Free will needs clarification

[st_felicity]

I am asking: “which one matters?” Now, the funny part is that I described the dilemma in a crystal clear fashion in the poll part of the OP, and you immediately disregarded it.

I don’t agree with either of the two choices you presented. You offer a false dichotomy with qualifiers that are not accurate to what I believe is true and thus cannot vote. I’m not the only one to find error in the poll. See red for my comments:

Is free will more important than the freedom to act on that will? More important? It’s not really about being “important.” It’s really more like is it “more necessary.”
Yes, free will is the important part. If one is unable to carry out that will, it is not important. Since I have an issue with the “more important” part of your question, I obviously can’t choose this one. And secondly–it’s not “not important” to be able to act–it’s very important, but perhaps not as “necessary.”
No, only the freedom to act on one’s will is the important. An empty wish that cannot be carried out is not relevant. “only…important?” No, that’s not correct. “not relevant?” Not correct either. So you see–the poll is flawed IMO and cannot be answered unless I agree with your premises, which I do not.

Ok, let’s clarify. There are two contrasting “wills” present in a rape case, one is rapist’s “will” to perform the act, the other is the victim’s “will” to avoid it. By not interfering, God allows the rapist’s will to prevail,

I agree with you to this point. BUT…the conclusion you draw from that DOES NOT NECESSARILY FOLLOW, and I do not agree with that.

which means that God “values” the will of the rapist’s will higher.

Because God allows free will to be exercised, He does not interfere, or it would NOT BE FREE. Does that make sense? It’s not that He values one above another–both are valued (the freedom of the individual’s will, not the hateful exercise of the free will), and non-interference is the only way that either can be free.

There is no other conclusion.

That seems rather close minded, and why I said that your mind is already made up on the matter.

If there is a human agent present, who had the power to intefere and who does not interfere, he will be held responsible for his inaction. Just like driving by an accident scene and not providing assintance is considered criminal.

God and man are not the same sort of entities. God is the Creator, and we are the created. God has NO “responsibility” for us except that which He deigns to provide in His Providence. Your view God appears to be like he’s some big powerful “sky daddy” --He’s God. Yes, He’s personal and deigns to have a relationship with us, but in our freedom, He allows us to choose it. And He allows us that whether we are a rapist, or the one raped.

It really should be obvious. What you ask for sounds like this: “I am saying that a triangle has exactly 3 sides, and you are demanding evidence for that”. But, what the heck. The “evidence” (if you want to call it that) is the woman’s inability to carry out her intention in the rape case. To say that her “free will” is not affected by her inability to carry out her intention is sheer nonsense. But I can do even better.

But again, you assume your premise to be true, and I do not agree that being able to act on the will is required for the will to be free. Prove your premise and you may get somewhere.

Let’s accept your opposing view, and let’s say that the “thought is what matters”, and the ability to carry out is not important. If this were the case, then God really could interfere in each and every case, without violating that “free will”, since there is no interference with the “will”, only the ability to carry out. This stance robs you of all “free-will-defense”. God would have no more excuse for his “non-interference” policy.

I believe this is a different question as to WHY there is evil in the world, and I think that Exodus is discussing that with you quite clearly.

What is your thread about? Is it about will and action, or is it about why God allows evil?

This phrase is only used if there was a chance that the attempt could have been successful. If there is no possibility of success, what does it matter what the intents were? If there is an accident, which traps miners underground, then the intent to rescue them does matter, as long as there is a chance of success. If there is no chance of that, the intent does not matter any more.

And this is yet another question concerning justice and the knowing the purposes of God.

Hey–Have you ever read through Job in the OT. God directly tells Job why He allows what He allows, and the gist of it is that you don’t see the big picture as God sees it, and the Glory of God is made manifest through the whole of time and creation. We are a little part of that great masterpiece–a single hair on the Great Master’s brush, and yet contributing to the beauty of the whole. We can’t see it yet, and yet, our part is important.

 

[Spock]

God and man are not the same sort of entities. God is the Creator, and we are the created.

I guess this concludes the conversation. I have no patience to waste more time and effort on someone who resorts to the fallacy of special pleading. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading) When the theist runs out of all the arguments, then comes the good old “special pleading”. Which is even more ironic if one recalls that we were made in God’s image.

