One difference here, I think, comes from the fact that in Christian thought, Gods definition of a morally correct being is one whole wills to act morally* eternally*, i.e. who would never desire to do wrong no matter how much time or opportunity is afforded.
I do not dispute this - at least for the purposes of this thread. As a matter of fact I never made a definition of what āmoralā would be, and purposfully left it open.
Why do you think that these are mutually exclusive?Spock?
Are you seriously wanting to understand? Or are you just having fun?
If you are just having fun, I wonāt interfere.
I asked āā¦justā¦ā, that makes them mutually exclusive.
Then your wording was āloadedā. But whateverā¦ go for it.I asked āā¦justā¦ā, that makes them mutually exclusive.
If you are serious, I can point out the fatal flaw in your argument. But then that would end both your implied frustration as well as your seeming advantage andā¦ āfunā.
Well, before I can even start to reply, I need some clarification. What do you mean by your assertion that the current world is the only possible world? Do you think it is āimpossibleā that an oak tree would grow in my back yard, where there is a pine tree now? Or that I would choose having scrambled eggs for breakfast and not a cereal? Or that by some random misfortune Aristotele could have contracted a childhood disease and never grown up to become a philosopher? Or that Mozart could have avoided his kidney problems and could have lived to a ripe old age? Just what is āimpossibleā about these differences?My apologies for any appearance of āloadingā (whatever you meant by that). I figured that 22 pages of āfunā was probably enough to relieve the implied frustration expressed in your title. I meant no deception in my question.
The very most common and mother of all logic errors comes in the initial premises (fathered by temptation to presume into error = sin). It is a trick of the Magi to quickly assert a plausible premise then follow-up with very sound and engaging logical argument. This has been used for thousands of years in all religions to thwart a logical adversary (Buddha vs Brahman).
When reviewing an argument for logical soundness, I seldom get past the premises, so in your OP, I didnāt get very far at all before those familiar alarms were going off.
In your OP, you state;
āā¦In that case there are two possible worlds, one, where the agent makes a moral choice (regardless of how moral is defined) and another one, where the agent makes an immoral choice. God can actualize either one of these worldsā¦.ā
The entire rest of your argument seems to depend entirely on the presumption that God can actualize any of many possible worlds. This is a false premise, to wit;
Do you believe that the quantities 2 plus 2 can equal anything but the quantity of 4? Could God have made it any different?
If you believe that God can be illogical, then there is a mountain of logic, rationale, and religious text that says otherwise. If necessary, I can provide quite a bit of that later.
If you accept that God actually must remain logical (and I assure you this is most certainly the case), then when God creates a universe, within that universe 2+2 must certainly equal 4, not 3, not 4.1, but exactly 100.00% 4 and nothing else ā ever.
Note that in true logic, there is always only one truly logical consequence brought by any true premise (this is what constitutes logic). Any real situation must bring about one and only one result. Man calculates probabilities only because he cannot know all things and thus must guess from many imagined possibilities, but God/Truth/Reality itself is not in that situation.
Cause and effect are the āElā of logic. āFirst Causeā (God) refers to the first true logical step, not the first event in time. The real first cause must bring about the one and only first logical effect and no other. All of Science depends on this fact of logic and reasoning.
In short, the actual world is the ONLY possible world.
The idea of āan infinite number of possible worldsā is a ruse to open a universe of imaginary stories for the mind (works great for Hollywood), but it is merely the voice of a magician creating confusion and illusion.
True logic is about what absolutely MUST be true (and btw, God is also defined as that which absolutely MUST be, as described in the Torah). This universe is truly logical despite many misperceptions by humanity. This universe is the one and only universe because logic dictates that it is what absolutely must be the effect of any logical train extending from any initial cause.
Thus;
If there is evil in THIS actual world, then true logic dictates that evil MUST exist and there was truly no possibility for any other option.
If freedom of will in THIS world has led to evil actions, then true logic dictates that there was absolutely no real other option.
The idea that any other universe is possible is the āFirst Cause of Fallacyā.
You go a long way to show your grasp of the obvious. We call the reality you describe above by its more familiar name: heaven.
I like this James character - heās got moxy *and *heās clearly not stupid! I also think he has a point here. Spock has already effectively granted that the world is one uninterrupted causal chain (albeit one which includes free will), one which is initiated by Godās choice of a possible world. James has just removed the choice at the beginning, which again should make sense to Spock if he realizes that divine omniscience, ex hypothesi, is not a deliberative kind of knowledge but knowledge in an eternal now. Very nice.
There are many who disagree with youā¦ this conversation went on for over 24 pages now.
Not exactly. I am adhering to the Catholic point of view as much as I can, whether I agree with it or not, whether I consider it self-contradictory or not. As a matter of fact, the view that the world is āone, uninterrupted causal chainā and the assumption of āfree willā are totally contradictory to each other. By definition, an act stemming from free will is undetermined by external factors, so each act of free will starts a new causal chain.
Another way of putting it is that heaven would be on earth if all acted morally-which is the ultimate will of God. Apparently human free will interferes with His.There are many who disagree with youā¦ this conversation went on for over 24 pages now.
I believe that it is impossible if there was no cause for an oak tree to be planted there rather than the cause for the pine tree to be planted.
Argument ad populem fallacy.There are many who disagree with youā¦ this conversation went on for over 24 pages now.
Whether or not one has a valid argument does not depend on whether or not one believes oneās own premises!
), chosen by God. Etc. QED.you have a serious lack of charity problemā¦ donāt know how to validate someone elseās realityā¦ and obviousy couldnāt care less about anyoneās reality ā¦
how is it uncharitable to speak my mind??? to be honest??? should i keep my honest thoughts to myself??? When posting things here, people should be considerate of othersā¦ others who donāt have hours and hours to spend on the i-netā¦ esp when there are seemingly milions of Threads to choose from. i happen to believe its a sin to waste time. I am guilty of this sinā¦ but am working on itā¦ as others probably areā¦ We (some) are trying to use our time wiselyā¦ I have every right to complain when something is worded in a convoluted, problematic way that most people cannot readily understand.
ā¦ Again, not being hateful, just truthfulā¦ about my genuine perceptionsā¦As much as I might agree with your thoughts, there is a time and a manner to express oneself, such is the nature of LOVE.
}}I really donāt see anything complicated. No Catholic argures that evil is necessary. Rather, Goodness alone is necessary. Evil is merely contingent on the pre-existence of Goodness for evil is the negation of Goodness.