/lit/ - Literature

A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all. Now God can create free creatures, but He can't cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if He does so, then they aren't significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely. To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He must create creatures capable of moral evil; and He can't give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so. As it turned out, sadly enough, some of the free creatures God created went wrong in the exercise of their freedom; this is the source of moral evil. The fact that free creatures sometimes go wrong, however, counts neither against God's omnipotence nor against His goodness; for He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good.

http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/eng/Plantinga%27s_free_will_defense

You cannot confine good and evil to be totally dependent on subjective experience. What seems good to humans is good and what seems evil is evil. But this totally disregards God’s conception of good, which is more objective. A world in which humans only perceive good is therefore not necessarily objectively good.


God’s objective omnibenevolence/goodness/justice is not affected by our subjective views. God is good because God is Truth and is a glorious Creator. In the same way that I eat animals for my purpose, making it good for me, God does whatever he needs to do for his objective standard of good. Unfortunately this allows suffering to exist for us, but God is merciful, so he allows a way to salvation, which we can either accept or reject


God is objectively good, but also subjectively benevolent to humans. But God can also be subjectively malevolent. This has to be the case, since some people hate God, and some people go to hell.
Proverbs 8:17
>I love those who love me, and those who seek me diligently find me.
James 4:8
>Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded.
Deuteronomy 7:9
>9 Know therefore that the Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments.

The problem of evil is a subjective problem only, made worse when you’re an atheist.

>>14607325
> A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all
This seems like a man-made doctrine. Where does the Bible mention anything like this? I could easily say that God is sovereign and that our freedom is insignificant and that the existence of suffering results in a more interesting, meaningful world.

> Now God can create free creatures, but He can't cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if He does so, then they aren't significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely.
This makes no sense. A free being is free, is he not? And shouldn’t a free being be able to do that which he knows is good for him? So if we truly had free will, then why would we commit evil? Why are Christians sinners when they know that sinning is wrong? Do they not want to be perfect? Or are they not free? If Jesus was sinless, does that mean he wasn’t free? Which makes more sense: that we sin because we are free, or that we sin because we are not free?

>>14607325
Garbage argument.

I don't see how you can ever even come to a conclusion on anything philosophically. It is just intractable by its very nature. I really don't like these sort of Anglo-infatuated analytics that think they can "solve" a problem one way or another, whether it is for God or against him.

>>14607325
>for He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good.
To do that which is good for you is moral, and this does not require an incomprehensible freedom from causes.

>>14607532
It could be impossible to logically prove God's existence due to His nature.

But for Theists, it is beneficial to show that there are rational conceptions of God, that belief in God is reasonable.


>He is also renowned for his epistemological argument that belief in God can be rational without requiring arguments or evidence, claiming that it is difficult to prove that belief in God is irrational and possible to suggest ways in which belief meets the requirement of rationality.
https://www.nd.edu/stories/plantinga/

>>14607532
Positions do get refuted
philosophy does somehow 'get at' the truth though it has to evolve.


> In 1982, Mackie conceded that Plantinga's defense successfully refuted his argument in The Miracle of Theism, though he did not claim that the problem of evil had been put to rest.

Mackie's logical argument from evil
The logical argument from evil argued by J. L. Mackie, and to which the free-will defense responds, is an argument against the existence of the Christian God based on the idea that a logical contradiction exists between four theological tenets in orthodox Christian theology. Specifically, the argument from evil asserts that the following set of propositions are, by themselves, logically inconsistent or contradictory:

God is omniscient (all-knowing)
God is omnipotent (all-powerful)
God is omnibenevolent (morally perfect)
There is evil in the world
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga%27s_free-will_defense

>>14607717
>God is omnibenevolent (morally perfect)
vague

In the philosophy of religion, Reformed epistemology is a school of philosophical thought concerning the nature of knowledge (epistemology) as it applies to religious beliefs.[1] The central proposition of Reformed epistemology is that beliefs can be justified by more than evidence alone, contrary to the positions of evidentialism, which argues that while belief other than through evidence may be beneficial, it violates some epistemic duty.[2] Central to Reformed epistemology is the proposition that belief in God may be "properly basic" and not need to be inferred from other truths to be rationally warranted.[3] William Lane Craig describes Reformed epistemology as "One of the most significant developments in contemporary Religious Epistemology ... which directly assaults the evidentialist construal of rationality."[2]

Alvin Plantinga distinguishes between what he calls de facto from de jure objections to Christian belief. A de facto objection is one that attempts to show that Christian truth claims are false. In contrast, de jure objections attempt to undermine Christian belief even if it is, in fact, true. Plantinga argues that there are no successful objections to Christian belief apart from de facto (fact-based) objections.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_epistemology

>>14607316
I like his free will defense and i think it is a convincing argument as far as human evil goes, but i think he falls on his face when trying to explain non-human evil. saying "oh, well there are non-human agents (i.e. the devil) which must also have free will, and must also be able to do evil" will never be convincing to someone who does already hold a christian ontology. like, i'm willing to humour the idea of a divine creator, but having to also assume some non-physical evil being is a bit much.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeX6Lhb0_6A

>there is evil
>and that's okay because muh free will
>but all free will is a sin
>so you have no free will
>yet all sin is eliminated via Christ
>so you have free will once again
>but this is just a product of condemning sin itself, which is also a sin
>so eternal moralfagging is the only way to eliminate sinful reoccurence and free will in one act, while moralfagging against oneself becomes the last free act of will
>unwillful sin returns then to free will
>so we return once more to the problem of sin, which is a free morality
>yet this presents the problem of freedom at another level, and after the problem of evil had been eliminated the problem of freedom is reintroduced as the will of sin
>you are neither free nor sinful, and this uncertainty increases your presence in the world>then the will of sin becomes the sin of will>after this all will becomessin>and then morality as the sin of freedom
>then freedom of will begins to oppose the will of morality
>moralfagging takes on postironic proportions yet you retain free will
>and then sin becomes its own morality to retain freedom, so theological freedom is increased in the guise of a vast slave morality
>the lesser evil defeats sin and freedom>theological freedom is divested in favor of moral will
>then the problem of sin reintroduces freedom, but with an unknown free will and untold levels of moralism
>free will is then sacrificed to the morality of the lesser evil
>the will of sin reigns as the last free will
>yet free will begets the freedom of sin
>only moralism remains as a value filling the void of all fallen will>morality wills and thus increases its own will>the will of evil becomes the evil of will>all else is defeated>the morality of freedom then wills sin>then the only sin remaining is freedom>and so the only freedom is morality
When did you realise G-d was an Anglo?

>>14607325
>He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good.

Just cut this out and it's alright. Though I disagree that anything went "wrong", on the contrary, it is right that evil creatures do Evil, so that they might be known and hated.