 

[st_felicity]

I guess this concludes the conversation. I have no patience to waste more time and effort on someone who resorts to the fallacy of special pleading. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading)

So be it. Your loss.
Silly that you should be concerned with logical fallacies indiscriminately assigned to others’ positions when you have committed so many yourself. But…I’m really not surprised by the short-sightedness and hypocritical criticisms that anti-believers demonstrate against believers.

When the theist runs out of all the arguments, then comes the good old “special pleading”. Which is even more ironic if one recalls that we were made in God’s image.

I see you cherry-picked what you could claim excuses you from addressing the issues raised. Again–no surprise here.

Ta.

 

[st_felicity]

Oh yes…one more thing…from your link…

In philosophy, it is assumed that wherever a distinction is claimed, a relevant basis for the distinction should exist and be substantiated. Special pleading is a subversion of this assumption.

When speaking of God–ANY god–, how is it not a given that God is distinct from man? And specifically, the Christian God?

There is no fallacious logic on my part, but you are racking up quite a profusion.

 

[Pieman333272]

Oh yes…one more thing…from your link…

When speaking of God–ANY god–, how is it not a given that God is distinct from man? And specifically, the Christian God?

There is no fallacious logic on my part, but you are racking up quite a profusion.

I think, speaking in the broader sense of the term “God”, you should technically make clear that the God at hand is not a/the pantheistic or panentheistic God. It’s almost always implied but some non-theists like to be nit-picky about it.

 

[st_felicity]

I think, speaking in the broader sense of the term “God”, you should technically make clear that the God at hand is not a/the pantheistic or panentheistic God. It’s almost always implied but some non-theists like to be nit-picky about it.

He’s on a Catholic message board. If he’s not clear on the God of whom we speak, he’s being purposefully obtuse.

 

[Spock]

I think, speaking in the broader sense of the term “God”, you should technically make clear that the God at hand is not a/the pantheistic or panentheistic God. It’s almost always implied but some non-theists like to be nit-picky about it.

My friend, this is not the point. I am talking specifically of the Christian God. This is implied by the captialization of the word, to distingush this being from the innumerable other “gods” invented my humans. It is frequently cited that we were created in the likeliness of God, which means that we are moral agents, who know right from wrong, and if we intentionally commit (or allow) a grievious wrong, then our behavior is deemed immoral. If something is “wrong” for one moral agent, it is wrong for any others. God cannot be exempted by the virtue that he has more power than we do. (Just like a parent has more power and more wisdom than a child, but to lie about something is equally wrong for both of them.) This is the** fallacy of special pleading **I am referring to, and that is the fallacy that too many posters on this board commit, once they run out of rational arguments. And that is what makes me sick and tired. I have no patience any more to read this cheap tactics.

 

[st_felicity]

My friend, this is not the point. I am talking specifically of the Christian God. This is implied by the captialization of the word, to distingush this being from the innumerable other “gods” invented my humans. It is frequently cited that we were created in the likeliness of God, which means that we are moral agents, who know right from wrong, and if we intentionally commit (or allow) a grievious wrong, then our behavior is deemed immoral. If something is “wrong” for one moral agent, it is wrong for any others. God cannot be exempted by the virtue that he has more power than we do. (Just like a parent has more power and more wisdom than a child, but to lie about something is equally wrong for both of them.) This is the** fallacy of special pleading **I am referring to, and that is the fallacy that too many posters on this board commit, once they run out of rational arguments. And that is what makes me sick and tired. I have no patience any more to read this cheap tactics.

So I suppose when talking of the attributes of elephants, it’s special pleading when it is noted that their auditory senses are superior to human beings’. Or perhaps it’s special pleading to morally exempt chimps (who share 98% of their DNA with human beings) who kill or maim a person from criminal charges since they act on instinct.

Different beings have different attributes, and mankind, though made in the image of God, are not made to be LIKE gods. My children are made in my image in many ways, and yet they are different from me and will always be different from me. They will have different responsibilities than I do and will have different life experiences than I have had or will have.

If you (as you say) accept that the discussion is about the Christian God, and yet do not accept the Christian premise that God is sovereign over all, you have no business setting any parameters to the discussion. It just reveals that rather than being here for discussion, you have an agenda.

 

[The_Exodus]

If you (as you say) accept that the discussion is about the Christian God, and yet do not accept the Christian premise that God is sovereign over all, you have no business setting any parameters to the discussion. It just reveals that rather than being here for discussion, you have an agenda.

Precisely. This has been a major hurdle for communicate between Spock and myself. He is asking theological questions, and yet unwilling to accept theological premises of God’s nature, so of course, in his mind, there will be incongruity between the questions and answers.

