Benelovant omnipotence and the problem of Evil

Lysis: Okay, this is where I'm going to try to go into an explanation that I have repetitively failed at conveying correctly in the past, but here goes.

Let us imagine, for a moment, that time completely stops for you for a certain amount of time...enough time for you to analyze and memorize the thought process and memories of every human being, the state of all physical matter throughout this plane of existence, and the rules upon which everything works. This means that, when time starts flowing again, you can accurately know exactly what happens three seconds from now since you know how everything is moving and will move three seconds later despite three seconds not having happened yet. It's mathematical inevitability; you have no control over the enemy NPC in a strategy game, but if you know exactly how it will move based on its programming, then you're just as good as omniscient there. You're not giving it a guiding hand; you're just given awareness of how it'll move.

I call this "scientific inevitability", and I differ it from "destiny" or "fate" in the sense that the latter two are implied to have a guiding, divine hand behind it, a force that is capable of controlling everything. Scientific inevitability is not based on some prophecy or magic or how someone wants something to be; it is the outcome of what is happening now, which dictates what will happen later because things have already been set in motion, and these "things" have rules of their own that dictate where events will ultimately end up. There's no one hijacking our free will with a holy remote control.

But, then again, that's how I see it. One can push the point that God created scientific inevitability from point one, thereby having created destiny in the first place. It's something I don't believe in, but ultimately a valid argument if seen from an unbiased view. I guess the debate ultimately comes upon our definition of "free will", although, in the same vein, I guess one can say "free will", as you have noted, as ultimately meaningless. ^_^;

Phazon Goron: Indeed, as I have said before, it is extremely unlikely that Adam and Eve had existed. Never mind the fact that two members of a single race cannot possibly reproduce to an extent where an entire species can be revitalized; genetics simply dictate that you need a certain number of members from a race to achieve a population growth rate that won't plummet towards extinction. And there are, of course, the obvious questions: What of the dinosaurs? Evolution? The whole nine yards? I don't believe in Adam or Eve, but if Gnostic faith is valid, I don't believe we should be restricting ourselves to those first few chapters of Genesis either. ^_^;

Originally Posted by Ysionris

Lysis: Okay, this is where I'm going to try to go into an explanation that I have repetitively failed at conveying correctly in the past, but here goes.

Let us imagine, for a moment, that time completely stops for you for a certain amount of time...enough time for you to analyze and memorize the thought process and memories of every human being, the state of all physical matter throughout this plane of existence, and the rules upon which everything works. This means that, when time starts flowing again, you can accurately know exactly what happens three seconds from now since you know how everything is moving and will move three seconds later despite three seconds not having happened yet. It's mathematical inevitability; you have no control over the enemy NPC in a strategy game, but if you know exactly how it will move based on its programming, then you're just as good as omniscient there. You're not giving it a guiding hand; you're just given awareness of how it'll move.

I call this "scientific inevitability", and I differ it from "destiny" or "fate" in the sense that the latter two are implied to have a guiding, divine hand behind it, a force that is capable of controlling everything. Scientific inevitability is not based on some prophecy or magic or how someone wants something to be; it is the outcome of what is happening now, which dictates what will happen later because things have already been set in motion, and these "things" have rules of their own that dictate where events will ultimately end up. There's no one hijacking our free will with a holy remote control.

and indeed, I agree with this completely, only I call this "scientific inevitability" determinism and I believe that because of this "scientific inevitability" we do not have true free will; every choice we make is necessitated by the chain of events leading up to this point, by the current state of our mind and the properties of the environment around us.

assume for a moment an intelligent entity who, at any given moment, knows exactly how all the forces in the Universe work and knows the location of every single particle of matter in the Universe. Assume also that the entity is intelligent enough and can think fast enough to analyze all of this data. This entity would know exactly how everything in the Universe would work and exactly where it would move and what it would do forever until the end of the Universe, from the largest star to the smallest atom. To this entity, nothing would be uncertain and the future would be just like the past, set in stone, unchangeable, and completely knowable. (This thought experiment is known as Laplace's demon, by the way.)

essentially, this entity becomes omniscient, in the same sense as God. If the entity can perfectly predict and know exactly what every human is going to do all the way until the end of the world when every human is dead, how can humans have free will? Free will implies that a person's actions cannot be known before they are made, because it is the human's will that decides their actions, rather than having them decided, or determined, from the beginning of the Universe through some scientific inevitability.

But, then again, that's how I see it. One can push the point that God created scientific inevitability from point one, thereby having created destiny in the first place.

if God is truly omniscient, then there must be some sort of inevitability, scientific or otherwise, to the events that take place in the world. A sort of theological determinism, if you will. Otherwise, how could God know what actions I am going to take if not even my will has decided yet? Just by knowing what I am going to do, God removes any free will I might have had to make that decision.

