BOSSMANHAM SAID:
“I'm surprised that you actually used this argument, Steve. I will rebuff it in two ways.__First I want to stress that knowledge of an event in no way makes someone culpable for an event.”
Since that simplistic reformulation hardly represents my argument, your rebuff does nothing to rebuff it.
The real question is, in part, whether it’s normally culpable to allow a foreseeable evil which you could prevent. A further aggravating factor is if you not only foresee the evil event, but far from taking actions to prevent it, take actions which make it inevitable.
Your threadbare denial hardly constitutes a counterargument. What is more, your threadbare denial is quite counterintuitive.
“Second, I want to show your example is faulty because it ignores the relational aspect of God's interaction with man (as do most of these Calvinist logic games). I will use a slightly more realistic example to show why yours is fault.”
i) How is my example an unrealistic analogy for divine action? It might be an unrealistic analogy for human action, but it was never meant to illustrate human action.
ii) A thought-experiment doesn’t have to be realistic to prove the point.
iii) I’d add that there are real world examples.
a) For instance, if some postal employees have advance knowledge that one of their colleagues is planning to go on a shooting spree the next day, they have a duty to report that information to the authorities. They are culpable of they keep it to themselves.
b) Likewise, some conspiracy theorists accuse Bush of having advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. Their accusations are highly implausible. However, it if were true that Bush had advance knowing of the impending attacks, then it would be an understatement to say he was culpable.
One can cite other real world examples in which, if someone fails to act on a tip regarding a preventable atrocity, then he is blameworthy.
“Parents know that when they conceive, their child will sin. Their child will do things that dishonor them and others and God. But this doesn't make the parents culpable for the child's sin.”
i) For your example to work, it must be an analogy for divine action. In that respect, your example is already a failure.
Human beings don’t shuffle the deck. They simply play the hand they’ve been dealt.
Our only choice is to either have sinful children or not have children.
But in analogy to God, that’s hardly the only choice. At that level, the analogy would be between having sinful children or sinless children.
ii) I’d also add that God commanded the human race to propagate. However, God is not, himself, subject to a preexisting command.
So your comparison already falls apart in two key respects.
“For if it did, perhaps pro-aborts aren't so bad, since they're stopping any sins those children will commit.”
That’s a sloppy conclusion. The correct conclusion, given the premise, wouldn’t be to have an abortion, but to use contraception.
“Sure it's by committing another sin, but doesn't God want to bring the best good out of the bad He causes? Remember Steve, this practice that we decry as evil, in your theology, has its origin with God. He wants it, He causes those who do it to do it, and it supposedly glorifies Him, since everything He does glorifies Him. But I digress.”
Perhaps you think that’s clever, but I’ve often dealt with that shallow argument. In brief, it fails to draw a rudimentary distinction between a sinner’s motive for sinning and God’s motive for creating sinners.
“Not only are the parents not culpable for the free will decisions of their offspring even though they know their offspring will sin…”
Well, that depends. As the Dude points out, if you knew that by sleeping with your wife on a certain day, she’d conceive Adolph Hitler, then that would make you deeply complicit in his atrocities.
“But to be able to show His great love and justice to us, He had to create us.”
How very supralapsarian of you!
“But He is not culpable for free will decisions He knows about, for He didn't necessitate those decisions.”
Once again, that’s hardly a sufficient theodicy. Let’s say the 9/11 hijackers had libertarian freewill. If I had advance knowledge, or inside knowledge, of their plot, I’d be as guilty as they were if I failed to report it to the authorities.
“Man's sin originates in his heart due to his own selfish desires.”
Even if that tendentious assertion were true, it’s only half the answer you need to furnish an adequate theodicy. The fact that one party is culpable doesn’t automatically exonerate a second party. If two bank robbers pull a heist, the culpability of one robber doesn’t exculpate his partner in crime.
“Furthermore, if determinism of sin is true, then God's relationship with us is no more a relationship than Sherri Lewis' was with Lamb Chops. Looked convincing, but was a farce.”
