The dilemma of free will and necessary evil

[Hitetlen]

john doran:

plantinga’s argument for transworld depravity concludes exactly that…

Plantinga’s argument strikingly resembles his other useless argument of “possibly necessarily exists” = “necessarily exists”, stated in a slightly different format. Totally useless.

 

[Hitetlen]

adamlsp:

In your world the souls are already built. This means they beings didn’t have to do it themselves, they had everything handed to them.

Apart from the ridiculous idea of “souls” you are somewhat correct. They are predisposed though not forced to do what they percieve as “good”. They might be mistaken, not being omniscient. If they so choose, they can go against their predisposition, since they are free to do so. Most probably they would not, because it is not expedient.

adamlsp:

You said natural evils exist just not moral evils.

Not exactly: I said that natural calamities may exist, accidental wrongdoing may exist, but intentional wrongdoing does not exist. Morality has nothing to do with it.

adamlsp:

Well then these beings are less moral than the moral beings in our world who must respond to varyinf moral evils.

Morality is defined as the written and unwritten rules of conduct in a specific society. In that society the unwritten rules would be mutual respect, and helpfulness. According to their morality, they are moral.

adamlsp:

Angel’s souls are already built to. However they can choose to tear them down.

Forget about the “angels”. No need for more mysticism.

adamlsp:

These people in your world, again, cannot. God has intervened so as to only allow certain types of choices.

Wrong: they can do whatever they want to do, but their behavior has a positive predisposition toward what they percieve as good.

adamlsp:

No amount of reward is worth any suffering. This is why the sacrifices we make are so significant. God will reward those who suffer in the next life if they wish to be rewarded.

Much good it does to them. If a father slaps his kid for no reason and later gives him a candy bar, that “reward” does not “undo” the prior injustice.

 

[Hitetlen]

Anonymous_1:

My friend the burden is on you to show why they are dichotomous.

Main Entry: be·nev·o·lent
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin *benevolent-, benevolens, *from *bene + volent-, volens, *present participle of *velle *to wish – more at WILL
1 a : marked by or disposed to doing good <a benevolent donor>
1 b : organized for the purpose of doing good <a benevolent society>
2 : marked by or suggestive of goodwill <benevolent smiles>

That sounds pretty obvious, doesn’t it? It surely does not allow one to do intentional “evil”, nor to stay on the sidelines if someone is in need of intervention.

Anonymous_1:

I will indeed attempt to show you why these ideas are not opposed to one another, they are not mutually exclusive. However, I will not waste my time if you just want an intellectual scuffle. If this is a stumbling block to you comming to believe, then i will attempt to address it. But I will not if your intent is questionable.

It is your prerogative to answer or be silent as you wish. Your free will is truly free as far as I am concerned.

 

[Hitetlen]

Philthy:

I will second the sentiment that your posting here is an improvement.

Thank you, I guess. Improvent compared to what?

Philthy:

As I understand your statement of the dilemma, how can the appropriate amount of “necessary evil” be regulated- without interfering with our free will- while simultaneously accomplishing the precise amount of “good” that was intended.

You understand it perfectly.

Philthy:

My first reaction is that -even theoretically - to be able to quantify good and evil in a balance as you have described is impossibly complex and our attempt to reduce it to levels which we can understand in all likelihood simply draws us further from the reality of how it is actually achieved. In addition, it is this very reduction and oversimplification which produces the apparent dilemma.

Yes, it is complex, and possibly much too complex for us, human beings to find the exact mathematical “equilibrium” point. But that is no hindrance to God, is it?

Philthy:

In addition, your claim at not having a dilemma due to being an atheist is not entirely accurate either. Among other things, to recognize the existence of an unnatural entity such as evil while not recognizing the source of it is a bit of a dilemma in itself.

If it is a dilemma, it is a completely different one. I did noy say that there are no dilemmas for me. There are, but this particular one does not belong to that category.

 

[Hitetlen]

adamlsp:

Hitetlen,

I’m sorry to say that he appears right. Please reconsider these arguments that you might understand them. Prove him wrong by being faithful reason.

Adam

Maybe you are not aware of it, but he is one of those few posters whose “posts” I never bother to read any more. I responded to them a few times, to no avail. So I just do not waste my time on their “posts”. If they keep on wasting their time and bandwidth, let them do it. I could not care less.

Are you familiar with the “Ignore” feature? Very useful to weed out the trash.