It's something I don't believe in, but ultimately a valid argument if seen from an unbiased view. I guess the debate ultimately comes upon our definition of "free will", although, in the same vein, I guess one can say "free will", as you have noted, as ultimately meaningless. ^_^;

quite so, the definition of free will is an important part of the debate. Certainly I do not believe that my every action is somehow controlled like a puppet on a string by some divine destiny. We have an illusion of free will, in the sense that we feel like we are making free decisions and choices that are not, in fact, inevitably determined from the beginning of the Universe. It's a large concept to grasp, trying to understand that everything that happens is, from the beginning of the Universe, inevitably determined. Free will is still a useful concept, however, and believing that everything is inevitable and we should therefore not try to do anything at all is useless and self-destructive.

Lysis: First off, thank you for the links; I can now convey the same point, albeit with twelve less letters when I type "determinism" instead of "scientific inevitability". XD

I do agree with the vast majority of what you've pointed out, and it is a very good argument. I guess the only real point that we're contending over is the definition of free will. My definition of free will is that no sentient entity has conscious created, set up, or manipulated rather than an infinite amount of options that cannot be foreseen. This also has to do with how I subjectively view time...but that's an entirely different argument altogether. But your definition is just as good as well; I see the point you're trying to make, it's a very good point, and I agree with it enough to hope you won't mind if I use your argument as reference in the future. ^_^;

Originally Posted by Ysionris

Lysis: First off, thank you for the links; I can now convey the same point, albeit with twelve less letters when I type "determinism" instead of "scientific inevitability". XD

oh, you are quite welcome, Ysionris.

(how in the world do you pronounce that anyway? .~.)

I do agree with the vast majority of what you've pointed out, and it is a very good argument. I guess the only real point that we're contending over is the definition of free will. My definition of free will is that no sentient entity has conscious created, set up, or manipulated rather than an infinite amount of options that cannot be foreseen. This also has to do with how I subjectively view time...but that's an entirely different argument altogether.

indeed, we both seem to agree on the issue of determinism. We only really differ on how we define free will, which can mean different things depending on how you view the world. So, we're both right, in our own way.

But your definition is just as good as well; I see the point you're trying to make, it's a very good point, and I agree with it enough to hope you won't mind if I use your argument as reference in the future. ^_^;

oh, no, I don't mind at all; please do. I certainly was not the first person to use any part of my argument anyway. :>

Oh come on guys, reason can't be considered when discussing this sort of thing. Don't you know? God "works in mysterious ways". At least that's the answer I always got when asking these sorts of questions... Hahahaha

Originally Posted by eiyuu_004

Oh come on guys, reason can't be considered when discussing this sort of thing. Don't you know? God "works in mysterious ways". At least that's the answer I always got when asking these sorts of questions... Hahahaha

This may be just me, but I find this to be the "religious easy way out". I mean, it's the same answer as "just because". XD

Originally Posted by Lysis

if God is truly omniscient, then there must be some sort of inevitability, scientific or otherwise, to the events that take place in the world. A sort of theological determinism, if you will. Otherwise, how could God know what actions I am going to take if not even my will has decided yet? Just by knowing what I am going to do, God removes any free will I might have had to make that decision.

If I may interject, here's my two cents on the matter. It is possible for someone to know the future and not affect it for someone else, provided he doesn't tell that person or change the state of the world as it pertains to that person up to that point. For example, if I saw 30 seconds of a Chinese man's future, would it affect anything if I never told him and never considered the matter after I saw it? I would argue that it wouldn't.

And it's perhaps analogous to God's knowledge, though perhaps in a different way. We have the free will to make choices based on what we want and not because we're being forced to. At least, I don't feel like I'm predestined to perform any action or think any thought. The reason God knows a specific action I will perform is because I would perform it. If I would have performed any different action, that would reflect in God's knowledge. This doesn't affect the "God knew my entire future when he made me therefore he must have made me this way on purpose or else he wouldn't be all knowing" principle (too wordy?). But maybe that is one possible way of looking at the concept of free will.

Originally Posted by Ysionris

This may be just me, but I find this to be the "religious easy way out". I mean, it's the same answer as "just because". XD

Sometimes it's a legitimate answer. After all, nobody can or should be expected to explain the thoughts or actions of an all knowing God. Especially if that person isn't all knowing. I'm not saying that there aren't questions that I think need to be answered, but sometimes "I don't know" is a valid position.

