The sign on God's desk says:

[Hitetlen]

“The buck stops here!”

Why do people insist that God is an omnimax being, and still deny that God must bear ulitmate responsibility for both the good AND bad in the world. With total knowledge (omniscience) and complete control (omnipotence) comes total responsibility.

With having total power the difference between guilt by commission and guilt by omission does not exist. If someone can do anything without exposing himself to even minor discomfort, and knows about everything, then he is mandated to alleviate all the problems and sufferings - if of course that being also wishes to be called: “good” or “omnibenevolent”.

It does not matter if God causes or orders a murder (both amply documented in the Bible), or simply fails to prevent it, his culpability is the same.

It cannot be defended by applying to the “original sin”. God must have known in advance that his command will be violated; and could have prevented it by not putting the Tree in the Garden, and chose to let it happen.

Many believers also believe in the existence of pure evil (Satan), and also contend that God is powerful enough to either change him, or smite him. Since he chooses not to do either, he is responsible for Satan’s continued existence.

The application to “free will” does not hold water. Free will simply means at least two choices, and no coercion to choose among them. God could have created a world, where there are no evil choices, only “good” and “better” ones. The freedom to choose would be there.

What say you?

 

[CatholicSam]

Well, God did take full responsibility for our sins. He died for them, in fact.

 

[Hitetlen]

CatholicSam:

Well, God did take full responsibility for our sins. He died for them, in fact.

Nice, but no cigar. A temporary death does not count for a whole lot - especially when one knows that it is just temporary. All the problems are still out there, unfixed. And if I am not mistaken, there still is a hell with eternal suffering (at least according to the belief of many people).

 

[Brendan]

“The buck stops here!”
.

The application to “free will” does not hold water. Free will simply means at least two choices, and no coercion to choose among them. God could have created a world, where there are no evil choices, only “good” and “better” ones. The freedom to choose would be there.

What say you?

So what you want God to do is to eliminat the logical fallicy of Choice without Choice

You state that Free Will requires at least two choices, but deny that one could choose Evil.

To have Free Will between Good and Evil is to have the ability to choose between Good and Evil.

What you have outlined is that one is forced to do Good, the only difference is to what extent Good is done (better or best)

But it still remains that one is 100% forced to do Good, that the Will is not Free.

How could one freely choose to do Good, any level of Good, when there is no choice to do otherwise?

 

[Hitetlen]

Brendan:

So what you want God to do is to eliminat the logical fallicy of Choice without Choice

You state that Free Will requires at least two choices, but deny that one could choose Evil.

To have Free Will between Good and Evil is to have the ability to choose between Good and Evil.

What you have outlined is that one is forced to do Good, the only difference is to what extent Good is done (better or best)

But it still remains that one is 100% forced to do Good, that the Will is not Free.

How could one freely choose to do Good, any level of Good, when there is no choice to do otherwise?

You missed that there is the option of doing nothing.

Besides, not all actions are equal. Suppose you encountered someone. You have the options of
a) giving him a dollar,
b) giving him a million dollars,
c) giving him a hug,
d) giving him the correct time,
e) keep walking on.
and zillions more.

None of these are necessarily “evil”. Still, the choice is there, freely made. Not as spectacular as having additional choices of
a) shooting him,
b) cooking him in boiling oil,
c) skinning him alive,
etc…

And yes, if all the options are good and better, that means limited free will, so what?

We could go a step further. It may be possible to choose evil, but no person would have the desire to choose it. It is not necessary to have a physical inhibition, a lack of desire would be sufficient.

 

[frogman80]

Hitetlen:

The application to “free will” does not hold water. Free will simply means at least two choices, and no coercion to choose among them. God could have created a world, where there are no evil choices, only “good” and “better” ones. The freedom to choose would be there.

We define free will a bit differently:
Free will is “To choose God” or “To not Choose God.” There are many levels that those can be manifested on… i.e. “good/better” or “bad/worse” etc. An “evil” or “bad” action by definition is an act against God. A person could not choose God, if they did not have the ability to not choose Him… like you said no coercion.

