Forum
 |  New Posts
 
 
 


Reply
 
Author Comment
 
Reply with quote  #1 
Suppose that necessaries of freedom absolve God of our decisions to enact evil, and the problem of evil is narrowed in scope to natural evil, why He allows evil decisions to be efficacious no less than good or neutral ones, and so on. Various solutions to these have been proposed, but they're often seen to be on shakier ground than the free will defense.

Why not solve them in just the same way? Perhaps Hurricane Katrina has a necessary of freedom of killing x people, and so on.

This can be seen as analogous to Plantiga's observation that the logical POE fails if the free will defense succeeds because possibly all natural disasters are caused by demons. He hasn't to my understanding made the obvious connection, which doesn't require that there be actual conscious malevolent entities manipulating the natural world, just brute facts about it beyond God's control. (IIRC saibomb does endorse something like this.)

It is possible to object on grounds of divine omnipotence or desired limitation of brute facts, but I don't see reason to suppose such brute facts constraining divine action are more likely for facts about decisions than facts about other events. In fact a brute fact that there must be x amount of evil would - if moral realism obtains and "x amount of evil" is actually simple - be the most parsimonious possible necessary of freedom accounting for evil.
Reply with quote  #2 

I think that the brute fact approach is contradictory with God's omnipotence- at least in regard to our universe.  The common thread among theists is that God is the one true creator and designer of our universe.  This would include any physical law that would allow for such things as hurricanes.  So to say that it is just a brute fact that there must be c amount of evil seems misguided.

 

However, I like your connection to Molonism.  Couldn't we say that God's middle knowledge allows him to understand that hurrican X or tornado Y being actualized allow for more people to freely choose him?

Reply with quote  #3 

Quote:
However, I like your connection to Molonism.  Couldn't we say that God's middle knowledge allows him to understand that hurrican X or tornado Y being actualized allow for more people to freely choose him?


I think this kind of thinking is fallacious i.e. tornado Y happens so that more people freely choose God.

That is it might be a secondary cause for Y but primary would be lack of goodness i.e. presence of God from which bad things necessary follow.

Thus if a person lives in a rejection of God, bad things are a necessity as she lacks presence of God and attributes that are contingent from God i.e. full manifestation of them.

Reply with quote  #4 
I may have just missed it but I can understand why human freedom is necessary (moral responsibility) , why is 'natural' freedom necessary?

Btw, when are you going to become a Christian?
Reply with quote  #5 
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/what-about-natural-evil

This is a good place to start on the discussion of natural evil.
Reply with quote  #6 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawlessone777
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/what-about-natural-evil

This is a good place to start on the discussion of natural evil.


Ya, that's pretty much how I understand it right now
Reply with quote  #7 
Quote:
Originally Posted by depthcharge623

Couldn't we say that God's middle knowledge allows him to understand that hurrican X or tornado Y being actualized allow for more people to freely choose him?


Of course, and that seems to be something like the standard approach - that this all fits into a sort of Rube Goldberg plan to realize the good. But I don't see why such explanations would be more appropriate for natural but not human evil any more why I see why brute fact restrictions are a better explanation for human but not natural evil.

Quote:
Originally Posted by idunno
I may have just missed it but I can understand why human freedom is necessary (moral responsibility) , why is 'natural' freedom necessary?

I have no idea, but then I don't see why human freedom (in this particular sense) would or could be necessary either.

Quote:
Btw, when are you going to become a Christian? 

Probably when my significant other converts to Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, or some ultra-liberal Protestantism and my intellectual convictions move heavily in a postmodern direction. (Unlike me, though, she doesn't have even the slightest sensus divinitatis, so this seems pretty unlikely. But something like that.)
Reply with quote  #8 
Well, as has been suggested, human freedom may be necessary for moral responsibility.

While you may not have much luck with your wife, I think Jared is sympathetic towards post modernism so perhaps you two could have a discussion on it.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:



Important: The Reasonable Faith forums have moved to: www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/






Powered by Website Toolbox - Create a Website Forum Hosting, Guestbook Hosting, or Website Chat Room for your website.