 

[Hitetlen]

john doran:

the so-called “natural” evils are useful to your argument only if you can successfully make the argument that it is logically impossible for there to be good reasons for permitting pain and suffering. and you can’t.

There MAY be good reasons for it, but to be considered “good reasons” someone needs to ARGUE for it. The default state is being skeptical about it. Just because there MAY BE good reasons for allowing pain and suffering, it does not follow that there ARE good reasons for it.

The “duck test” still applies. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is most probably a duck. It MAY be something entirely different, but in order to even contemplate that, you must argue for your position, not just say that it MAY not be a duck.

 

[s1ck_heretic]

this guy’s screenname sounds too much like hitler, so he’s obviously an anti-semite.

 

[Hitetlen]

s1ck_heretic:

this guy’s screenname sounds too much like hitler, so he’s obviously an anti-semite.

I would not read too much into a screen name if I had something like yours. Not that it is any of your business, but it is a Hungarian word, and simply means “unbeliever”.

 

[adamlsp]

Hitetlen:

Apart from the ridiculous idea of “souls” you are somewhat correct. They are predisposed though not forced to do what they percieve as “good”. They might be mistaken, not being omniscient. If they so choose, they can go against their predisposition, since they are free to do so. Most probably they would not, because it is not expedient.

Not exactly: I said that natural calamities may exist, accidental wrongdoing may exist, but intentional wrongdoing does not exist. Morality has nothing to do with it.

Morality is defined as the written and unwritten rules of conduct in a specific society. In that society the unwritten rules would be mutual respect, and helpfulness. According to their morality, they are moral.

Forget about the “angels”. No need for more mysticism.

Wrong: they can do whatever they want to do, but their behavior has a positive predisposition toward what they percieve as good.

Much good it does to them. If a father slaps his kid for no reason and later gives him a candy bar, that “reward” does not “undo” the prior injustice.

Hitetlen,

You have to use my definition of morality if you wish this answer to get any where. Abstract values of right and wrong in our very nature. This includes things that fall under morality thus things like clothing choice, hand gestures and the like don’t count. These only fall under the umbrella of morality by the user’s intent.
If you are using hand gestures for bad things well that’s morally wrong. God instilled within us this morallity. I wonder then, if by your definition, are you asking why people do not just follow the rules of their society? Did you want God to give us predisposition to follow society? Your definition also cannot be proved and you could retort “well neither can yours.” This just puts us on an equal playing field which I see no need in addressing as of now.

A natural evil is one not intentionally performed by a choice maker. Evil intentionally done by a choice maker is a moral evil. Evil is more than just pain and suffering of the body and mind but of the soul as well.

I am wondering by what means you could prove freewill if we did not have souls. Please enlighten me because I am truely in the dark to your understanding.

OK. Now I think I misunderstood your world. I believe you are saying the beings there can do intentional evil but are predisposed not to. Well God did not create souls with predispositions. If he did, like you said, it would be improbable but still possible to commit an evil by intentional choice. This is still affecting the amount of evil. Probability is a science I’m sure you are familiar with. If you change the odds of winning at some game from 50/50 to 1/100 you have significantly affected who is likely to win. Now the odd changing does not say someone can’t win but it is highly unlikely.

God is basicly pushing your people to one end of a room. If they push back with a substantial amount of effort they can get to the other side against God’s predispositions. If they only resist God a little they will not make it. Thus the people who resist but a little, still wish to do evil but are made unable. Now everyone could just use their will to fight God, using enough willpower, and win. But not everyone will choose to use so much will power. Do you not see these dispositions are just God acting on the freewill of his creatures?

Adam

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hitetlen,

Very well. I think this should be in a new thread, but let’s give a short definition. Evil is the intentional causing of or not preventing pain and/or suffering, when there is another method available, which causes less pain, all other things being equal. (When talking about the “problem of evil” in general, this definition is expanded to incorporate natural disasters. This expansion muddies the waters somewhat, and I am not happy that it became an accepted norm.)

If you do not even have a definition of evil, then it is difficult to have any meaningful (logical) conversation about it.

Well, then, while this is the definition of evil – God has an Atheistic excuse. Everyone down here has access to anesthetic and (amoral) suicide. (as painless as you like). So mankind could solve the problem by making pain impossible.

Hence, why is God responsible for reducing pain/suffering when man could. Omnibenevolent does not mean God gives us what we want, but what is Good, and perhaps what is arbitrary.
(The opposites of evil??)