What rule do you use to decide what is good, and what is evil?

 

[wcknight]

The world you suggest would be a world of automatons. IF only positive choices were possible, there really is no free will.

Free will has to include every possibility not just the positive ones. Once you leave out a choice you have eliminated the free will.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Hitetlen:

We could go a step further. It may be possible to choose evil, but no person would have the desire to choose it. It is not necessary to have a physical inhibition, a lack of desire would be sufficient.

That’s just skinning the cat by another name. The dichotomy could also be broken down between selfless and selfish; between love and fear.

This question is at the root of all human merit, all suffering and stuggling that God has joined in with us. The world God has ordained allows us to have merit, and to act in His image–to love. To love is to shed tears, too.

Here’s another tack:
If the buck stops there, and there can be no choices, then God is not omnipotent, rather he is impotent. Such a world has no love. God is love. There must be choice for their to be a rhyme or reason to exercise power, to exercise love.

A well phrased question you asked. It’s hard for us not to see the forest for the trees and in the midst of it to cry with Job.

peace

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

Nice, but no cigar. A temporary death does not count for a whole lot - especially when one knows that it is just temporary. All the problems are still out there, unfixed. And if I am not mistaken, there still is a hell with eternal suffering (at least according to the belief of many people).

God is not concerned with the evil of this world insofar as he would intervene to stop it at every turn. Rather, this world is, as I see it, a test of our fidelity to God. For it is what we do in this world that determines whether God will be omnibeneficial to us in the next (and, since He provides Eternal Happiness to all who seek it and do His will, it is not as if He is stingy with it), or if we are perverse enough to slam the door in the face of infinite mercy, He justly reprimands us with an Eternal lack thereof.

Suffering is part of being human. It develops a soul. One who has never suffered cannot have empathy for one who is suffering, and without empathy, true kindness and charity are absolutely impossible. So, God uses seemingly bad things in our lives to create an abundance of good.

Also recall that, whilst God can indeed have full control over us, He CHOSE NOT TO. Instead, he gave us free will. Rather than mindless automatons in a perfect world, he allowed us to live with full control over ourselves in an imperfect world, and having an opportunity to live fully in the perfect world of the next life.

Plus the fact that you look at all of God’s “crimes” on a purely human level. The soul cannot be killed, and God’s “murder victim” could be, for all you know, in Paradise. After all, their temporal punishment was death, and so, just as souls leaving Purgatory, after the Redemption, they were most likely taken into Heaven with the rest of the souls in Limbo.

With regards to Satan…he had free will, and chose to break the rule entirely. Until him, there had been only “good” and “better” choices; to disobey God was not in the human psyche. He instilled that evil lust in us, the constant temptation to sin. He, therefore, is the source of evil. And, BTW, if you read just a slight bit of Biblical prophesy, you may find that all you need to do is wait a bit, and God will cast the devil into the Eternal Fire (NOT Satan’s domain, but created by God for Satan). It is not that He is not going to act upon the problem, but hasn’t yet.

Finally, the evil in the world is caused by sin. Remember Our Lady at Fatima…to avoid all of this, all the world needs to do is penance.

Seen it yet amongst the hedonism? Didn’t think so

Thanks for the Debate,
SPXII

 

[Della]

God acts as he sees fit. There really is no other, better explanation. He acts for a greater good than we cannot fully understand, or he is a ruthless tyrant, or he doesn’t exist. My vote is for the first premise.

 

[LSK]

It cannot be defended by applying to the “original sin”. God must have known in advance that his command will be violated; and could have prevented it by not putting the Tree in the Garden, and chose to let it happen.

I disagree that this cannot be used as an argument for the existence of a loving and merciful God. If I have no choices in my life, my love for God is not true love.

The application to “free will” does not hold water. Free will simply means at least two choices, and no coercion to choose among them. God could have created a world, where there are no evil choices, only “good” and “better” ones. The freedom to choose would be there.