Of course, that’s hardly an argument. Rather, it’s just a tired metaphor which mentally-challenged Arminians who can’t actually muster an argument substitute for reasoned argument.
Since that simplistic reformulation hardly represents my argument, your rebuff does nothing to rebuff it.
ReplyDeleteYes it does, since your point is God's knowledge of the future actions of humanity implies His culpability.
The real question is, in part, whether it’s normally culpable to allow a foreseeable evil which you could prevent
The issue you and "the dude" (who may or may not be a cleverly disguised member of the T-Blog team) leave out is the wages of sin. If you recall, God created Adam and Eve good, not as Frankenstein monsters. God doesn't create what we become, He creates us with a nature so we can choose what we become. Adam and eve chose sin, and the wages of sin is death. If you recall, God cursed the creation because of the sin of Adam. If God intervened every time something bad was about to happen to someone, there would be no curse and no death. God allows us to suffer the consequences of sin, and being that there are no sinless people, everyone experiences consequences of sin. That is why Christ the Lord came, to deliver us from sin and death and evil.
How is my example an unrealistic analogy for divine action?
It's unrealistic because 1) there aren't any mad scientists creating life and 2) God didn't create Frankenstein monsters, He created free agents. Those free agents are responsible for the free choices that God allowed.
For instance, if some postal employees have advance knowledge that one of their colleagues is planning to go on a shooting spree the next day, they have a duty to report that information to the authorities. They are culpable of they keep it to themselves.
And if God intervened in all these situations, there would be no death and no curse on humanity for their sin. Have you forgotten about the just judgement of God?
One can cite other real world examples in which, if someone fails to act on a tip regarding a preventable atrocity, then he is blameworthy.
True, but God is not culpable because the consequences are part of His judgement on humanity and the actions are conceived and performed by independent free agents.
That’s a sloppy conclusion. The correct conclusion, given the premise, wouldn’t be to have an abortion, but to use contraception.
Some would say contraception is also sinful.
In brief, it fails to draw a rudimentary distinction between a sinner’s motive for sinning and God’s motive for creating sinners.
So you're saying motive is what makes an act good or not? Adolf's motives were to eliminate all genetic imperfections and drains on society. That must make his actions good.
Well, that depends. As the Dude points out, if you knew that by sleeping with your wife on a certain day, she’d conceive Adolph Hitler, then that would make you deeply complicit in his atrocities
Conceiving a child makes you complicit in his atrocities? How can temporal beings be responsible for the future actions of others? No, Hitler made his own decisions, whether his mom knew he would or not. We could all refer to the movie Minority Report to see the inherent problems in the "if you know it'll happen it's a crime now" argument.
Even if that tendentious assertion were true
That's what the Bible says.
The fact that one party is culpable doesn’t automatically exonerate a second party.
God allows free decisions which He may or may not favor to achieve an outcome that He does, namely the uncoerced acceptance of people whom He has drawn.
Rather, it’s just a tired metaphor which mentally-challenged Arminians who can’t actually muster an argument substitute for reasoned argument.
No, it's an analogy that you insult (and then provide a good ol' ad hominem) and fail to deal with.
God belss
BOSSMANHAM SAID:
ReplyDelete“Yes it does, since your point is God's knowledge of the future actions of humanity implies His culpability.”
Another gross oversimplification of what I said.
i) I said that if God instantiates a foreseeable outcome, then God is responsible for the outcome.
ii) And I added that, by Arminian logic, that would make him culpable for the outcome in case the outcome is evil.
He foresaw the evil outcome. It lay within his power to prevent it. But, instead, he made it happen. Brought it to pass. Therefore, he intended it to happen. If you think predestination inculpates God, then so does the Arminian alternative.
“If you recall, God created Adam and Eve good, not as Frankenstein monsters. God doesn't create what we become, He creates us with a nature so we can choose what we become. Adam and eve chose sin, and the wages of sin is death.”
Which is irrelevant to my hypothetical. In my hypothetical, Frankenstein has libertarian freewill. He was not a monster at the time the mad scientist made him. Rather, he became a monster of his own volition. But the mad scientist foresaw that outcome.
