives at 10% and 5% sugar concentrations, respectively. In a second experiment, the payoffs were a less-easy-to-discriminate-between 6.7% and 5%, and in a third experiment, the payoff in both alternatives was 6.7%. Bees were required to make 32 such decisions, and were given a choice between two smells, each presented twice for one-second each, in an alternating sequence. The bees tended towards the risky strategy only when their choice was easily discernable, paralleling their human counterparts.
According to Professor Ido Erev of the Technion Faculty of Industrial Engineering and Management, some practical implications of this research can be seen in an analysis of the values placed on rule enforcement in the workplace. The results, he said, suggest that:
* consistent and constant rule enforcement is necessary, since workers are more likely to ignore risks - if they have done so before without punishment;
* workers are likely to be supportive of enforcement, since they initially plan to obey many of the rules (wearing safety goggles, for instance) they end up violating; and
* severe penalties that are not always enforced are not likely to be effective, but gentle, consistently enforced rewards and punishments can be.
"The similar responses by humans and bees demonstrates that this decision-making process happens very early in evolution," said Erev. "The results suggest that this is a very basic phenomenon shared by many different animals."
Shygetz: "the closest thing to an universally regarded moral truth is that parent-child incest is wrong, and even that is not universally acknowledged. "
Is not universally acknowledged? Demented immoral individuals might but a whole working society that embraces this concept. Please, show me a society that doesn't believe that raping children for fun is wrong. Just one. Would you personally allow this to happen to children around you if you happen to see it while on vacation to this imaginary society?
In this regard, it is helpful to recognize two categories or kinds (not "levels") of absolutes with regard to the locus of authority. Some absolutes require obedience directly to God, without human intermediaries, while other absolutes involve obedience to human beings whose authority has been delegated to them by God. Examples of the first category include prohibitions against lying, murder, adultery, and the commands to be patient and kind to others. The second category includes such matters as obedience to parents, governmental officials, and local church leaders. Moral dilemmas often arise when an absolute from one category appears to clash with an absolute from the other category. When a child is told by her father to lie on the telephone, or, far worse, to submit to his advances, the resulting sense of conflict can be intense. In such cases the human authority must be disobeyed, but this is not an exception or an exemption to an absolute, for the absolute is defined in such a way that obedience is to be rendered only when human commands do not violate clear scriptural prohibitions and instructions." (BU
God's moral absolutes never truly conflict, and that all of them are binding in any given situation, with the power of God present for their fulfillment.
Hi Robert,
I really enjoyed your long post:) It's a hot topic, as always, and you attracted Dan right away. I hope this continues as I am joining late, but I don't have alot of time today so just a quick thing or two.
"Either God cannot abolish evil, or he will not; if he cannot, then he is not all-powerful; if he will not, then he is not all good."
While I agree with this, there is more to it. If evil still exists, then there could be a morally sufficient reason for not abolishing it. For us to live this mortal life with free will we would need the ability to choose between good and bad, right and wrong, good and evil, or whatever labels you wish. If there were no evil choices to make, free will would be useless. Also if evil were to be abolished at some future point by God, would that make him all good, or does it have a time frame? Or does evil have to never exist for God to be considered all good? So part of being all knowing could consist of knowing when to abolish evil and what purpose it serves us for it to exist now, and still leaving him all powerful with the ability to abolish evil when the time comes.
I don't recall speaking with you before, even though we may have. You will most likely find I am not the typical Christian you may be used to talking to, and I look forward to more discussions.
Re: "the closest thing to an universally regarded moral truth is that parent-child incest is wrong, and even that is not universally acknowledged."
Proof: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitcairn_sexual_assault_trial_of_2004
These people (including the top official, the mayor) thought it OK for them to rape children, until British law stepped in.
dan said: God's moral absolutes never truly conflict, and that all of them are binding in any given situation, with the power of God present for their fulfillment.
They are not universally acknowleged. You accept them as absolute. I think that infaticide of healthy infants is MUCH worse than worshipping another god but Yahweh or failing to keep the Sabbath, which I think is no big deal at all; you disagree, saying that infaticide of healthy infants is GREAT! So whose morals are the correct one, and what objective absolute way do you have of knowing this?