Drew: Oh, no worries, I understand that perfectly well. However, "I don't know" and "just because" represents two different types of mentalities. The former acknowledges humility in the lack of knowledge of understanding; the latter insinuates impatience and existence without reason. ^_^;

Originally Posted by Drew

If I may interject, here's my two cents on the matter. It is possible for someone to know the future and not affect it for someone else, provided he doesn't tell that person or change the state of the world as it pertains to that person up to that point. For example, if I saw 30 seconds of a Chinese man's future, would it affect anything if I never told him and never considered the matter after I saw it? I would argue that it wouldn't.

oh, of course not, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm arguing is that the fact that 30 seconds of the Chinese man's future is knowable at all means that he doesn't have free will to begin with. If he had free will in those 30 seconds, you wouldn't be able to see his decisions before they happened; they would be unpredictable. It's not that he doesn't have free will because you can see his future; it's that he doesn't have free will because his future is knowable at all (whether or not anyone actually does know it).

And it's perhaps analogous to God's knowledge, though perhaps in a different way. We have the free will to make choices based on what we want and not because we're being forced to.

certainly I never argued that we were being "forced" to do anything. It's simply that our choices are inevitably determined before we make them, but they're still our own decisions and are not being made by anyone else.

At least, I don't feel like I'm predestined to perform any action or think any thought.

no, it's not something you can feel. We have an illusion of free will; despite the fact that all our decisions are determined by cause and effect, we feel completely free to do what we want and, effectively, we are.

The reason God knows a specific action I will perform is because I would perform it. If I would have performed any different action, that would reflect in God's knowledge.

and the fact that you would only have performed one specific action means you don't have the free will to perform any other specific action instead.

This doesn't affect the "God knew my entire future when he made me therefore he must have made me this way on purpose or else he wouldn't be all knowing" principle (too wordy?).

but in the case of God, it does have an affect. God made you in such a way that you would perform all the actions you perform. Since he could have made you any possible way he wanted to, and since he knew exactly what you would do based on how he made you, he is responsible for every decision you make.

this extends to the entire Universe, not just you. Nothing happens that God didn't want to happen and didn't cause to happen.

But maybe that is one possible way of looking at the concept of free will.

sure, there are many ways to look at it. It all depends on your definition of "free will."

Sometimes it's a legitimate answer. After all, nobody can or should be expected to explain the thoughts or actions of an all knowing God. Especially if that person isn't all knowing. I'm not saying that there aren't questions that I think need to be answered, but sometimes "I don't know" is a valid position.

however, "I don't know" is not a valid position in any debate. You can't base your argument on "I don't know."

and the fact that you would only have performed one specific action means you don't have the free will to perform any other specific action instead.

Well you only have one chance. Once something is done, it's done. What you would have done is what you did do.

but in the case of God, it does have an affect. God made you in such a way that you would perform all the actions you perform. Since he could have made you any possible way he wanted to, and since he knew exactly what you would do based on how he made you, he is responsible for every decision you make.

this extends to the entire Universe, not just you. Nothing happens that God didn't want to happen and didn't cause to happen.

I think I was agreeing with you. God created me knowing that I would be a certain way and I suppose you could argue that it makes him responsible. Most Christians would disagree. Unless, I suppose, you could get them to either admit that God isn't all-knowing in that aspect or didn't create/fashion us (contrary to scripture in Psalms). But I doubt you could.

sure, there are many ways to look at it. It all depends on your definition of "free will."

The ability to make choices and act upon them with my conscious being the sole factor in the decision.

however, "I don't know" is not a valid position in any debate. You can't base your argument on "I don't know."

It depends why you take that side. You can plead ignorance - you just can't base arguments from it.

Originally Posted by Drew

Well you only have one chance. Once something is done, it's done. What you would have done is what you did do.

and, inevitably, there is only one would-have-done. For every decision in your future, you will inevitably make the only decision available because you are, in a sense, programmed to make that specific decision in that specific way. If someone were able to see the future, they would know every decision you will make and there would be no question on what you might do--no other options. It's a complicated process.

I think I was agreeing with you. God created me knowing that I would be a certain way and I suppose you could argue that it makes him responsible. Most Christians would disagree. Unless, I suppose, you could get them to either admit that God isn't all-knowing in that aspect or didn't create/fashion us (contrary to scripture in Psalms). But I doubt you could.

oh, indeed. It's one or the other. If God is not responsible for everything I do, he is either not omniscient (therefore he doesn't know what I'm going to do and can't be held responsible) or he is not omnipotent (and then had to make me the way he did, thus putting the responsibility on...well, whatever made him make me, be it some higher force or just some Universal constraint).

The ability to make choices and act upon them with my conscious being the sole factor in the decision.

under that definition, free will does not exist. You make decisions based on several factors, both biological and environmental. The physical state of your brain from the day you were born is a factor in how you make decisions. Your experiences in life affect the physical state of your brain as you grow and develop, so they are a factor as well. Not to mention your immediate environment; what is going on around you when you make your decisions. This, too, is an important factor. All of these factors are physically determined by a chain of cause and effect, leading all the way back to the initial physical state of the Universe.

if you were to take someone who was physically identical to you, including his brain, and put him through the exact same experiences as you, in the exact same environment as you, he would grow and develop exactly like you and would make, exactly, all the same decisions as you.

although I suppose you could try to argue that all of these other factors affect your conscious will, therefore making your conscious will still, in a sense, the sole factor; but you have to understand that internal factors and external factors both play a part in every decision you make. It's not completely an internal process.