Because you are being subjective in your application of the terms ‘good’ and ‘better’. What is better than doing the will of God? Nothing. So that is the only good. The only evil, therefore, is NOT to do the will of God. There may be degrees of good and evil but there is only one true good and one true evil and no coercion to choose between the two. The absense of coercion is the free will griven as a loving gift of the Creator, for without that freeness of will our love for the Creator is but a robotic response and has no meaning.

 

[LSK]

Hitetlen:

Nice, but no cigar. A temporary death does not count for a whole lot - especially when one knows that it is just temporary. All the problems are still out there, unfixed. And if I am not mistaken, there still is a hell with eternal suffering (at least according to the belief of many people).

that ‘temporary death’ was for the eternal salvation of the entire world. That counts for a whole lot - and it is not temporary. Jesus just had to die one time and rise again, one time… however, He established a Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against that Church. And He is with us, present and real, in the Eucharist. And He will come again, to judge the living and the dead.

The problems are there because all of His Creatures did not accept the Truth. Hopefully, someday they will.

And not all the problems are ‘unfixed’. Many people work every day to bring an ease and comfort to those who are suffering. Many diseases have been wiped out. Many pains and sufferings have been eased.

And please do not continue this discussion if you cannot cease your sarcasm. ‘no cigar’? Really.

 

[frogman80]

People…

Hitetlen is an atheist. Recognize that if your proof involves God as its foundation, it will probably fall short in his eyes. Instead of trying to come up with arguments against his post right from the beginning… take some time to make sure he understands our Catholic views properly.

(If a Muslim came in saying, I believe Jesus is a prophet, but not God… you would not use a quote from the new testament to form an argument. )

 

[Brendan]

Hitetlen:

You missed that there is the option of doing nothing.

And you are still missing the point that to freely choose means to choose the opposite.

If I am in a Maze and the only options are to go forward (do Good) or to remain where I am (do nothing), do I have Free Choice on what path I am taking?

Besides, not all actions are equal. Suppose you encountered someone. You have the options of
a) giving him a dollar,…

But Free Will would me I have those choices, does it not?

And yes, if all the options are good and better, that means limited free will, so what?

If the Will has been restricted, it is not Free in those matters, is it not?

Again to use the example of the maze, if I am restricted in which paths I may choose (prevented from turning left even though there is a left turn I might choose) I am actually being forced through the maze, not choosing a path in the Maze, correct?

We could go a step further. It may be possible to choose evil, but no person would have the desire to choose it. It is not necessary to have a physical inhibition, a lack of desire would be sufficient.

That is the same thing as the removing the choice, is it not?

 

[Brendan]

frogman80:

People…

Hitetlen is an atheist. Recognize that if your proof involves God as its foundation, it will probably fall short in his eyes. Instead of trying to come up with arguments against his post right from the beginning… take some time to make sure he understands our Catholic views properly.

No problem. This is standard Moral Philosophy. Not even touching on Moral Theology.

 

[Hitetlen]

I will try to answer to your posts individually, but let me just say one very important argument:

If, as you say,

1. the existence of free will INVARIABLY leads to the existence of evil, and
2. the definition of free will MUST include the ability to choose evil, and
3. the lack of DESIRE to commit evil is insufficient to create real free will, and
4. there will be no evil in heaven,
   then
   (corollary) there will be no free will in heaven.

We all shall be little automatons, singing and praising the Big Automaton (aka God), who has to act according to his nature (which contains no evil, so sin) - therefore has no free will.

Are you really sure, that this is the picture you want to paint about heaven and God? Just a gramaphone with a record being played over and over again, where the only “choice” is to select “Hymn A” or “Hosanna B” or “Praise C”?

 

[frogman80]

Brendan:

No problem. This is standard Moral Philosophy. Not even touching on Moral Theology.

I would even go further to say… Before starting on secular ethics or moral philosophy, take some time to make sure our Faith is explained properly.