 

[Spock]

Precisely. This has been a major hurdle for communicate between Spock and myself. He is asking theological questions, and yet unwilling to accept theological premises of God’s nature, so of course, in his mind, there will be incongruity between the questions and answers.

Why are you surprised? If I would find the theological answers satisfactory, I would be a believer.

Many a times I said: “to give theologically based answers, maybe supported by the Cathecism and/or the Bible is a great way to clarify your position, but it cannot be accepted as a valid argument”. The one and only way to conduct a meaningful conversation is to play on the other party’s “playing field”.

When talking to a Protestant, you should use only Sola Scriptura type arguments, it is futile to refer to inerracy of the Catholic Church or the pope. These arguments mean nothing for a Protestant. Likewise, when talking to an atheist, you should always use fully secular arguments, since only those can be convincing to an atheist. To refer to “revelation”, or the Cathecism is not helpful. Equally unhelpful to say: “this is what we Catholics believe”. It is fine to give clarification, but it should not be confused with an argument. Isn’t this obvious?

 

[The_Exodus]

Many a times I said: “to give theologically based answers, maybe supported by the Cathecism and/or the Bible is a great way to clarify your position, but it cannot be accepted as a valid argument”. The one and only way to conduct a meaningful conversation is to play on the other party’s “playing field”.

I have no idea what the above means. What would be the point of me clarifying a position if you did not accept that position in the first place? It would be like shining up a corvette to sell, the whole time knowing that the buyer wasn’t interested in them to begin with.

spock:

When talking to a Protestant, you should use only Sola Scriptura type arguments, it is futile to refer to inerracy of the Catholic Church or the pope. These arguments mean nothing for a Protestant. Likewise, when talking to an atheist, you should always use fully secular arguments, since only those can be convincing to an atheist. To refer to “revelation”, or the Cathecism is not helpful. Equally unhelpful to say: “this is what we Catholics believe”. It is fine to give clarification, but it should not be confused with an argument. Isn’t this obvious?

First of all, I didn’t refer to anything explicitly in the catechism or said by the pope. All I did was say that, the most logical thing to do, if asking why God did something, is to look to revelation, to see what he himself has said about it. Suppose you saw a man standing on his head. You could speculate all day about why he was doing it, but if you want to know the real reason - that is, his reason - your best bet is to get that reason straight from the horses mouth.

Now, if you don’t accept revelation, I think you are asking for an impossibility. You are asking “why does God such and such” and yet refusing to listen to what, supposedly, God himself has said about why he does such and such. How do you suppose a person answer such a question, but by appealing to revelation? I do not have a direct link to God, nor am I the second person in the Trinity. I can only work with what I accept on the authority of the Church, tradition, and learned men. If you don’t accept that authority, that is fine, but I see no way in which you can get a response to the question “why does the Christian God…” Nor, as a side note, have I any thought as to where your idea of the “Christian God” came from itself.

Finally, I gave solid reasons which I never saw refuted. They were something along these lines:

a) God wills to display his essence in a myriad of effects
b) God wills to bring into existence beings which are, of themselves, defectible
c) God wills to bring some of these beings to everlasting life
d) God wills to allow some of these beings to fail of their own, and thus to reprobate them
e) God is not bound to hold all beings in a state of perfection: if he were, there would be no sin at all
f) God is therefore not bound to create a universe with no evil, though he no doubt could, if he wanted
g) God wills to allow certain evils, in order that
i) his essence will be displayed more fully - i.e. through righteous anger against
malice, justice through punishment as he being the highest good has the right to
be loved and honored above all things, infinite mercy in saving whom he saves,
and holy hatred of evil in reprobation.

        ii) many goods would otherwise be lacking - the patients of martyrs, for instance, 
          or the justification of sinners. It is greater to bring a sinner to eternal life, than 
          one who has never sinned. (Through the fall, sin abounded, but grace super-
          abounded.) A universe in which no beings fail is a good universe, but a universe 
          in which some can and do is greater, for it has a greater harmony and displays 
          God's essence to a fuller extent.

h) God does all this through widsom, justice, mercy, and infinite freedom.

