Well, it is God who ought to address addiction, but ironically, the agnostic will have a go!Also I would like you to address addiction, which is one of the points you abandoned because the argument of “if we only knew it is bad we would not do it” seems counter to billions of addictions human display daily.
I interpreted Mudgley’s post in light of a lack of Catholic faith, because the user has left his/her religion info blank, and has this in their signature: “Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power.”Bobber90
It is likely you did not understand the depth of Mudgley post. I would ask you to research it a bit. It implies the omniscient God permitted free will fully knowing in advance (omnipotence) that this decision would cost many souls. Those souls chose knowledge over obedience. Further all souls would be doomed to sin (concupiscence) and only those willing to acknowledge these sins and repent would be allowed to return to grace. It would seem to imply God is not in to human intelligence very much? This would set up a classic dichotomy a) pursue pure knowledge at the expense of all other issues, b) be obedient in all matters. Which master will you serve?
Hope that helps
Yes, I agree with this, and that motive precedes choice.No that is not what I mean. Motive is the a conclusion of our reason that leads to the justification of the choice of action. It comes before choice. It is also influenced, by a greater or lesser degree, on external factors, depending on how threatening they appear to be.
Yes there is a tension there if God is responsible for evil, but I think when it comes to explanation of how God is not responsible, that explanation fails. The motive to sin you say is developed by us, and presumably so is the motive to do good. So we can represent it like this:The question seems to be whether this motive is fixed and deterministic or, as I contend, is developed by us. What this motive becomes is dependent on our desires as well as external influences. What I read into the above is that God is personally responsible for Original Sin. Since God is All Good, this cannot be the correct conclusion.
So I say that Original Sin must have its origin in our design or set-up, and not merely in the fact of free will. On paper, the above seems to be evidence that we were given free will plus the instinct or impulse to reject God, because that stops an infinite regress.Original sin does not have its origin in a prior corruption. It is the result of the misuse of a great good. Our free will is a great good, a logical necessity for the practice of the greatest virtue, Love.
If they did select the wrong method for achieving their motivation, then wasn’t it just an accident?It would appear then, that a disordered motive was not the factor in defining the sinfulness of the original sinful action. The clear problem was that they selected the wrong method for acheiving their motivation.
I am indeed sincere. The title of the thread is “God, moral good and free will” and the debate is this, minus the bit about Mary which another poster has argued is not accurate:
’God could have given people free will and a morally perfect nature, so that they can choose to do good or bad but always choose the good. Seeing as God has not, He has set it up that some people will sin and presumably also go to hell. Having created this tendency to induce eternal suffering, God is not good.'
The central issue is the problem of evil, which of course concerns God, moral good and free will. It concerns whether God is demonstrated to be omniscient/omnipotent/benevolent in light of the question of the causes of sin and the possibility of having free will without the existence of sin. If we could have been given free will and somehow set up so as not to sin, the argument is that the world would have been better. If the world could have been better, then God fails to be omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent.
The question is possible to ask only if one thinks that the causes of sin lie outside free will, and that is to be debated. My view is that choices are made as a result of being able to choose (free will) and having reason to choose (motive), meaning that one can separate having free will from the necessity of sin. If one thinks that free will entails sin, that one could not truly love God unless others sin, then sin is the necessary price of free will. This dichotomy has become clearer to me now, only after lots of questions.
Your questions are all relevant, and I am wondering why you seem to be accusing me of venturing down those paths, when it is your post which is presently encouraging me! You raise an excellent point about Adam and Eve regarding the fruit of knowledge - why is knowledge of good and evil a bad thing?
Well, it is** God who ought to address **addiction, but ironically, the agnostic will have a go!
Answer1: Since the Fall of Adam and Eve, our environment has been somewhat degraded and addiction has entered the human condition.
Answer2: Addiction was under the surface even in Adam and Eve prior to the Fall, and it signifies one of the motive forces God installed such that we would not only have the potential, but the drive to sin.
Bobber90I interpreted Mudgley’s post in light of a lack of Catholic faith, because the user has left his/her religion info blank, and has this in their signature: “Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power.”
As such, I did not take it that they were offering a defense of God.
You ask a good question - do we (or did Adam and Eve) face a dichotomy between pure knowledge and pure obedience? That is not my understanding of the Fall, because it has never been generally taught that knowledge is a bad thing, especially not of good and evil. But seeing as it is your view, what consequences do you think that insight has for life?
Regarding bolded above. You have stated this several times now without showing a rational argument for it truthfulness. Please support this statement with more than your opinion and highly speculative what-if senerios.Yes, I agree with this, and that motive precedes choice.