It is no use to have an argument when people have different “definitions” in mind of what the other is saying.

 

[frogman80]

Hitetlen:

will try to answer to your posts individually, but let me just say one very important argument:

If, as you say,

1. the existence of free will INVARIABLY leads to the existence of evil, and
2. the definition of free will MUST include the ability to choose evil, and
3. the lack of DESIRE to commit evil is insufficient to create real free will, and
4. there will be no evil in heaven,
   then
   (corollary) there will be no free will in heaven.

We all shall be little automatons, singing and praising the Big Automaton (aka God), who has to act according to his nature (which contains no evil, so sin) - therefore has no free will.

Are you really sure, that this is the picture you want to paint about heaven and God? Just a gramaphone with a record being played over and over again, where the only “choice” is to select “Hymn A” or “Hosanna B” or “Praise C”?

Your axioms aside… What we believe:
There is no need for free will in heaven. Again, free will is about choosing or not choosing God. Those who “choose” God are basically saying… I wish to be united to God for all eternity. Those who do not choose God are saying… I do not wish to be united with God for all eternity. It is the type of decision that needs no change of mind.

Saying that there should be free will in heaven should be like saying:
You have some special rare ice cream… only one serving has ever been made. You have a choice to eat the ice cream or not eat ice cream. (You choose to eat it) Now that you have finished eating, would it be right to say that the choice still exists?

I just think that your understanding of free will is different that how we fundamentally define it.

 

[Hitetlen]

frogman80:

Your axioms aside… What we believe:
There is no need for free will in heaven. Again, free will is about choosing or not choosing God. Those who “choose” God are basically saying… I wish to be united to God for all eternity. Those who do not choose God are saying… I do not wish to be united with God for all eternity.

I see, what you mean and you really narrowed down the concept of free will. Of course you carefully avoided part of what I said: namely that God has no free will either. Furthermore, believers always stress that having free will is important, God prefers to be chosen freely, rather than “coerce” us into accepting him. According to you, that is not always the case, in heaven it is acceptable to have “automatons” with pre-programmed devotion.

And another point: you say that God does not wish to coerce us, but those who choose to reject him, will be punished - forever! - for their choice. And the Bible is very explicit in describing the result: eternal damnation, pain and suffering. That is not a real choice at all. It is akin to a criminal who puts a gun to your head and instructs you to perform a certain act, otherwise he will shoot you (or your children). Now, in MY vocabulary it is definitely NOT a free action.

frogman80:

It is the type of decision that needs no change of mind.

Why not? The ability to reconsider a choice is very important. Maybe no one would actually make a second choice, but the ability to choose it is still important. It can be that someone gets tired of singing the same songs until eternity.

frogman80:

Saying that there should be free will in heaven should be like saying:
You have some special rare ice cream… only one serving has ever been made. You have a choice to eat the ice cream or not eat ice cream. (You choose to eat it) Now that you have finished eating, would it be right to say that the choice still exists?

That particular choice does not exist any more.

frogman80:

I just think that your understanding of free will is different that how we fundamentally define it.

That is for sure And this also underscores the problem: even when we try to engage in a meaningful, honest and respectful conversation, there is this barrier of being unable to define basic categories so we can have a common starting ground.

Now, apart from topics concerning religion, we do have a common ground. Be it science, films, emotions, whatever, we use the same vocabulary. I keep the same definitions when it comes to questions of religion. You (believers in general) do not. Therefore, as the bare minimum, you are not consistent.

 

[Hitetlen]

wcknight:

The world you suggest would be a world of automatons. IF only positive choices were possible, there really is no free will.

Not according to the definition.

wcknight:

Free will has to include every possibility not just the positive ones. Once you leave out a choice you have eliminated the free will.

Narrowed it down, maybe. Eliminated, no.

Even believers say that having some physical barriers to our actions (we cannot fly by flapping our arms) does not invalidate free will. Therefore a further “narrowing down” would not invalidate it either. Eliminating ALL the choices would. But that is not what I said.