 

[scameter18]

The Catholic understanding of free will is both the freedom to sin, and the freedom for excellence - to be holy. God gave us this faculty out of love, so that we can have individuality and freedom. However, by freedom most people mean freedom from consequences, the ability to do whatever you want - sin or otherwise - and have no negative consequences. This is not freedom, however. This is being a child. Children want to do whatever they like, and rely on their parents to absorb the consequences when they do something wrong. For most people, they retain this desire their entire lives. They construct governments, technologies and belief systems to support this urge, to remove guilt and the physical reprocussions of sin. While they can never truly avoid consequences, they will continue to try. This is what most people mean by freedom, but it is not the Catholic understanding - or the reality - of free will. True freedom is freedom from sin, from error and from mortality. This liberty can only be attained through God’s salvation, saving us from sin and the chains we put on ourselves.

It’s also important to distinguish will from action. We should always will the good - intend it, desire it and strive for it - even if we sin, our actions deviating from our will. We have the freedom of will and freedom of choice to choose sin or good. This is why culpability is so important: you can sin unintentionally, or be tempted unintentionally, which are not mortal sins, and temptation is not sin at all.

 

[Spock]

I have no idea what the above means. What would be the point of me clarifying a position if you did not accept that position in the first place? It would be like shining up a corvette to sell, the whole time knowing that the buyer wasn’t interested in them to begin with.

If you wish to clarify your position, it is always helpful. This particular “buyer” is not a-priori disinterested in making a “deal”, but can be convinced by rational arguments only.

All I did was say that, the most logical thing to do, if asking why God did something, is to look to revelation, to see what he himself has said about it.

This is not relevant to an atheist. Atheists do not accept that there was a revelation in the first place. So why try to bring it up?

Suppose you saw a man standing on his head. You could speculate all day about why he was doing it, but if you want to know the real reason - that is, his reason - your best bet is to get that reason straight from the horses mouth.

Indeed. God is welcome to explain.

Now, if you don’t accept revelation, I think you are asking for an impossibility. You are asking “why does God such and such” and yet refusing to listen to what, supposedly, God himself has said about why he does such and such. How do you suppose a person answer such a question, but by appealing to revelation? I do not have a direct link to God, nor am I the second person in the Trinity. I can only work with what I accept on the authority of the Church, tradition, and learned men. If you don’t accept that authority, that is fine, but I see no way in which you can get a response to the question “why does the Christian God…” Nor, as a side note, have I any thought as to where your idea of the “Christian God” came from itself.

I understand this. Essentially your answer is “I believe whatever I believe because I was told by the authority (revelation, Church, etc…). These beliefs are founded on accepting these teachings.”. These beliefs are totally founded on faith. If you say that, I will accept your answer, and we can agree to disagree.

However, there is a possibility, which should not be overlooked. Theoretically it is possible that all those beliefs you hold can be explained of substantiated by fully secular means, without appealing to authority and to faith. If that were the case, then we could have some kind of agreement. And that is what I am looking for.

Finally, I gave solid reasons which I never saw refuted. They were something along these lines:

a) God wills to display his essence in a myriad of effects
b) God wills to bring into existence beings which are, of themselves, defectible
c) God wills to bring some of these beings to everlasting life
d) God wills to allow some of these beings to fail of their own, and thus to reprobate them
e) God is not bound to hold all beings in a state of perfection: if he were, there would be no sin at all
f) God is therefore not bound to create a universe with no evil, though he no doubt could, if he wanted
g) God wills to allow certain evils, in order that
i) his essence will be displayed more fully - i.e. through righteous anger against
malice, justice through punishment as he being the highest good has the right to
be loved and honored above all things, infinite mercy in saving whom he saves,
and holy hatred of evil in reprobation.

        ii) many goods would otherwise be lacking - the patients of martyrs, for instance, 
          or the justification of sinners. It is greater to bring a sinner to eternal life, than 
          one who has never sinned. (Through the fall, sin abounded, but grace super-
          abounded.) A universe in which no beings fail is a good universe, but a universe 
          in which some can and do is greater, for it has a greater harmony and displays 
          God's essence to a fuller extent.

h) God does all this through widsom, justice, mercy, and infinite freedom.

Of all these points the most important one is (f), though you did not state it as I was hoping you would. The proper way is: “God is therefore not bound to create a universe with no evil, though he no doubt could, if he wanted, while retaining the full freedom of action of the created beings.” And I would immediately ask that “why didn’t he do it”? Your answer about the “miriad ways” is irrelevant. All those miriads of ways could all be “good”. Your answers of (i) and (ii) are not substantiated. I deny that any evil “adds” something valuable. It is also denied by the Catholic doctrine which says that “no good can come out of evil”. Of course there is another, contradictory Catholic doctrine which says that “God can bring forth a greater good out of evil”. Pure, simple contradiction. And this is just one of the many contradictions the Catholic Church teaches.