Yes there is a tension there if God is responsible for evil, but I think when it comes to explanation of how God is not responsible, that explanation fails. The motive to sin you say is developed by us, and presumably so is the motive to do good. So we can represent it like this:
Motive (developed by us) >> free choice to sin
(in the same way that an egg >> a chicken)
However, if something is developed by us rather than caused by external factors such as inherent character/intellect/bodily desires etc etc, then isn’t this the reality:
Free choice to develop motive >> Motive (developed by us) >> free choice to sin
(as a chicken >> an egg >> a chicken)
So I say that Original Sin must have its origin in our design or set-up, and not merely in the fact of free will. On paper, the above seems to be evidence that we were given free will plus the instinct or impulse to reject God, because that stops an infinite regress.
If they did select the wrong method for achieving their motivation, then wasn’t it just an accident?
I didn’t state it in isolation, it is inferred from my point above it that if motive arises out of ourselves, then we have to ask how it arises. There is an infinite regress if motive is chosen and also responsible for choice. Hence, realistically, we can resolve the regress by saying that motive was put in us by God. Do you follow me?Regarding bolded above. You have stated this several times now without showing a rational argument for it truthfulness. Please support this statement with more than your opinion and highly speculative what-if senerios.
We solve the regress by attributing our motives to the power of choice God shares with us. Your implication that our motives have physical causes undermines your implicit claim to be rational!I didn’t state it in isolation, it is inferred from my point above it that if motive arises out of ourselves, then we have to ask how it arises. There is an infinite regress if motive is chosen and also responsible for choice. Hence, realistically, we can resolve the regress by saying that motive was put in us by God. Do you follow me?
I think God would be ultimately responsible for Adam and Eve’s actions under any circumstances, because He designed them. I’m debating the argument that because God did not choose a different design by way of which humans would always choose to do good, He has allowed sin and hell to exist. That makes Him not totally benevolent, because sin is a blemish and cause of suffering, and hell is unspeakably cruel.Bobber90
I do not understand why you continue to seem to 1) blame god via the design he used, and 2) pursue Adam & Eve as the cause. It would seem you need to eliminate one. If you blame God’s design then Adam & Eve’s contribution does not matter. To blame Adam & Eve is to remove blame from God’s design.
I am not considering any religious idea which supposes that we do not have free will. If predestination is merely the view that God already knows how we will act, it doesn’t necessarily preclude us having free will. If predestination is incompatible with free will, then I am not interested in it, because I have never come across the view that moral responsibility doesn’t require free will.It would seem Mudgley explained your question, but did not answer it. It also seems you are not grasping Mudley’s post (which is an anti-religious argument). That argument is the Adam & Eve’s contribution is irrelevant because their action is built into god’s plan and also existed in his knowledge prior to the creation, thus god designed the fall, and refused to change the design while knowing the fail had to occur. The religious discussions of these issues are usually called “predestination”
I don’t specify here what form the motive has to take, but I do think that motive/impulse arises from our character/intellect/emotions/desires/etc, and that it is necessary for sin to happen.We solve the regress by attributing our motives to the power of choice God shares with us. Your implication that our motives have physical causes undermines your implicit claim to be rational!
You are merely postponing the inevitable conclusion! Don’t you believe our character/intellect/emotions/desires/etc are due to physical causes?We solve the regress by attributing our motives to the power of choice God shares
I agree with you. Our mind functions as an entity and our distinctions between its activities are arbitrary.I don’t think you can attribute motive to the power of choice, or say that free will (choice) determines motives to act. That is the chicken and egg regress where free will decision causes motive which causes free will decision…
It makes no difference whether you imagine that motives.impulses are material or immaterial, because I’m concerned with their existence and provenance.You are merely postponing the inevitable conclusion! Don’t you believe our character/intellect/emotions/desires/etc are due to physical causes?
Are you saying that God would have been “totally benevolent” if, after designing Adam and Eve as two persons in His own image with free will, He then programmed them as two robots to cater to His every whim?I think God would be ultimately responsible for Adam and Eve’s actions under any circumstances, because He designed them. I’m debating the argument that because God did not choose a different design by way of which humans would always choose to do good, He has allowed sin and hell to exist. That makes Him not totally benevolent, because sin is a blemish and cause of suffering, and hell is unspeakably cruel.
If you take it that sin results from being able to do wrong and having cause/motive/impulse to enact it, then God could have made us capable of sin but too clever and strong to do it. We could have the potential, but not the impulse. It is not a choice between sin and being robots, there was a better option than both, which is my point.Are you saying that God would have been “totally benevolent” if, after designing Adam and Eve as two persons in His own image with free will, He then programmed them as two robots to cater to His every whim?