The answer: you don't know. The best you can have is a subjective opinion that you claim is based on an objective reality that you cannot measure, which sums to a subjective opinion, same as my morals. The difference is, I acknowledge my morals are subjective and that I require the consent of society before I can try to impose them on others. You and other dominionists claim an unfounded objective absolute basis for your morality, which you then use to justify attempting to impose them on others.
rich said: If evil still exists, then there could be a morally sufficient reason for not abolishing it. For us to live this mortal life with free will we would need the ability to choose between good and bad, right and wrong, good and evil, or whatever labels you wish.
Who chose the Indonesian tsunami? Whose free will was behind the Chinese earthquake? Etc., etc., etc.
Also if evil were to be abolished at some future point by God, would that make him all good, or does it have a time frame?
Omnibenevolent means ALL good; a tri-omni God would have to eliminate ALL unnecessary evil at ALL times in ALL frames of reference.
So part of being all knowing could consist of knowing when to abolish evil and what purpose it serves us for it to exist now, and still leaving him all powerful with the ability to abolish evil when the time comes.
One defense is that all suffering that occurrs now is necessary for some greater good. Let's take a look at that a little more closely. Since the tri-omni God is claimed to be able to do anything (sometimes with the caveat that it must not be logically contradictory), know everything at all times simultaneously, and be all good and all loving, then all we have to do is find ONE case of unnecessary suffering that could be prevented without impinging upon some greater good. Now, true, we can't prove that, but we can certainly gather evidence to make such an interpretation less likely.
Let's take the case of an infant, ripped from his mother's arms in the Indonesian tsunami. This baby is swept out to see, out of sight of all human contact. Is EVERY MOMENT of suffering that that baby experiences with no one else being able to see to be "inspired by it" (which is the most obscene excuse for causing the suffering of the innocent that I have ever seen attributed to God) strictly necessary for some end? What possible end could ABSOLUTELY REQUIRE a innocent infant to suffer and drown, screaming for it's mother who will never come?
Let's say we concede that, in this case, there exists some end that we cannot conceive of due to our limited imagination. Now, multiply this one instance by the billions of times it has occurred in human history, and tell me how one can rationally justify that each and every instance of these unrecorded and forgotten sufferings could be absolutely required by an omnipotent being to acheive a greater good, when we cannot even imagine a POSSIBLE benevolent end that could only be furthered by such gruesome means?
I can think of no possible benevloent end that could only be advanced (by a god with unlimited power and knowledge, no less) by such unobserved suffering of the innocent, yet it happens constantly. Can you? If not, then why should one believe in a tri-omni God when the evidence so clearly weighs so heavily against the idea?
Shygetz,
"Who chose the Indonesian tsunami? Whose free will was behind the Chinese earthquake? Etc., etc., etc."
My reference was for human choice. Something more like rape, theft, and such. Not natural disasters. I always seem to get stuck in this loop, When talking about human free will, I don't usually include natural disasters.
"Omnibenevolent means ALL good; a tri-omni God would have to eliminate ALL unnecessary evil at ALL times in ALL frames of reference"
But how do we determine what God sees as unnecessary evil? I'm not saying I can come up with explanations for your baby tsunami scenario because is seems pretty unnecessary to me too, just so you know.
Baz come on now! Are you trying to be difficult here? I said society, I would hardly call 47 people, mostly related, a society.
"Pitcairn's 47 inhabitants, almost all of whom are interrelated, were bitterly divided by the charging of most of the adult male population."
I will give you credit for finding this community (not society) though. With atheistic examples like this, don't you think we need God in this situation?
I just looked up society in the dictionary and from what I read it appears you are right. The definition of society, if they separate from the Brits, is an extended social group having a distinctive cultural and economic organization.
Congrats Baz you have proven me wrong when I said it is a moral absolute that it's wrong to rape children for fun. That is one debate point that I wish you just let go and lose gracefully. Now, I feel icky this world sucks. My hat tips in your direction you have proven that a society can think that it's OK to rape children for fun but will this society flourish is another debate to be had. Maybe in hindsight I should of clarified it and said a flourishing society. Sigh...you win, YUCK!