 

[The_Exodus]

I understand this. Essentially your answer is “I believe whatever I believe because I was told by the authority (revelation, Church, etc…). These beliefs are founded on accepting these teachings.”. These beliefs are totally founded on faith. If you say that, I will accept your answer, and we can agree to disagree.

This is correct. I believe in God’s nature off the authority of revelation. I do not, however, believe in his existence off revelation (though I see no problem in doing this). Reason suffices to demonstrate that God - a first cause - exists. But, since God’s nature is such, as reason even shows, that it is beyond anything the human mind can comprehend, the only way in which to have knowledge of what that nature is is by belief or faith.

In short, the “what God is,” as well as what he has freely chosen to do, and what his will is, is based on faith. The “whether God is” is based on reason.

Thus, in my responses to your questions about what God has freely chosen to do, I must, necessarily, appeal to faith and authority. What a being freely chooses to do cannot be proven from reason alone, particularly if that being has an essence beyond full human comprehension. That being would have to reveal himself - make himself known.

spock:

However, there is a possibility, which should not be overlooked. Theoretically it is possible that all those beliefs you hold can be explained of substantiated by fully secular means, without appealing to authority and to faith. If that were the case, then we could have some kind of agreement. And that is what I am looking for.

I’m not sure what you mean by “secular” means. Perhaps you could explain.

spock:

Of all these points the most important one is (f), though you did not state it as I was hoping you would. The proper way is: “God is therefore not bound to create a universe with no evil, though he no doubt could, if he wanted, while retaining the full freedom of action of the created beings.”

Yes, this follows from what I said, but the key is the “if he wanted.” More on that below.

spock:

And I would immediately ask that “why didn’t he do it”? Your answer about the “miriad ways” is irrelevant. All those miriads of ways could all be “good”.

The answer of “myriad ways” is not irrelevant at all, because you are asking a question – why – that requires a particular answer that is dependent on the free will and choice of God. God could certainly have made a universe with no evil, in which all creatures were free. Everyone could have been a Mary. All this is conceded. But, you asked, why not?The answer is because he did not want to.

Or, to put it another way, why *would he *create such a universe? You say because there would be “more good” in it. But I don’t see how this necessarily follows. A universe in which some beings fail, and others do not, is more good than one in which no beings fail, for the reasons in my points i and ii. In other words, you want to substitute “myriad ways” for “one way” and get the same amount of goodness. This, however, is impossible.

Further, when God is not bound to create a universe in a particular way, then the reason why he made a certain universe over another falls back to his free will alone, in which is the manifestation of goodness as such. The divine will follows the divine reason. It does not deliberate about what course of action to take. What it wills, it perceives at once as being fitting to the willing. God wills his own goodness more than any other created good. Thus, in willing the creation of the universe, he willed his goodness to be manifest therein. This includes points i and ii of which I stated. Were these lacking (were evil lacking), something in these points would be sacrificed.

spock:

Your answers of (i) and (ii) are not substantiated. I deny that any evil “adds” something valuable. It is also denied by the Catholic doctrine which says that “no good can come out of evil”. Of course there is another, contradictory Catholic doctrine which says that “God can bring forth a greater good out of evil”. Pure, simple contradiction. And this is just one of the many contradictions the Catholic Church teaches.

I’ve never heard a doctrine which says that “no good can come out of evil.” If that were the case, evil would be superfluous, and God would allow it unnecessarily. He would thus be unwise, which is heretical. You are likely taking a certain aphorism as a dogmatic statemet of metaphysics. Hence, your conclusion concerning contradiction in Church teaching does not follow.

 

[Sarpedon]

Ok, let’s clarify. There are two contrasting “wills” present in a rape case, one is rapist’s “will” to perform the act, the other is the victim’s “will” to avoid it. By not interfering, God allows the rapist’s will to prevail, which means that God “values” the will of the rapist’s will higher. There is no other conclusion. If there is a human agent present, who had the power to intefere and who does not interfere, he will be held responsible for his inaction. Just like driving by an accident scene and not providing assintance is considered criminal.