So you have failed to rebut the analogy. Try again.
“It's unrealistic because 1) there aren't any mad scientists creating life and 2) God didn't create Frankenstein monsters, He created free agents. Those free agents are responsible for the free choices that God allowed.”
Maybe you’re just illiterate. God back and read the details of the thought-experiment.
i) There don’t have to be real mad scientists. It’s a thought-experiment. Don’t you know what that is? Likewise, it’s analogy, remember? Do you know what an analogy is?
In this case, the thought-experiment is analogous to divine action inasmuch as (a) both God and the mad scientist are creating life; (b) both God and the mad scientist endowed their creature with libertarian freewill. Try again.
“And if God intervened in all these situations, there would be no death and no curse on humanity for their sin. Have you forgotten about the just judgement of God?”
i) Once again, you’re ducking the question. When you duck the question, you tacitly answer the question.
The question is whether a mere distinction between permission and predestination is morally sufficient.
If you had advance knowledge of a plot by a disgruntled employee to murder his colleagues, would you be justified in doing nothing to prevent that action? Would it be morally sufficient for you to plead that you did nothing wrong since you merely allowed someone else to do it?
Is that a universally valid defense of your actions? Or do you need some additional justification?
ii) You’re also sidestepping the question of why God needs to create any hellbound sinners. If God foreknows who is hellbound and who is heavenbound, then why doesn’t he just create the heavenbound sinners? Wouldn’t that be a more loving thing to do?
“True, but God is not culpable because the consequences are part of His judgement on humanity and the actions are conceived and performed by independent free agents.”
You continue to miss the point. Is this because you can’t deal with the issue, so you ignore the issue and evade the issue?
ReplyDeleteThe fact that one party to a transaction may be culpable because he was a free agent (as you define it) doesn’t automatically exonerate another party to the transaction. That’s not an adequate theodicy. Ignoring the problem won’t make it go away.
“Some would say contraception is also sinful.”
Unless the “some” includes yourself, that’s a diversionary tactic. Try again.
“So you're saying motive is what makes an act good or not? Adolf's motives were to eliminate all genetic imperfections and drains on society. That must make his actions good.”
i) Whether the motive makes an action good or bad depends on whether the motive is good or bad. Why are you unable to grasp that rudimentary distinction?
ii) And it should be perfectly obvious to you that there are situations where the motive makes a difference in the rightness or wrongness of an action. A surgeon with a scalpel and a mugger with a switchblade are not morally equivalent, are they?
Try to actually think instead of just emoting or reacting.
“Conceiving a child makes you complicit in his atrocities? How can temporal beings be responsible for the future actions of others?”
Of course, your statement conveniently leaves out the qualifications I built into my example.
Answer the question as I stated the question: if you foreknew that by sleeping with your wife on a certain day, you’d father Adolph Hitler, would it be culpable or inculpable for you to sleep with your wife that day?
“No, Hitler made his own decisions, whether his mom knew he would or not.”
This is another dodge on your part. Try to exercise a bit of mental discipline. I know that’s out of character for you, but it’s good practice–like physical therapy.
In a transaction involving two or more parties, to say that one party was culpable does nothing, of itself, to exculpate the other party. Both parties could be equally blameworthy.
“That's what the Bible says.”
No, that’s what you say the Bible says. So, in your reply, you’re propping up one tendentious assertion with another tendentious assertion.
“God allows free decisions which He may or may not favor to achieve an outcome that He does, namely the uncoerced acceptance of people whom He has drawn.”
i) Once again, your teleological explanation is very supralapsarian.
ii) At the same time, you resort to the straw man argument of “coercion.” Try to master basic concepts.
“No, it's an analogy that you insult (and then provide a good ol' ad hominem) and fail to deal with.”
It’s an argument from analogy minus the argument. Without the supporting argument, there’s no analogy–just an asserted analogy. I can’t fail to deal with a nonexistent argument. You don’t get to take intellectual shortcuts here. Try again.