Dan it must be hard for you to see all your debate points dropping like pants at a brothel ... but here's another one you get wrong.
I will give you credit for finding this community (not society) though. With atheistic examples like this, don't you think we need God in this situation?
Sadly, Pitcairn is not atheist.
They are all Christians.
Shygetz, "I can think of no possible benevloent 'benevolent' end that could only be advanced (by a god with unlimited power and knowledge, no less) by such unobserved suffering of the innocent, yet it happens constantly."
There is a huge difference here though Shygetz. God gave us free will and we chose to disobey Him. There was no death or suffering until we chose to defy God and now we pay for that decision. There is suffering on this earth because it's a fallen creation that we live in. Look at what Baz just proved, that without God there are people out there that truly believe it's OK to rape children. That is a definition of a fallen creation to me. We had free will to choose good or evil and we chose evil. God is painfully watching us fall with that choice. Wouldn't you also have to do the same after teaching your own child not to drink and drive and yet he does it all the time. You do everything to prevent it and he winds up sneaking out of the house and stealing a car and mowing down a family of 5 and kill them all with a blood alcohol level of 2.55. Wouldn't you be upset? You prevented it with many precautions but he still disobeyed/defied you. He didn't listen and now will go to jail for a very long time (eternity)and there is nothing you can do about it. You have to watch your son throw away his life. Is that how we should treat our Father in Heaven, atheists?
Dan are you not paying attention? They are WITH God. All the inhabitants of Pitcairn are SDA Christians!!!!
Stop saying otherwise or you are guilty of willfully misleading people.
Nice try Evan, lets be specific please.
You would chastise me for calling all atheists, devil worshipers or, satanists so lets keep it specific.
They are Seventh-Day Adventist. Though there are Seventh-day Adventist groups that are within orthodoxy, there are too many of them that are not. I couldn't in good conscience call a group Christian which would openly deny the biblical doctrine of predestination (in contradiction to Eph. 1:1-11), deny the doctrine of the immortality of the soul (in contradiction to Luke 16:19-31; Matt. 25:46), deny eternal hellfire (in contradiction to Rev. 14:11), that Jesus is Michael the Archangel1, and that the wicked are annihilated (in contradiction to Luke 16:19-31; Matt. 25:46).
"pants at a brothel" I don't like when I am wrong but I have come to understand in my life that I am at times. It pains me when I am wrong with all of you especially since you may think if I am wrong about one thing that I may be wrong about everything which isn't the case. I am fallible and my education is what one would call finite but I will admit my wrongs as a part of being a thinking man and my growing education.
Thanks Even for correcting me about them not being atheists, I injected prejudices which was wrong. I didn't check to see what they were and wrongly assumed that they didn't believe/follow a Creator and for that I apologize.
Atheists have morals also, this I know.
Here I will give you something from that debate Edwin Kagin said A.t.h.e.i.s.t. stands for Another Thinking Human Engaged Is Seeking Truth and that is one thing that links Christians and Atheists such as all of us and we can walk together in that search. Do I think suffering babies is just, of course not. Do I believe that God is Just and Holy and Righteous, absolutely.
Dan you may not be aware of this but my family are all Seventh-Day Adventist Christians.
I'm glad to hear that I've always been atheist, but I'm sure my parents would differ with you.
Using your definition of Christian (no catholics, no eastern orthodox, no SDA, no JW, no Mormons, no Arminian protestants) exactly how many Christians do you think there are on earth currently?
How do you think that reflects on human freewill (to get back to the topic) that a MAJORITY of self-professed Christians are not actually Christian in your eyes?
Evan,
I agree not all of is that get to heaven and say Lord, Lord will make it. The parables of the seeds explains it in the Bible (Matthew 13 I believe.)
"Using your definition of Christian (no catholics, no eastern orthodox, no SDA, no JW, no Mormons, no Arminian protestants) exactly how many Christians do you think there are on earth currently?
"
"Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." (Matthew 7:14)
Dan quoting a bible text is not answering the question.
Please, within an order of magnitude, estimate to me how many Christians that meet your definition of Christianity are there on earth?