What about this- the will of the victim wills more good things than the will of the rapist. Therefore, the will of the rapist is substantially more damaged than the will of the victim. Because of this, God focuses more on the will of the rapist, because it needs more work. Perhaps the experience will ultimately lead to a restoration of that damaged will.

Here’s an analogy to your argument. We have a healthy wetland and a polluted wetland. The EPA has a limited amount of manpower and resources. The EPA chooses to invest these resources in the polluted wetland. Therefore, the EPA values the polluted wetland higher than the healthy wetland.

That’s obviously false. The polluted wetland is not more highly valued than the healthy wetland just because more resources are put into it.

The whole goal of God’s project in humanity is to restore as many souls and wills as possible to a healthy state. Because of our freedom of the will, God is necessarily limited in His actions. He needs to act in such a way as to coax as many wills as possible toward health, but he cannot directly control them. Because of this variation in choosing on the part of the free wills, God permits the exercise of the freedom to act on those wills in various ways depending on what is most effective to coaxing the wills themselves toward health.

Suffering is allowed as a pragmatic tool to bring as many free wills as possible to health. This is not injust- for God only allows necessary suffering, and suffering cannot directly cause a soul to become unhealthy. Atheists never accept this, and they usually bring up dying baby examples as some sort of argument. The simple fact of the manner is that we cannot know how every single action affects every single will in the whole fabric of humanity. That is beyond our comprehension. Thus, there is no basis to say either way whether suffering is truly necessary or not. While we cannot directly settle the matter either way, we can make a very reasonable case for the necessity of suffering by drawing from our own experiences and the experiences of history. That’s not really what this thread is about, but in the natural course of the investigation.

 

[Sarpedon]

I deny that any evil “adds” something valuable. It is also denied by the Catholic doctrine which says that “no good can come out of evil”. Of course there is another, contradictory Catholic doctrine which says that “God can bring forth a greater good out of evil”. Pure, simple contradiction. And this is just one of the many contradictions the Catholic Church teaches.

Well, I’m interested in seeing your official source of the doctrine that “no good can come out of evil.”

I don’t know where you got this from. However, I suspect that whatever sources they were dealt with two different aspects of the question. In terms of proscriptive morality, committing morally evil acts never benefits the agent doing them. So, for example, no good for you ever comes out of sin, therefore you should avoid sin. On the other hand, there is the question from an overall perspective. When you look at the human story as a whole, good can come out of evil. The people affected by the evil may respond in such a way as to bring forth good things. The criminal may go to Hell, but his actions may bring others to repentance. In that sense good comes out of evil. That’s pure, simple consistency.

Also keep in mind the distinction between physical, moral, and metaphysical evil.

 

[Spock]

What about this- the will of the victim wills more good things than the will of the rapist. Therefore, the will of the rapist is substantially more damaged than the will of the victim. Because of this, God focuses more on the will of the rapist, because it needs more work. Perhaps the experience will ultimately lead to a restoration of that damaged will.

I highlighted the sentence which I think is highly pertinent. You say: “perhaps”, and that is the most important part. The usage of “perhaps” indicates that “perhaps not”. Actually, most likely not. As Poirot says: “Murder becomes a habit”. The more times someone gets away with an act like this, the more his self-assurance will grow, and he will commit even more crimes. And you did not account for the damage done to victim of the rape. Even if the “damaged will” gets restored in the process, and that is highly uncertain, on what grounds do you say that it was “worth it”?

Here’s an analogy to your argument. We have a healthy wetland and a polluted wetland. The EPA has a limited amount of manpower and resources. The EPA chooses to invest these resources in the polluted wetland. Therefore, the EPA values the polluted wetland higher than the healthy wetland.

That’s obviously false. The polluted wetland is not more highly valued than the healthy wetland just because more resources are put into it.

OK. Let’s analyze your analogy. The EPA sees that the pollution keeps creeping over into the unpolluted area. The EPA could stop the pollution, but does not. Just how does this permissive behavior help either the polluted or the unpolluted parts? By the way, God does not have limited resources, does he?

Suffering is allowed as a pragmatic tool to bring as many free wills as possible to health. This is not injust- for God only allows necessary suffering, and suffering cannot directly cause a soul to become unhealthy. Atheists never accept this, and they usually bring up dying baby examples as some sort of argument. The simple fact of the manner is that we cannot know how every single action affects every single will in the whole fabric of humanity. That is beyond our comprehension. Thus, there is no basis to say either way whether suffering is truly necessary or not. While we cannot directly settle the matter either way, we can make a very reasonable case for the necessity of suffering by drawing from our own experiences and the experiences of history. That’s not really what this thread is about, but in the natural course of the investigation.