It depends why you take that side. You can plead ignorance - you just can't base arguments from it.

I think that's what I just said. You can't base your argument on ignorance.

although I suppose you could try to argue that all of these other factors affect your conscious will, therefore making your conscious will still, in a sense, the sole factor; but you have to understand that internal factors and external factors both play a part in every decision you make. It's not completely and internal process.

Yes, I was taking into account the physical state of the universe as being an "outside" influence. Rather I think I mean that I am making the logical choices required for me to perform actions or think thoughts. And it's tough to describe the way the mind works.

My conscious will has to do with my conscious as a whole - be it a purely physical thing or a physical entity with metaphysical properties. Can nature create an entity that questions nature (or itself)? It's difficult to wrap the mind around the concept of self-awareness when you describe yourself in purely physical terms. How can atoms and energy be combined such that "I think, therefore I am"? Maybe it's late and I need sleep but it really is fascinating how, at least in my perception, every other object beside myself is simply a collection of atoms with matter flowing to and fro. Rocks, sky, trees - none of these things are aware. Animals and living organisms make choices but probably don't realize they do on the same level as we. Other humans make choices but I can't pretend to have any sort of control over them, even if a person were to submit himself to my every command. But me, well, I am different. I exist and I am aware of it. I can point North; I can point South. If I want to do something I do it. Or maybe I don't. But I can choose. Everything else to me seems to be out of reach. Everything else just does and that's that. But me - well, I'm different. I'm special. I'm in control.

At least, I think so.

Originally Posted by Lysis

I've heard of that, but I have not experienced anything like that which could only be explained by supernatural means. If you're talking about the conscience, which I assume you are, I attribute that to my subconscious mind, which makes the most logical sense and is backed up with scientific evidence, as per the scientific method and Occam's razor.



instead he doesn't tell us anything and lets us all fail in our inadequacies or die by the hands of heartless killers and merciless acts of fate which he could certainly save us from but decides not to?

at least you aren't of the type that says everyone who doesn't believe in God goes to Hell for eternal punishment, because then I'd really have something to say about this. If God specifically makes himself hard to find and then punishes those who can't find him, well, I hope you can see why I would have a problem with that.



which we haven't quite figured out yet, if war, terrorism, and murder are any indication.



God doesn't want us to punish us? He doesn't want us to suffer? Then explain the Problem of Evil:

instead of just explaining it again, I decided to quote myself on the matter. These are all from various I:SB threads I've posted in and they all ask the same question: how can God be benevolent if he allows evil things to happen? It's the classic Problem of Evil, and I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation for it which doesn't contradict sound logic. Perhaps you can be the first, or perhaps you will give up like everyone else and go on believing your logical inconsistencies to the end of your days.

edit: incidentally, this last part of my post is directly related to the actual thread topic, so consider it my main response to the OP and a question not just to ODL here but to anyone who believes God exists and is actually good.

Here, let me try and explain it to you.

Allowing evil to exist = free will (and/or the illusion of free will)

not allowing evil to exist = strict determinism (which could be considered one part of the dichotomy of causality, if I understand things correctly.)

evil = nothing

not allowing nothing to exist = strict determinism

allowing evil to exist = not-strict determinism


and in grand summation:

[a grande-artist dumps a bag full of mice into a maze and somehow accurately predicts every minute action the rats will perform before starving to death, and then proceeds to call it art and make millions of dollars off of said "art"] =/= [the rats have no free will]


PS: art= the universe
rats=humans

also, reductionism is a ♥♥♥♥♥.

:3


oh, and strict-determinism = predestination as is embodied in the theology of Calvinism.

:3

*edit*

oops I forgot to address benevolence.

I'll start over w/ free will.

Ok so a mechanic makes a shiny new car and puts on licence plates that say "free" on one side and "willie" on the other.

He gives it to a person.

The person wrecks said flying car.

The person is heart-broken and sad at having wrecked such an awesome thing.

So he goes to the mechanic and is like "can you please fix it for me?"

and the mechanic is like "tuff nut's bro. fix it your self, I got other projects to work on at the moment."

and the person is like, "but I don't know how."

and the mechanic is like. "well if you ever want to fly again you better learn how to fix it quick before you die."

and the person is like:

"I'll get right on that."

[end of story]

so the moral of the story:

apathy=/= malevolence

apathy =/= benevolence

masks =/= evil

[masks = ontological barriers]

stupid=/=evil

empathy=good
sympathy is perhaps > empathy (but I'm not quite sure yet)