Evan,
The magnitude of that question is too large to answer. I don't have the resources, besides I am not the Judge, right.
I can generalize for purpose of clarity. Any religion's official position that is contrary to Scripture is NOT Christian. The Bible is very clear what is a Christian and I am very amazed how complicated man has made it.
If the Bible is read plainly then it's clear and very simplistic in nature.
On Jun 16, in response to the question "In Numbers 31, God orders the killing of innocent children. Is that good or bad fruit?", Dan Marvin answered: "Anything from God is good, so good."
However, earlier today, Dan Marvin said: "Do I think suffering babies is just, of course not. Do I believe that God is Just and Holy and Righteous, absolutely."
Dan, I sense that you are beginning to experience cognitive dissonance.
It happens when we try to hold two conflicting thoughts in our brain at the same time.
I see you first sincerely believing that anything God does is good. I think you also sincerely believe it is wrong to harm innocent children.
The dissonance occurs when you realize that in numbers 31, God orders the killing of innocent children. Suddenly your brain is faced with reconciling two conflicting thoughts. You realize that both cannot be correct. You have to start thinking things out. Is it really okay to kill innocent children? Is God not good? All of us went through this thought process to get where we are now.
In my opinion, this shows that you are now thinking on your own instead of simply repeating what others have said. It's where the term "free thinker" comes from.
It's healthy. It's liberating. The truth is not afraid of questions. Welcome!
Dan that's a huge dodge and not one I am going to allow.
Please pick which of the following is the best answer.
There are _______ Christians on earth today as I understand it:
A. <1000
B. >1000 but <10,000
C. >10,000 but <1,000,000
D. >1,000,000 but <100,000,000
E. >100,000,000 but < 1 billion
F. > 1 billion
Me thinks Dan Marvin must be a Scotsman, maybe even a true one. Now let's see if he is clever enough to understand the reference.
"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?"
Who made Epicurus the authority on God anyway?
No where in the Bible does God say He wants to abolish evil now.
He allows it as part of His plan.
He used the Assyrians and the Babylonians to judge His own people. He allowed the Romans and Jewish leaders to crucify His own Son.
Over and over again God allows evil when He can stop it.
Don:"The truth is not afraid of questions" I agree with that statement.
"Dan, I sense that you are beginning to experience cognitive dissonance" Beginning? lol ;-P
Do I fully understand God plan of salvation? No. Do I trust Him that he knows what He is doing? Yes! I give God my full faith that He is the Creator and in charge.
My common sense doesn't want to see innocent children suffering daily. The dichotomy that I deal with daily is wanting the end time to happen now, essentially to end suffering, and the same time I look for more time to witness to the lost. It truly tugs at my heart because I don't want any of you to suffer.
More then likely my own Mom is in hell. Do I want that? Of course not, but do I understand God's plan of salvation, Yes! I have taken the red pill and I understand truth now and I cannot undo it or deny truth. Logic and reason is pushing me towards an understanding of God. God will explain the complicated things to me in time but for now I will have faith that He knows what He is doing. The murky water needs changing but I choose to keep the Baby and watch him grow into a man.
To play it safe Evan I will have to choose choice G. < 1 billion but I feel like I am playing a reverse 'price is right' game.
Spontaneous Order I am not clever enough to understand the reference. Please share.
Jamie:
Over and over again God allows evil when He can stop it.
Thanks for saying what we do. Thus, God is not all good. At least someone sees it who's still a Christian
Dan: So at a minimum you agree that a minority of professed Christians are actually Christians.
What's wrong with free will when even most Christians won't go to heaven, Dan?
Dan Marvin, Anthony Flew is credited with the description of a new form of logical fallacy known as the 'no true scotsman' fallacy. In brief the story Prof. Flew related to explain this is someone claimed 'No Scotsman would do such a thing' and then changed his line to 'Well no TRUE Scotsman would do such a thing' when confronted with the evidence.
I have no problem with the argument that some who claim to be Christians who really aren't. But when you say things like well 'they aren't Christian if they don't believe in predestination' - well that is drawing an awfully fine line and one that would certainly be inconsistent with the writer of the Gospel of John and the Apostle Paul.