I like this approach. Experiece shows that uncurbed violence begets more violence, not less. Allowing someone to get away with crime will make them more prone to commit crimes. So experience shows that the permissive behavior is the worst possible method to handle the problem. It is ineffective both on the short run and on the long run. Why does God choose the least effective method?

Out of topic remark: “welcome back”! I hope your studies go well.

 

[Spock]

Well, I’m interested in seeing your official source of the doctrine that “no good can come out of evil.”

I wish I had made a bookmark somewhere.

I don’t know where you got this from. However, I suspect that whatever sources they were dealt with two different aspects of the question. In terms of proscriptive morality, committing morally evil acts never benefits the agent doing them. So, for example, no good for you ever comes out of sin, therefore you should avoid sin.

But you just confirmed it.

On the other hand, there is the question from an overall perspective. When you look at the human story as a whole, good can come out of evil. The people affected by the evil may respond in such a way as to bring forth good things. The criminal may go to Hell, but his actions may bring others to repentance. In that sense good comes out of evil. That’s pure, simple consistency.

Ah, that ominous “may” strikes again. Not a very convincing argument, I am afraid.

 

[Sarpedon]

I highlighted the sentence which I think is highly pertinent. You say: “perhaps”, and that is the most important part. The usage of “perhaps” indicates that “perhaps not”. Actually, most likely not. As Poirot says: “Murder becomes a habit”. The more times someone gets away with an act like this, the more his self-assurance will grow, and he will commit even more crimes. And you did not account for the damage done to victim of the rape. Even if the “damaged will” gets restored in the process, and that is highly uncertain, on what grounds do you say that it was “worth it”?

I’m using “may” to correctly frame my argument. Neither of us can fully gauge the consequences of every single act on every single mind of every single person. I would make a fool of myself if I claimed to be able to do that. While neither of us can fully analyze the situation, we can make provisional judgments about the situation based on what we can observe. That is what I am doing, and you cannot expect me to have a certainty that you cannot have.

Surely, as a scientifically minded person, you are familiar with this kind of thing.

OK. Let’s analyze your analogy. The EPA sees that the pollution keeps creeping over into the unpolluted area. The EPA could stop the pollution, but does not. Just how does this permissive behavior help either the polluted or the unpolluted parts? By the way, God does not have limited resources, does he?

But the pollution isn’t harming the healthy wetland. The moral integrity of a person is not affected by being raped. The person’s response to the rape may change their moral integrity, but not the act itself. The response to the act is more important than the act itself, and that is why it is on occasion permissible for God to allow the act in order to bring about a better response.

God does have limited resources in the sense that He cannot control our free will (as distinct from the power to act on that will).

I like this approach. Experiece shows that uncurbed violence begets more violence, not less. Allowing someone to get away with crime will make them more prone to commit crimes. So experience shows that the permissive behavior is the worst possible method to handle the problem. It is ineffective both on the short run and on the long run. Why does God choose the least effective method?

Communist countries often have very low street crime, because the centralized power wielded by the government can quickly punish any such attempts. This leads to some sort of “peace.” A far better peace is the kind of peace present in highly developed countries like America and western Europe. In these countries, people are generally peaceful because they want to be peaceful. Such countries do have police systems, but generally people enjoy the fruits of peace and therefore desire to continue that peace. It is far better for peace to be rooted in the personal wills of the society rather than the wielders of force.

God could use a heavy hand and simply control everything we are allowed to do in the name of “peace.” That’s not really what He’s after. Living in enforced peace is to no avail if the “peaceful” people have disordered and damaged wills. God is trying to coax people towards having good, peaceful, and ordered wills. Judging from individual situations, suffering and violence can lead to a greater improvement in these things. For example, the inhabitants of western Europe no longer have to worry about intereuropean warfare, and the Jews are safe probably forever there.

Out of topic remark: “welcome back”! I hope your studies go well.

Thank you!

 

[Sarpedon]

But you just confirmed it.

What? What I mean is that perhaps you found the reference in a kid’s catechism or something, where I could see it being used in a simplistic sense. I am not aware of any official doctrine saying that no good can come out of evil.

Ah, that ominous “may” strikes again. Not a very convincing argument, I am afraid.

It’s more convincing than sourceless “official” doctrine.