Nothing to something

[quaestio45]

Hold it. Why do you misquote what I said.

I didn’t even quote you my good sir; I was simply expanding upon the point you made which was that you can be both limited in your ability to execute your wishes and will yet still qualify as holding free will.

The ability to perform good actions does not need to be limited.

In order to qualify for free will? Sure, I agree.

To have free will it is sufficient to choose between chocolate and vanilla flavored ice cream.

On the basis of a conscious, of course.

 

[Gorgias]

Its nature is that it is subject to constant change.

That can be said of anything in the physical universe. Therefore, it’s not a description of its nature, is it?

We can even experience it.

No, you experience change.

We can of course measure its passage.

No, you measure the change in other objects.

It is.

You haven’t shown that to be true.

If time is the dimension of change, then you cannot go from no time to time without time being presupposed.

There are many types of changes; one is a “coming into being” change. So, time “comes into being”, and is not when it is not present, but is once it comes into being. No regress, and no need for a ‘bootstrap’.

Internally to the universe, there is a ‘start’… a t0 , so to speak. There is no time prior to that internal “beginning”.

Looked at it from the outside (God’s perspective, eternally), the universe itself is eternal, so to speak. So, from that perspective, if you want to say “time is eternal”, I’d shrug and say, “well, OK, but that’s trivial”…

 

[quaestio45]

Internally to the universe, there is a ‘start’… a t0 , so to speak. There is no time prior to that internal “beginning”.

Looked at it from the outside (God’s perspective, eternally), the universe itself is eternal, so to speak. So, from that perspective, if you want to say “time is eternal”, I’d shrug and say, “well, OK, but that’s trivial”…

Yes, in this way I completely agree with you. The internality of the universe is temporal while the whole is eternal.

 

[Abrosz]

I didn’t even quote you my good sir; I was simply expanding upon the point you made which was that you can be both limited in your ability to execute your wishes and will yet still qualify as holding free will.

OK. So you distorted what I said. Better now? The point is that having free will is not an excuse for the actuality of evil, it is only an explanation for the possibility of evil.

 

[quaestio45]

OK. So you distorted what I said.

If thats what you feel, then let it be so. You said quite clearly:

we could have free will without the ability to perform some evil acts.

I simply took what you said and extended it to its logical necessary conclusion (that you don’t need to have the ability to perform every action in order to have free will). If you don’t like that, then tell me how I’m wrong.

The point is that having free will is not an excuse for the actuality of evil, it is only an explanation for the possibility of evil.

Sure, free will doesn’t explain why theres evil, but why the possibility of evil exists. The explanation of evil would therefore fall on something else, that be the conscious of the creature, rather than free will in and of itself. That aside, I still hold that your saying that we can have our free will limited to the good - although possibly true - still might not be a way by which God may have created creatures. For if he were to have limited us to only the good in our choices, then the greatest choice of whether or not to accept or reject the good at all is taken away, therefore God is imposing himself on creation, which as I’ve said, may not constitute the good. As such, creatures which can choose to reject good must be necessary if God is to create creatures of conscious.

 

[Abrosz]

You said quite clearly:

And I stick with it.

I simply took what you said and extended it to its logical necessary conclusion (that you don’t need to have the ability to perform every action in order to have free will).

That is exactly what I said. I see no discrepancy here.

That aside, I still hold that your saying that we can have our free will limited to the good - although possibly true - still might not be a way by which God may have created creatures.

That is irrelevant. We are talking about the logical necessity (or the lack of it) to be able to choose “evil” actions, rather than being able to choose among several good and/or neutral options.

For if he were to have limited us to only the good in our choices, then the greatest choice of whether or not to accept or reject the good at all is taken away, therefore God is imposing himself on creation, which as I’ve said, may not constitute the good.

That is your opinion, not shared by me. And your proposition of “to accept or reject the good at all is taken away” is incorrect. Not “ALL” the good, but “SOME” of the good.

But my basic point is still there: we can have meaningful free will, even if we could be unable to commit rapes, murders and other assorted mayhems. As long as we are free to go to church and worship God, or choose to go and watch the birds, we have free will.

 

[quaestio45]

That is exactly what I said. I see no discrepancy here.