 

[Hitetlen]

Huiou Theou:

If you do not even have a definition of evil, then it is difficult to have any meaningful (logical) conversation about it.

What do you mean no definition? I gave you the definition.
Huiou Theou:

Well, then, while this is the definition of evil – God has an Atheistic excuse. Everyone down here has access to anesthetic and (amoral) suicide. (as painless as you like). So mankind could solve the problem by making pain impossible.

Nice try, but no cigar. Humanity as a species cannot “decide” on a collective suicide. No species can, it goes against our deepest instinct of survival. But even it would, it would not solve the problem of unnecessary pain and suffering for the other beings with a nervous system - the animals.
Huiou Theou:

Hence, why is God responsible for reducing pain/suffering when man could. Omnibenevolent does not mean God gives us what we want, but what is Good, and perhaps what is arbitrary.

Ok, so if God does not prevent a wildfire, when he allows a drunken guy beat his kid and kill him, is he still “good” in you opinion? If your definition of “good” is whatever God does, we sure cannot get anywhere.

 

[Hitetlen]

adamlsp:

I am wondering by what means you could prove freewill if we did not have souls. Please enlighten me because I am truely in the dark to your understanding.

I am not sure if we really have a free will, in the libertarian sense. It cannot be proven either way. (To actually “prove” it, we would have to observe a seemingly random act, then stop the universe, “rewind” it, and see if the person would repeat the same act or a different one. If he would make a different decision, we would know that there is a free will, if he made the same decision, we would still be in the dark.) It is practical to believe that we do have free will, because we act as we had it.

adamlsp:

OK. Now I think I misunderstood your world. I believe you are saying the beings there can do intentional evil but are predisposed not to.

Yes, it looks like we understand each other about “my” world.

adamlsp:

Well God did not create souls with predispositions.

Obviously you cannot know that, it is just an unsubstatiated personal opinion.

adamlsp:

If he did, like you said, it would be improbable but still possible to commit an evil by intentional choice. This is still affecting the amount of evil. Probability is a science I’m sure you are familiar with. If you change the odds of winning at some game from 50/50 to 1/100 you have significantly affected who is likely to win. Now the odd changing does not say someone can’t win but it is highly unlikely.

Ok, so it would. What of it? In order for possible evil to exist, there is no specific amount that is necessary.

adamlsp:

God is basicly pushing your people to one end of a room. If they push back with a substantial amount of effort they can get to the other side against God’s predispositions. If they only resist God a little they will not make it. Thus the people who resist but a little, still wish to do evil but are made unable. Now everyone could just use their will to fight God, using enough willpower, and win. But not everyone will choose to use so much will power. Do you not see these dispositions are just God acting on the freewill of his creatures?

Not at all. Making it possible, but less likely does not affect their freedom. Everyone could do it, it is not a physical force. But then again, why would they? What is the point? Being helpful or indifferent toward others is more beneficial than being hostile.

We are still a very “hostile” species among ourselves, but the hostility is decreasing, albeit too slowly. Think about the French and the Germans. They have been at each other’s throat for centuries, wars, one after the other. Recently it has changed. They may not like each other too much, but they cooperate instead of fighting. That is an improvement. And the reason? I think that it is due to their economic progress. For centuries they were both poor, they had nothing to lose. Now they have a lot and therefore in a war they would lose a lot. That is the driving force, as soon as people are better off, they lose the incentive to fight. It is a slow process, but an inevitable one.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hitelen,

“IF” is not a statement of fact, it is a conditional…
PHL 101.

I see lots of women taking epidurals in the hospital – it doesn’t seem that hard.
I also see vetranarians helping animals. It isn’t that hard.
I also see euthenizing of people – it happens.

“Species” do not decide anything – individuals do. So, what are you saying?

When you say, as a species, we would not all do it – AT BEST some memebers of the species itself are at fault.

For why is it that just about any given individual of the species is capable of applying anesthetic? and yet you hold the species is not?

Or do you think that humans are not responsible for their comrades – but only God is?

Humans CAN eradicate pain, therefore it is their fault. There are others who could help them – kevorkian like – so those who don’t are morally to blame. Anyone who stops them is freely evil by your defintion. Kevorkian appears Good so far…

This “evil” is really quite myopic.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

hmmm…

And, if someone is causing me pain and suffering by filling my head with images I don’t like – aren’t THEY EVIL in some sense?

My headache is their fault?