Across your posts, your argument is weak and your doctrine is rigid. That makes a good combination as somewhere out in the world is something that even you will be unable doesn't fit into your rigid view of God or the world. You may have successfully sidestepped some so far on the basis of 'mystery of God' - but there is one out there even with your name on it.
When you come over to the darkside you will find that intelligence, kindness, and morality can be found in generous quantities in the non-theist camp.
Evan,
God defines good not you dude.
Your view of God is flawed. Like most on this site.
You guys make a god in your own image and will never come to the Truth this way.
To the free will question.
We choose what we desire:
Help me answer this question.
If a lion had the choice between eating hay or a raw steak, what would he choose. Would he make this choice every time?
I believe we all know the answer to that question is yes, because he was
made that way and it is the desire of his heart.
So if the lion was made that way does the lion have freedom of choice or does the lion have freedom of inclination, meaning he will choose his desire every time.
Answer this question:
Take a lost person for example: choose sin or God. Which will he choose every time. If he will choose sin every time then how does he come to choose God. And if he does choose God, why? And if he chooses God does he really have freedom of choice....
Jamie if you believe that:
God defines good not you dude
Aren't you really saying that the word good is meaningless? If whatever God does is by definition good then you can re-define good as "whatever God does".
So Christians can't worship a good God, they can only worship an overlord under those conditions.
I'm happy to see you agree that God allows evil to exist but you then call it good ... I'm curious what absolute morality that comes from.
Evan,
God's Glory. It is really that simple.
The Cross was for the glory of God, The flood was for the glory of God, the hardening of Pharaoh was for the glory of God, my salvation was for the glory of God, and you Evan were created for the glory of God.
@Jamie: you can regurgitate doctrine all you like, but you won't be taken seriously unless you debate the points at hand, and that means acknowledging other people's points. Until you do that you're just making a fool of yourself. Most of us have been in your position, we know the Bible, and we know the classic comebacks. They don't *mean* anything.
baz,
thanks for the lesson to be considered a fool on this site is a complement.
What point did i not answer.
I acknowledged Evans point. Maybe you should help me since you have such great knowledge.
You seem to have things figured out: so answer my question on free will baz. You are a Bible scholar by your own admission.
Spontaneous Order,
Thanks for explaining the TRUE Scotsman reference. But in the case of Christianity there is certain criteria that must be met to be a True convert.
If I were to say I am a Doctor or scientist without the credentials then I wouldn't be. If I were a true doctor then I would have all the credentials and more importantly the characteristics of one. The same goes for Christianity. People can claim anything but with out the credentials and characteristics then they are just posing as one. Like priests that rape children, they profess to be Christians and may even have credentials that say they are, but they lack the characteristics of a Christian so they are not. They are called false converts.
Good tree will bear good fruit, period.
Jamie: Over and over again God allows evil when He can stop it.
Evan: Thanks for saying what we do. Thus, God is not all good.
Jamie: God defines good not you dude. Your view of God is flawed. Like most on this site.
This is not acknowledging the point, this is simply denying what you originally said and the logical response Evan gave. And then you simply make a generalisation.
Evan: I'm happy to see you agree that God allows evil to exist but you then call it good ... I'm curious what absolute morality that comes from.
Jamie: God's Glory. It is really that simple.
This is a reply? Sounds to me like you don't have an answer, now you are just resorting to spewing doctrine.
So, no acknowledgement of the debate, no points made, just doctrine.
As for your "question" on free will:
Jamie: If a lion had the choice between eating hay or a raw steak, what would he choose. Would he make this choice every time?
I think we are talking about human free will, or do you consider animals to be capable of religious belief too?
Jamie: Take a lost person for example: choose sin or God.
Straw man. You assume that "God" and "sin" are the only choices available, and that someone is lost without choosing between these two.
This all just goes to show how set you are in your beliefs, so really you don't have anything to contribute here except trolling. Unless you are prepared to debate (that is, if you are capable of doing so) then please do us all a favour and fuck off.
@Dan: "Like priests that rape children, they profess to be Christians and may even have credentials that say they are, but they lack the characteristics of a Christian so they are not."