Then I fail to see the mischaracterization of your argument if I said the same thing earlier.

That is irrelevant. We are talking about the logical necessity (or the lack of it) to be able to choose “evil” actions, rather than being able to choose among several good and/or neutral options.

Its relevant if the claim is that God needed not to create free creatures that could choose to reject the good.

And your proposition of “to accept or reject the good at all is taken away” is incorrect. Not “ALL” the good, but “SOME” of the good.

There is God; he is the good. There is choosing that which clearly is not in alignment with God; that is evil. Now my claim is that if we agree forced imposition of ones will unto another is not necessarily good, then it can be bad. If it is bad, then God cannot do that because he is good; therefore, God cannot create that which cannot choose to reject him. My point thus is that your argument does not necessarily eliminate the possibility of an all good God.

But my basic point is still there: we can have meaningful free will, even if we could be unable to commit rapes, murders and other assorted mayhems. As long as we are free to go to church and worship God, or choose to go and watch the birds, we have free will.

Sure, I can find agrement in that.

 

[lelinator]

If I am not mistaken lelinator, potential is by its very definition “that which does not exist yet could”.

For the sake of this discussion I can accept this definition.

As such, nothing (nonbeing) is itself in a state of infinite potentiality, as it can be something, yet is not.

Both Aristotle and Aquinas referred to pure potential as prime matter. It’s different from nothing in that nothing has no being at all, whereas prime matter has being but no form. When theists claim that God created the world from nothing, they’re not implying that God created the world from some pre-existing potential, but that He literally created it from nothing. This means that God had to first create prime matter, and then from that prime matter He formed everything else.

 

[AlNg]

This means that God had to first create prime matter, and then from that prime matter He formed everything else.

How do you know that God created prime matter first and before He created space and time?

 

[quaestio45]

Both Aristotle and Aquinas referred to pure potential as prime matter.

Yes, I’m familiar with the idea…

It’s different from nothing in that nothing has no being at all, whereas prime matter has being but no form.

In other words, can I take it that prime matter is something which (at least theoretically) exists (and thus has being) yet has no actualized attributes about it? But if that be so, would it not be that such a thing does indeed hold at least one actuality (the actualization of existence), and thus is not pure potentiality after all? For it seems to me that even existence is something to which we say can and cannot be had, and thus it too can fall into the schema of potency and act. As such, prime matter seems to fit all the necessary attributes of something like nothing (nonbeing), right?

 

[Abrosz]

There is God; he is the good. There is choosing that which clearly is not in alignment with God; that is evil.

You can never KNOW what is in alignment with God, since he never communicates with us. Neither directly, nor indirectly, since the “Sun shines equally on the good and the wicked” (analogically). Neither God’s pleasure nor his displeasure is displayed for our edification.

So we can ONLY rely on the secular understanding of good and evil. Good is whatever enhances the quality of life, and evil is whatever causes harm (directly or indirectly) to those beings who are sentient - meaning that they have a nervous system which can perceive pain.

Accepting or rejecting God does not even enter the picture. God’s “goodness” is an unsubstantiated hypothesis and there is no evidence for it. Looks like that we cannot agree on even the most fundamental categories. How can we have a conversation when we talk past each other?

 

[quaestio45]

You can never KNOW what is in alignment with God, since he never communicates with us. Neither directly, nor indirectly, since the “Sun shines equally on the good and the wicked” (analogically). Neither God’s pleasure nor his displeasure is displayed for our edification.

I’m not sure how this is relevant to our current discussion of whether or not the biblical all good God can be compatible with a fallen world full of evil. If you don’t think God contacted man and influenced the Bible then so be it, but such is not what I’m attempting to defend, nor what you initially were attempting to argue.

So we can ONLY rely on the secular understanding of good and evil.

In a world where an objectively good God did not exist and reach out to creation? Sure, I accept that.

Good is whatever enhances the quality of life, and evil is whatever causes harm (directly or indirectly) to those beings who are sentient - meaning that they have a nervous system which can perceive pain.

You can make that argument. Though this is rather irrelevant to the discussion.

Accepting or rejecting God does not even enter the picture.