…

 

[adamlsp]

Hitetlen:

I am not sure if we really have a free will, in the libertarian sense. It cannot be proven either way. (To actually “prove” it, we would have to observe a seemingly random act, then stop the universe, “rewind” it, and see if the person would repeat the same act or a different one. If he would make a different decision, we would know that there is a free will, if he made the same decision, we would still be in the dark.) It is practical to believe that we do have free will, because we act as we had it.

Yes, it looks like we understand each other about “my” world.

Obviously you cannot know that, it is just an unsubstatiated personal opinion.

Ok, so it would. What of it? In order for possible evil to exist, there is no specific amount that is necessary.

Not at all. Making it possible, but less likely does not affect their freedom. Everyone could do it, it is not a physical force. But then again, why would they? What is the point? Being helpful or indifferent toward others is more beneficial than being hostile.

We are still a very “hostile” species among ourselves, but the hostility is decreasing, albeit too slowly. Think about the French and the Germans. They have been at each other’s throat for centuries, wars, one after the other. Recently it has changed. They may not like each other too much, but they cooperate instead of fighting. That is an improvement. And the reason? I think that it is due to their economic progress. For centuries they were both poor, they had nothing to lose. Now they have a lot and therefore in a war they would lose a lot. That is the driving force, as soon as people are better off, they lose the incentive to fight. It is a slow process, but an inevitable one.

Hitetlen,

Scientific determinism says we do not have freewill. If the universe is but a causal chain of events then each event was caused by an event before it. Cause and effect. Our choices are but mere effects of past events.

Men are deceived if they think themselves free, an opinion which consists only in this, that they are conscious of their actions and ignorant of the causes by which they are determined. - Benedict Spinoza

And then you said because we act like we are free we must have it? But not all people act this way. Throughout the ages men have acted as if there were gods above. But not all people act this way. Better come up with something else if you wish to defend freedom.

God has set up your game so that it is hard for anyone not to side with him. You said, however ‘that everyone could do it but why would they?’ You go on to say beneficial reasons for good choices. These people, according to you, are no more intelligent than we are. So why they would choose evil are the same reasons why we do.

So their predispositions are not environmental, though they have a good environment. Their predispositions are not like that of genetics. Their will is gravitationally attracted toward goodness. This means that it is not free. It is gravitating toward the good choice rather than the evil one when they must choose. They can still resist this pull and do evil. No matter how slight the pull is, it is still there. If a force is acting on a particle it is not free floating. The same with the will.

God cannot affect the amount of moral evil (remember the defintion?) coming into the universe. In your world he does by changing the probability of which side the coin will land on. He has greatly increased the odds that it will land on the side he wants. Changing the odds of the coin toss means it is no longer anyone’s guess which side it will land on. It means it will land on one side with a level of certain one can be comfortable enough with to bet on. Freewill means it could freely land on either side of the coin. God has changed the odds so that they may land in his favor. While still leaving the final fall of the coin to chance, he has made sure that it is fairly certain he will win. This sounds a lot like cheating to me. This is like taking a “safe risk.” God bets on the chess grandmaster over the child with a nonsubstantial IQ level. The game is ultimately in the hands of chance but it’s pretty safe to say we know who will win. This is an unfair match.

Adam

 

[Hitetlen]

adamlsp:

Scientific determinism says we do not have freewill. If the universe is but a causal chain of events then each event was caused by an event before it. Cause and effect. Our choices are but mere effects of past events.

Not really. The universe is not a fully deterministic place, unlike it was believed in the times of Leibniz and Newton. There are inherently random events in it, at least on the sub-atomic, quantum level.

How our brain works, we simply do not know. Without going into the mathematics, our brain is a very complicated, but finite cellular automaton (it has many but finite amount of cells, where each cell is connected to many, but finite number of other cells, and each cell can assume many but finite number of states - so the whole shebang is a finite conglomerate). Godel’s theorem proves that no finite automaton can fully describe its own “transition function”, effectively its own “working”.

There is at least one hypothesis, which attributes free will to the inherent unpredictability of quantum effects. Whether it is true or false, no one knows. It may be an explanation or it may not. To posit “soul” as an “explanation” is nothing but the God-of-the-gaps in new clothes. It is better to say that we don’t know.

adamlsp:

Freewill means it could freely land on either side of the coin.

The coin toss is not a very good analogy. We hardly ever make decisions based on a coin toss.

adamlsp:

God has changed the odds so that they may land in his favor. While still leaving the final fall of the coin to chance, he has made sure that it is fairly certain he will win. This sounds a lot like cheating to me.