Sorry, Dan, this simply makes no sense at all. Who is to judge when someone is showing the right "characteristics of a Christian"? If you are saying that as soon as someone sins, they become a false Christian, then there would be no Christians in the world! Have you never sinned while claiming to be a Christian?
This is the essence of the True Scotsman argument. You, being the "True" Scotsman, can always judge others. You'll find you're the *only* Scotsman if you follow this argument to its conclusion.
baz,
i really felt like I answered Evans comment.
I really don't think your response to the free will question is a good one, but that is my opinion.
I guess you could say I am "trolling" at times but this site has really strengthened my faith a lot.
i read more than i post comments.
I hope things are going well for you baz. God Bless
Dan Marvin, if the kilt fits - wear it.
Your showing the of the good fruits would be classical true scotsman as I can point to infant baptizers, millenialists, theistic evolutionists, Catholics, Presbyterians, 7th Adventists, and Mormons who would all meet these positive fruit tests.
As to your negative tests for false converts you are even in a weaker position to argue against the Scotsman fallacy. Here you leave yourself, like with point 1, to argue the person in question just didn't understand well enough. Such a shame. You see on each of these points - quantification, definition, and testing are impossible. If Billy Graham lost the faith, Christian apologists would fall over themselves claiming Graham just didn't understand well enough, his roots were shallow, he was obviously a godless poser.
DM, you profess that once a Christian, always a Christian. But I bet you have closed your eyes to someone who lost the faith that prior you were certain was a Christian (applying the tests you outline in your blog). Let's not close your eyes to reality and evade the facts of your evalation.
I don't really get worked up anymore when someone says I was never a Christian. Though I do think it is funny when Christians probe me to see if they can uncover the fact that would demonstate I was a 'false' convert.
Use the sense God gave you.
Dan, you've really outdone yourself on this thread.
So far you have referred us to Yomin Postelnik (scientifically illiterate nutcase and confirmed liar), Ray Comfort (ditto), and 'The Institute for Creation Research' (who don't even do any real research) in order to bolster your arguments and convince us that we are wrong about what we think.
I'm almost speechless! : O
If these sources are typical of where you get your information from, then I'm not surprised that you think and believe the kinds of things you do. Please, Please, get yourself a proper science education.
How about reading some stuff that has been written by actual scientists, or scientifically literate laypersons. There's heaps of it available on the web which you can read for free.
Try going to the 'Talk Origins' website for starters. It has some excellent articles, and who knows, you might actually learn some real science. You certainly won't, by reading articles written by bozos like Yomin Postelnik or 'The Institute for Creation Research'! And as for Ray Comfort...Well I won't even go there.
Spontaneous Order But I bet you have closed your eyes to someone who lost the faith that prior you were certain was a Christian (applying the tests you outline in your blog). Let's not close your eyes to reality and evade the facts of your evalation 'evaluation'."
The only one that I knew as a false convert was myself. I speak from my own experience. I thought I was a Christian for many years (over 10) but I found one day that I was only a false convert. I lived in sin (unrepentantly) and went to church for years thinking I was a good christian. One day I realized that I was unrepentant and fell on my knees with a broken and contrite heart.(Psalm 34:18,Psalm 51:17)If I was to die during that time I would of got to heaven and the Lord would of said that He never knew me.
This reminds me of the parachute story also that I shared with all of you a while back. It started: Yea but have you put Jesus on like a parachute?
Until you carry the cross you only have a belief and that is the problem with the modern churches and pastors these days. It was easy for me to believe that Christ died for me but until I repented and picked up MY cross and died with Jesus I was only a fan. I am so very grateful I didn't die before I was truly saved as I am today. Each and every one of you had a belief at one time in Christ but not one of the nonbelievers here at this blog have carried that cross and died with Jesus. If you would have there would be no looking back ever for eternity. You have to put Jesus on like a parachute and jump out that plane.