We were quite literally discussing whether or not an all good God is compatible with a fallen world. As such, this is very much in the picture.

God’s “goodness” is an unsubstantiated hypothesis and there is no evidence for it.

You can make that argument, but that’s not relevant to our discussion unfortunately.

Looks like that we cannot agree on even the most fundamental categories.

What? Good and evil? Not really; we were discussing whether or not an all good God was compatible with a creation which resulted in evil. If we were discussing this then that implies that for the sake of argument we both agree that God is all good, and may thus be recognized as good. And if God is recognized as the good, then therefore that which is against God is against the good, or, as we may say, evil.

How can we have a conversation when we talk past each other?

Abrosz, initially me and you were both talking about the biblical God, as you were leveling a criticisms on him on the basis of Satan’s creation. I took to defending against such argument by saying this falls more broadly under the argument of evil, and I supplied you with an argument as to why evil can come about by an all good God (due to free will, I claim). Now, say what you will about the evidence for such an all good God, but you cannot pretend that this discussion has somehow fallen to confusion because we have been talking about different Gods or categories. We were clearly discussing the consistency between an all good God and a fallen universe, my friend; as such, I plea with you that we have our lovely intellectual chat on what has been discussed so far rather then fall to red herrings.

 

[Abrosz]

What? Good and evil? Not really; we were discussing whether or not an all good God was compatible with a creation which resulted in evil. If we were discussing this then that implies that for the sake of argument we both agree that God is all good, and may thus be recognized as good. And if God is recognized as the good, then therefore that which is against God is against the good, or, as we may say, evil.

I see now why we have a mutual misunderstanding. For the sake of discussion I accept that God exists, but NOT that he is good. That is only a hypothesis, which needs substantiation. And the word “good” means how we apply this adjective the same way as we apply it to humans. In other words it describes a “kind, loving, benevolent, decent, helpful, etc…” being. And those adjectives are only applicable if the behavior of God is commensurate with these categories.

But we can only have an indirect way of assessing God’s attributes, by observing God’s actions - or rather non-actions. And those actions are not compatible with “goodness”.

Abrosz, initially me and you were both talking about the biblical God, as you were leveling a criticisms on him on the basis of Satan’s creation.

Yes, this is correct. There is no need to look past it, into the general question of “evil”. My argument is very simple. Actively committing or passively allowing “evil” (no matter how we define it) IS evil. And since Satan is the quintessential “evil”, a good God could or would simply CHOOSE NOT to create it. After all God - having free will - could choose NOT to create Satan. And that is the essence of the whole argument.

The concept of God’s alleged omniscience only rubs salt into the wound. You could argue that God did NOT know how the “fallen angel” WILL behave, and his ignorance would exonerate him of malice. After all, if you are ignorant of the outcome of your action, then you cannot be blamed for that outcome.

But knowing the outcome, having the freedom NOT to do it - and still doing it is unpardonable. This is the whole argument. If you wish to discuss it, I am here and ready to participate. But don’t try to assert that God is axiomatically “good”. Because that is NOT granted for the sake of discussion.

 

[STT]

I don t see why a regress cannot exist.

Regress and infinity are sort of the same thing.

There is no specific point in an actual infinite past which can be reached at infinity. Every point is reached at some finite time from the present. And for any point in time you give me, I can give you one further out.

Infinite past, and even before has to exist if there was no beginning.

 

[AlNg]

Infinite past, and even before has to exist if there was no beginning.

The problem I see is that the past does not exist now. It is only the present that exists.

 

[STT]

The problem I see is that the past does not exist now. It is only the present that exists.

Sorry, I should have said that infinite past, and even before have to existed if there was no beginning.

 

[AlNg]

Sorry, I should have said that infinite past, and even before have to existed if there was no beginning.

Each point in the past did exist at one time, but not all at once.

 

[quaestio45]

I see now why we have a mutual misunderstanding. For the sake of discussion I accept that God exists, but NOT that he is good. That is only a hypothesis, which needs substantiation. And the word “good” means how we apply this adjective the same way as we apply it to humans. In other words it describes a “kind, loving, benevolent, decent, helpful, etc…” being. And those adjectives are only applicable if the behavior of God is commensurate with these categories.