James 4:17 "So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin."
ReplyDeleteHe was not a monster at the time the mad scientist made him. Rather, he became a monster of his own volition. But the mad scientist foresaw that outcome.
ReplyDeleteWrong, Hays, you said "that scarcely relieves the mad scientist of responsibility for creating a homicidal monster." So, to stay within the bounds of your analogy, Frankenstein created a good monster. The monster used it's will to sin.
God allows this for the reason I stated, relational. A true relationship requires two agents, not one agent and his marionette. William Lane Craig makes pretty much the same argument.
As Jerry Walls and Joseph Dongell put it: "The same freedom that makes it possible to enter a genuinely trusting and obedient relationship with God also makes it possible for us to go our own way and disobey him. God allows the latter in order to enable the former."
He foresaw the evil outcome. It lay within his power to prevent it. But, instead, he made it happen. Brought it to pass
No, he did not bring it to pass because He knew it would happen, He knew it would happen because it actually was going to happen. God not stopping the consequences of sin is, again, because of the genuine relationship He desires and the just judgement for sin.
There don’t have to be real mad scientists. It’s a thought-experiment. Don’t you know what that is? Likewise, it’s analogy, remember? Do you know what an analogy is?
Yeah, mine was more realistic because it used an actual situation that happens. I never denied that what you put forward was an analogy.
Once again, you’re ducking the question. When you duck the question, you tacitly answer the question.
No the question is: How is God not culpable for evil He knows will happen? The answer is, it is part of the curse humanity brought on itself. God created us good.
Whether the motive makes an action good or bad depends on whether the motive is good or bad. Why are you unable to grasp that rudimentary distinction?
Sounds like moral relativism to me.
And it should be perfectly obvious to you that there are situations where the motive makes a difference in the rightness or wrongness of an action. A surgeon with a scalpel and a mugger with a switchblade are not morally equivalent, are they?
No, because the surgeon and mugger will do two completely different things with the scalpel. The surgeon will heal with it, the mugger will kill with it. Two different actions. Just like killing 6 million innocent Jews is always wrong even if your motives are good.
No, that’s what you say the Bible says. So, in your reply, you’re propping up one tendentious assertion with another tendentious assertion.
Uh, yes it is. James 1:13-17. So, in your reply, you’re propping up one tendentious assertion with another tendentious assertion.
Once again, your teleological explanation is very supralapsarian.
Funny, me being an Arminian and all. The difference is I don't think God determined anyone to sin or be damned in any logical order.
It’s an argument from analogy minus the argument.
God determining what we do is like a puppeteer determining what a puppet does. That argument seems pretty straighforward to me, Steve. I guess I thought someone with your amazing skillz would be able to deduce that.
"The same freedom that makes it possible to enter a genuinely trusting and obedient relationship with God also makes it possible for us to go our own way and disobey him. God allows the latter in order to enable the former."
ReplyDeleteYou don’t have to allow sin to take place to have genuine righteousness, do you? Why couldn’t God step in and prevent child rape from actually occurring while still allowing us the “freedom” to “genuinely” trust and be obedient?
“No, he did not bring it to pass because He knew it would happen, He knew it would happen because it actually was going to happen. God not stopping the consequences of sin is, again, because of the genuine relationship He desires and the just judgement for sin.”
Even if he didn’t bring it to pass because he knew it would happen, he still brought it to pass by instantiating the necessary preconditions. Again, why can’t God prevent sin, such as rape and murder, and yet still have a “genuine” relationship with him? I think I'm capable of loving my wife without murder and rape… God can’t? Can you explain the logic of this?
“The answer is, it is part of the curse humanity brought on itself. God created us good.”
But even if I accept that, God still could have stopped it (unless you think God is incapable of preventing evil… or perhaps unwilling). It seems like you don’t understand the argument from evil at all. Think about it. If an atheists presents to you the argument from evil, are you really just going to say “No, no, you see, God made us good, so it’s all cool.” The atheist would just stare at you, knowing you haven’t grasped the argument at all.