Let me share with you what happened just today. If we trusted man we would have had a baby today. We were being pressured by the doctors and nurses that the baby needed to come out because it was 'flat lined' they called it. Which means not much movement but a heart beat. Patty was crying saying the doctor (not ours) said that we had to get to the hospital. My conscience felt that everything was just fine. As a precaution we went to the Hospital and they started to get every tool ready, knives, forceps, incubator, etc. and Patty questioned the nurses and said she thought the doctor just wanted to monitor the baby. They first nurse said nope the doctor (not the one that delivered our two boys) ordered the inducing of the baby and they needed to start a pit (pitocin). We could of let them just deliver the baby today since we found out that our doctor was flying to Africa later tonight for two weeks and she wouldn't be back for two weeks. She does great mission work out there. This is her in the picture with the children at the top. I(we) refused and said God didn't want the baby to be born yet. Then that curt nurse left and we found out she was filling in for our our nurse Rachel (Christian) who said the baby looked fine and movement was fine. Our Doctor, the one flying to Africa, came in and said the baby looked fine and if we wanted to go home then that would be fine. If we would of trusted mankind we would of had the baby born today because they put real pressure on us with scare tactics to induce the birth. More money for the hospital I would imagine We stood firm in our faith and the devil fled, we witnessed to many people at the hospital had some laughs and came home. Patty is still having contractions but they are aren't steady.
God isn't ready for this miricle baby yet. How is he a miricle baby? Because Patty went through three brain surgeries last year on her pituitary and didn't have a cycle for almost two years. We put our faith in mankind and went under the knife. First surgery removed the Rathke's cleft cyst and the two following surgeries was to remove the infections that the surgeries caused in her brain. The tumor and infection disappeared after the third surgery and we found out a month later we were pregnant. This is our 4th baby and this year Patty and I turn 40 (on the same day). Everyone never even thought we would still be able to have children after all this pituitary mess but we did.
I was discussing God to all of you while my wife was in and out of brain surgeries. I would spend time with her in UCLA Hospital drive her and the kids back home from Los Angeles (200 miles one way) and log on at night while they all were asleep and witness to all of you how God takes care of us. I kept my faith and we were rewarded immensely. As a friend to all of you, God exists and I only wish you would understand or I could explain it better. I know I haven't been the best person to preach the Gospel to you, but I do care about all of you enough to at least try.
We are not Christians until we take up our own personal cross and put 100% of our faith in Jesus, not man. Today God showed me that my family are Christians. Glory to Jesus.
Take care all,
Dan
DingoDave,
You make me laugh. In my defense:
Yomin Postelnik - I don't know him, past that article. Never heard of him.
Ray Comfort - I love his salesmanship and his "have you ever lied" pitch. It helped me witness with better results (good fruit). He's a funny guy.
Institute for Creation Research- ICR does research, go to there convention this year at ICC08.org scientific conference features 40+ original peer-reviewed papers.
Don't forget one of my favorites:
Answers In Genesis- I have pictures of my family at the Creation Museum that my family helped fund, if you want to see. I am loving there new Answers Research Journal-the peer reviewed papers on creation. Fascinating stuff.
I do admit that I put the blinders on and vowed not to be fooled by evolution again as I was throughout my entire public education. I was lied to so I continue to search for truth instead of fairy tales of frogs turning into princes over millions of years. I fully admit my presuppositions are in place and in tact and it would take an act of God to change them so on I go. I have a great book for you to read, if you haven't yet.
Good night all,
Dan
I am reminded of the quote by Dr House: "Rational arguments don't usually work on religious people - otherwise, there would be no religious people."
-"Yomin Postelnik - I don't know him, past that article. Never heard of him."
That was one of the worst articles I have ever read on the subject. It is so full of fallacies, and claims which have been debunked time and time again.
Postelnik hasn't the first clue about the subjects he discusses, and is currently on the rampage over criticisms of his ridiculous article.
Even the commentors on 'Christian Forums' have been trashing it as being a steaming pile of crap, and are embarrassed about Postelnic giving Christians a bad name by writing it.
-"Ray Comfort - I love his salesmanship and his "have you ever lied" pitch...He's a funny guy."
I certainly got a good laugh out of his "The Banana, The Atheists Worst Nightmare" argument. He is scientifically illiterate Dan. He is a clueless buffoon. He just makes stuff up as he goes along. He still uses 'Paley's watchmaker argument' for crying out loud, as if it is somehow convincing. That has been debunked time and time again, yet he still uses it. I guess he figures that his gullible Christian audiences will still fall for it, but it doesn't impress anyone who is not as gullible as his Christian fan base.