But we can only have an indirect way of assessing God’s attributes, by observing God’s actions - or rather non-actions. And those actions are not compatible with “goodness”.

Im a little confused as to what your over all argument is, but allow me to see if I’m somewhere in the ball park. You’re arguing that, one, we cannot make a subststantiated claim as to the goodness of God, and two, that God creating something which chooses evil makes God himself evil. Am I correct in this assertion? If not, do please correct me.

Now, as for the first claim, if I’m not mistaken in its accuracy of your position, I think we should clarify whether or not we are agreeing for the sake of argument the existence of the Christian God or perhaps of the existence of a God sharply divided from Christian interpretation such as a deistic God. If we’re agreeing on the first God, then we also must agree to the attributes described of said God having, namely, his goodness. If we are talking about the latter, then I concede whole heartedly to the truth of your statement; we simply cannot make a substantial claim to his goodness.

Actively committing or passively allowing “evil” (no matter how we define it) IS evil

Fair enough.

And since Satan is the quintessential “evil”, a good God could or would simply CHOOSE NOT to create it.

Well, I see in this argument you identify God as good for the sake of argument, so lets follow that road. If God is identifiable with good, then that which is against him must be evil, yes? Now, the creation of an evil thing I can agree is evil, and goes completely contrary to the goodness of God. But I think we can both agree that God did not create evil, he created a being of free will. The free will of the being was necessarily expanded to the point in which he could choose evil (which, as I said, would be a rejection of God) because it is likely that forceful imposition of ones will to love something (even if its goodness) and choose something is itself not good. If that be so, God cannot make a conscious being without it having free will to choose to reject him and the good lest God be doing an evil. As such, it does not necessarily follow that God creating Satan was evil, but instead, good; whist simultaneously, Satan choosing evil makes him evil.

 

[Abrosz]

You’re arguing that, one, we cannot make a subststantiated claim as to the goodness of God, and two, that God creating something which chooses evil makes God himself evil.

Almost correct. First, I have not seen any argument to substantiate that God is good - in the sense as we call a human good. “Good” means loving, kind, helpful, benevolent, decent - as I already enumerated them. None of these behaviors ar visible in God’s actions (or non actions).

As for the second, simply creating evil is not a problem per se. Creating evil - knowingly, intentionally and freely - that is what makes the creator evil.

Now, as for the first claim, if I’m not mistaken in its accuracy of your position, I think we should clarify whether or not we are agreeing for the sake of argument the existence of the Christian God or perhaps of the existence of a God sharply divided from Christian interpretation such as a deistic God.

I use the starting point that God is the creator of the universe - nothing else. Many times I saw the “objection” that I do not speak of the “real” Christian God - because I do not accept axiomatically all the different attributes that Christians like to apply to God.

If God is axiomatically “good”, then there is nothing to talk about. All the misery, mayhem, rapes and tortures along with the natural disasters are “good” because God either directly causes or indirectly permits / allow them to happen. But they are “good” and for us not accepting this is just “stubbornness” or “pride” or “hardened heart” to put our incorrect understanding over the wisdom of God.

In other words, everything that does not seem to support God’s goodness is just a “measurement error”.

There is nothing to talk about in this case.

Well, I see in this argument you identify God as good for the sake of argument, so lets follow that road.

No, that is also a misunderstanding. If one accepts that Satan is evil, then it means that he attempts to cause harm to humans.

But I think we can both agree that God did not create evil, he created a being of free will.

That is a cop out. Again - freely, knowingly and intentionally creating evil is evil. And unbridled free will is not an excuse. We routinely curtail or prevent those actions we do not “like”.

And there is another problem. God is supposed to be omniscient, knowing who would accept him or reject him IF he would be created. And God is under no obligation to create those who would reject him. After all the argument that there logically MUST be some people who will reject God, otherwise the ones who accept God are somehow “forced” to do it - is ridiculous. My free will to accept God cannot be contingent upon the existence of someone else, who would reject God. So to create ONLY those people who will freely choose God is not a logical impossibility - and therefore God could do it. The fact that he did not renders God evil. Q.E.D.

 

[STT]

Each point in the past did exist at one time, but not all at once.

True, each point in the past existed at one time.