Why would it be cheating? Since I was lecturing theory of probabilities for a long time, I know what probabilities are. It is a very naive assumption that only “50-50” chances are “fair”. It depends on the rules how the game are set up. In the casinos the chances for win and loss are not 50-50, but since the players know that, it does not matter. It would be “unfair” if the players would be lead to believe that they DO have a 50-50 chance. And that would not be cheating - it would be lying.

adamlsp:

This is like taking a “safe risk.” God bets on the chess grandmaster over the child with a nonsubstantial IQ level. The game is ultimately in the hands of chance but it’s pretty safe to say we know who will win. This is an unfair match.

Sure, and why not? If we consider God as a creator, he must have had a purpose when performing his creation. Most believers say that his purpose was to get "obedience through love or "to be “worshipped freely”. To me that is a very childish purpose, unworthy to a being of such magnitude. Still, let’s suppose it is.

If so, then it would be a good idea to create beings with a predisposition toward that goal. Any sane creator with a goal would try to make sure that he succeeds. A really logical creator (moreover who is omniscient and omnipotent) would leave absolutely no chances for failure.

I think that the attributes you assign to God come from a very human concept of “winning against the odds”. Taking your example of a chessplayer, your chessplayer would go on and make senseless sacrifices and still try to win his game. It is considered to be “cool” to win from a losing position. To me that is simply dumb. If you want to win, you do everything to achieve that goal, and give no chances for your opponent to counterattack. (And don’t try to derail this by saying that one should steamroll over other humans and crush them against their will. I am talking about an ex-nihilo creation.)

(Side remark: Yay, post number 666!)

 

[Hitetlen]

“Species” do not decide anything – individuals do. So, what are you saying?

When you say, as a species, we would not all do it – AT BEST some memebers of the species itself are at fault.

You do not even argue against what I proposed as a definition. You left out the part “all other things being equal”.

The purpose of life is not simple “pain-avoidance”, no one said it is. Come back when you are ready to argue against what I said, not a strawman caricature thereof.
Huiou Theou:

And, if someone is causing me pain and suffering by filling my head with images I don’t like – aren’t THEY EVIL in some sense?

My headache is their fault?

It would be, if they force you to watch those images.

 

[john_doran]

Hitetlen:

Plantinga’s argument strikingly resembles his other useless argument of “possibly necessarily exists” = “necessarily exists”, stated in a slightly different format. Totally useless.

and your simply stating that they’re “totally useless” strikingly resembles a totally useless contribution to this discussion.

again i ask you: what do you think you’d say in response if someone here replied to one of your arguments by merely saying “that’s totally useless”?

have you actually read plantinga’s argument for transworld depravity?

 

[john_doran]

Hitetlen:

There MAY be good reasons for it, but to be considered “good reasons” someone needs to ARGUE for it. The default state is being skeptical about it. Just because there MAY BE good reasons for allowing pain and suffering, it does not follow that there ARE good reasons for it.

sure. but the fact that it is even possible that there are good reasons means that your argument fails as a deduction. and that’s all i’m saying.

Hitetlen:

The “duck test” still applies. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is most probably a duck. It MAY be something entirely different, but in order to even contemplate that, you must argue for your position, not just say that it MAY not be a duck.

but my position is that there MAY be good reasons for god’s allowing pain and suffering.

 

[Hitetlen]

john doran:

sure. but the fact that it is even possible that there are good reasons means that your argument fails as a deduction. and that’s all i’m saying.

Since I did not argue that there cannot be a good reason, I don’t know why you bring it up.
john doran:

but my position is that there MAY be good reasons for god’s allowing pain and suffering.

Yes, there may be. However if God would be all benevolent, he would weed out all the pain and suffering which can be avoided, caeteris paribus. And it is easy to show that there are pains and sufferings which can be avoided. In order to absolve God, you would have to show some actual, compelling arguments why those pains and sufferings have a valid reason to exist. It is not enough to say that there MAY be good reasons. Who cares if there “MAY BE”? The question is “ARE THERE”?

Edited to add:

It looks to me that your position is based upon “let’s give the benefit of doubt” to God. Since it may be that there are compelling reasons for allowing pain and suffering, let’s suppose there are. I disagree with this. The “benefit of the doubt” is only applicable to fallible beings, God does not get it, nor does he deserve it. If it looks like that there are no good reasons, then it is reasonable to assume that there are no good reasons. And if no arguments are forthcoming, then there are no good reasons.