I have heard his "have you ever lied?" pitch, and it doesn't impress me in the slightest. It's not funny, it's just insulting. He might as well ask "have you ever told the truth? Then what does that make you?"
And what a hypocrite! He blatantly lied in his televised debate with the 'Rational Response Squad' team, and didn't bat an eyelid, because I guess in his own mind, he was lying for Jesus.
-"Institute for Creation Research- ICR does research, go to there convention this year at ICC08.org scientific conference features 40+ original peer-reviewed papers."
How many of their papers have been published in reputable science journals, and have been peer reviewed by reputable scientists working in those fields? None that I know of.
And what testable predictions have come out of any of their research? Once again, none that I am aware of.
'Research' is only of any value if it makes new discoveries, and allows other researchers to make further testable predictions. As such, their 'research' is worthless. That is why they don't get published in real science journals.
-"I have pictures of my family at the Creation Museum that my family helped fund, if you want to see."
Why doesn't that surprise me? You should be embarrassed about admitting such things. Ken Ham and his cronies are attempting to set science back 500 years. He is a truly despicable human being, and I'm sorry to hear that you are associated with him.
-"I am loving there new Answers Research Journal-the peer reviewed papers on creation. Fascinating stuff"
Once again Dan, to use the term 'peer reviewed' for these papers makes a mockery of the term.
-"I do admit that I put the blinders on and vowed not to be fooled by evolution again as I was throughout my entire public education. I was lied to so I continue to search for truth instead of fairy tales of frogs turning into princes over millions of years."
You prefer to believe in Adam the mud man, and Eve the rib woman? There is a mountain of evidence supporting evolution by natural selection. It is supported by fields of science as diverse as astronomy, geology, paleontology, comparative anatomy, molecular biology, genetics, population dynamics, anthropology, organic chemistry, embryology, immunology, microbiology etc. And the list goes on. In essense, in order to be a strict creationist such as you appear to be, you need to ignore the findings of all these scientific fields, and pretend that they don't exist.
By contrast, what evidence can you present in support of 6 day creationism? A story in a dusty old book, which was written by men who didn't even know that they Earth orbits the Sun, or that demons were not the cause of diseases and mental illness. What a joke!
-"I have a great book for you to read, if you haven't yet." - 'In Six Days : Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation'
Thanks for the offer Dan, but I think that I'll save my money for something more worthwhile if it's all the same to you. I've read creationist books before, (in fact I already own several) and the last thing I need is another one.
I noticed in the reviews section, that "about a quarter of the essayists claim that the second law of thermodynamics prohibits evolution."
If this is the standard of 'scholarship' which the book contains then leave me out of it.
Here's another gem.
"Sadly, this format makes "In Six Days" less than useful - on any level. The answers provided resemble testimonies rather than useful scientific analyses. Respondents tended to repeat each other, answer too generally, or (conversely) too technically on a single point. Further compounding the problems of the book, the great majority of the scientists refer to points outside their own discipline. If I were looking for serious answers to important questions about a six-day creation, would I want to read a mechanical engineer's musings on organic chemistry? Probably not."
"I love this book, really love it. This is one of the gemstones of my private little library and highly recommended.
Don't take me wrong here. I'm not, repeat not, repeat not, a "young earth creationist", or any other kind of creationist. Precisely for that reason, I adore this book. This collection of testimonies from 50 Christian-fundamentalist scientists PROVE that creationism is bogus, and that people adopt it for religious and psychological reasons, NOT for scientific ones.
Unsurprisingly, the book is published by Answers in Genesis, one of the more extreme creationist groups, substantially worse than even the notorious "Institute for Creation Research".
Here's a quote from one of the 50 scientists interviewed. I think that it just about says it all.
" Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand." - KURT P. WISE (s. 332)
Dan, I think that you and Kurt Wise would get along famously.
Once again, I sincerely hope that everything goes well for your wife and baby. You are in my thoughts.
Best regards, David.
Post a Comment