And there you go. In this post you blame god, so Adam & Eve mean nothing. Your birth repeats Adam’s creation. If you never sin by using your free will to avoid sin you are good to go. So you control your own destiny, as did Adam via eating an apple. Except there is one problem which is your knowledge!!! That knowledge and the imperfections of that knowledge may cause that god created sin to enter your life, so do you want perfect knowledge to allow you full control or forgiveness for relying on your imperfect knowledge (obedience). Which master will you serve?**I think God would be ultimately responsible for Adam and Eve’s actions under any circumstances, **because He designed them. I’m debating the argument that because God did not choose a different design by way of which humans would always choose to do good, He has allowed sin and hell to exist. That makes Him not totally benevolent, because sin is a blemish and cause of suffering, and hell is unspeakably cruel.
The focal point is on Adam and Eve’s actions and the question of free will in the pre-Fall existence. My assertion is that sin requires free will, but that free will does not require sin, because sinful behaviour results from a bad motive or impulse, plus the ability to act on it, not just from the potential to sin alone, which is what free will is.
After the Fall, we can blame humanity’s corrupt motives on Adam and Eve. Before the Fall, we have to blame Adam and Eve’s creator for whatever it was which caused Eve to think taking the apple was a good idea.
Mary’s nature to did not hender her from being able to sin. She rather chose to cooperate with God’s grace in order to do His Will. Adam and Eve were likewise sinless and created perfect but corrupted their nature because they chose not to cooperate with God’s grace and do His Will.Does anyone know of any counter-argument to this?
God could have given people free will and a morally perfect nature (such as Mary’s), so that they can choose to do good or bad but always choose the good. Seeing as God has not, He has set it up that some people will sin and presumably also go to hell. Having created this tendency to induce eternal suffering, God is not good.
When God created Adam and Eve, He did not create them to rebel against Him, therefore, God is not responsible for their rebellion. If parents have a child who has reached the terrible two stage, or perhaps the teenage rebellion years, should the parents blame themselves because the child thinks that the parents are the root cause of all their problems? And also should parents stop having children because they know in advance that their children may choose to rebel against their love?If you take it that sin results from being able to do wrong and having cause/motive/impulse to enact it, then God could have made us capable of sin but too clever and strong to do it. We could have the potential, but not the impulse. It is not a choice between sin and being robots, there was a better option than both, which is my point.
I don’t think we are discussing the correct issue here. Motives and impulses could be the result of deterministic forces or of free will. The issue is whether it is the former or the latter. If free will is to mean anything, it must at a minimum allow the actor to be the sufficient cause of the action. It is true that God creating man with free will is a necessary condition for free action, but that does not entail God is the sufficient cause of all free human acts.It makes no difference whether you imagine that motives.impulses are material or immaterial, because I’m concerned with their existence and provenance.
If you made a robot that could do x, y, z, it would be your fault if it did any of those things - no matter how it makes the decisions and no matter how free it is to choose. That is a simplified but accurate analogy because while we may not be robots, we still have finite options in a finite world, all the variables of which would have been known beforehand. My point is not necessarily that when a person chooses to do something, it is really God choosing for them, but that God set it up to include those possibilities when He could have set it up to exclude them, ie to exclude sin.And there you go. In this post you blame god, so Adam & Eve mean nothing. Your birth repeats Adam’s creation. If you never sin by using your free will to avoid sin you are good to go. So you control your own destiny, as did Adam via eating an apple. Except there is one problem which is your knowledge!!! That knowledge and the imperfections of that knowledge may cause that god created sin to enter your life, so do you want perfect knowledge to allow you full control or forgiveness for relying on your imperfect knowledge (obedience). Which master will you serve?
I agree particularly with the idea that humans obviously don’t know for certain the nature of good and that that is a reason for the existence of sin.God already knows what the right choice is-He can’t help it. Either way we humans, obviously, must not know for certain or else there wouldn’t so many-or any-wrong choices (sin) made in our world and we would all agree on what constitutes right and wrong choices as well. God’s standard for righteousness is love, which is why He could sum up the Law, commands for being righteous, with “Thou shalt Love”. Anything lying outside that standard ipso facto lies outside the will of God, outside of righteousness itself.
That is all fine and agreeable, but wouldn’t it be better if humans did understand God automatically, and always did? Then they would have freely chosen love instead of rebellion and everything would have been perfect. God could have done that if He was omnipotent/omniscient/benevolent, as the argument goes, so I can’t see this as a counter.So our freedom lies in the choice to embrace or reject righteousness, i.e. embrace or reject love. He won’t force us to do the right thing, but why shouldn’t He reject us for refusing to do the right thing? But, again, He never forces the matter-or else we wouldn’t be free to choose either way. IOW, if He did force us to obey, we still wouldn’t be doing the right thing, because righteousness/morality make absolutely no sense-they can’t even reside in a being- unless they’re freely chosen.
St Basil put it this way:
**If we turn away from evil out of fear of punishment, we are in the position of slaves. If we pursue the enticement of wages, . . . we resemble mercenaries. Finally if we obey for the sake of the good itself and out of love for him who commands . . . we are in the position of children. **