According to JC Freak, “I have this ‘blog’ more as a dump of all the crazy ideas that are often running in my head.”
http://jcfreak73.blogspot.com/2009/09/funniest-anti-arminian-post-i-have-ever.html
To judge by his response to me, I’d say he’s making signal progress in achieving his goal.
To sample the intellectual quality of his analysis, here’s some of what he has to say by way of rebuttal: “…so absolutely ridiculous…comical…Wow. Just wow…Seriously…so ridiculous…just so ridiculous…I mean, really? Really?… sophistic…”
As you can see, JC Freak’s reply reads like a parody of a surfer dude on weed.
“This is also odd, since there is absolutely no historical link from Manichaeism to Armnianism, yet the historical link from Manichaeism to Calvinism is well documented. Calvinism is derived primarily from Augustinianism. Augustine was the one who first introduced deterministic ideas into the church. It is also important to note that Augustine was a Manichean before he was a Christian, and only turned back to more deterministic ways of thinking during his dealings with the heretic Pelagius.1”
i) Since my argument was based on logical connections rather than historical connections, there doesn’t need to be a historical link. Nothing odd about it.
Thinkers can arrive independently at similar ideas. There are only so many basic ways to think about the world.
ii) But JC Freak is using this as a pretext to engage in guilt-by-association. Yet one of the problems with the genetic fallacy is that it cuts both ways.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, we say that Calvinism has “historical links” to Manichaeism via Augustine. And suppose, for the sake of argument, we say that discredits Calvinism.
But, by the same token, Arminianism also has “historical links” to Calvinism. Indeed, the linkage could hardly be more direct. After all, Arminius began his career as a Dutch-Reformed theology prof.
And, of course, if we accept the historical linkage between Calvinism and Manichaeism, then Arminianism is just another link in the chain.
So what did JC Freak accomplish by this comparison except to discredit his own position by parity of argument?
“Now, Steve Hays's actual argument is because Arminians hold that there exist events and ends in the world which do not have their origin in God that there must therefore exist an equally powerful opposing force to God.”
No. What I said is that Arminians act as though the creation of our world was a division of labor–between a good God and an evil God. They try to erect an impenetrable firewall between God and evil, as if God has nothing to do with evil events, but only with good events.
That involves a very compartmentalized view of reality, with two ultimate, independent, opposing principles.
That involves a very compartmentalized view of reality, with two ultimate, independent, opposing principles.
ReplyDeleteThough I'm not arminian, I should point out that this manichean-arminian comparison could likewise be applied to calvinism.
To be precise, such a dualism of opposing forces stems from the Greater Good Defense, the bedrock of the reformed perspective on the problem of evil. How so?
The most popular answer *what* the greater good is, which is served by the existence of evil, mentions the demonstration of the divine attributes mercy and justice. Evil is necessary for both mercy and wrath to be exerted and so become displayed as innate characteristics of God. In other words, without the existence of evil, God could not reveal himself fully, neither grace and forgiveness on the one hand, nor justice and wrath on the other hand, could ever be demonstrated. Hence the Greater Good Defense obviously regards evil as a necessary opposite, which is only definable in terms of God's righteous character. Yet without this opposite, the greater good could not be realized. And here is the problem: The greater good is intrinsically dependend on complementary opposing forces. There are God and "non-God" as necessary forces to realize the greater good. Of course the greater good must outweigh all the foregoing evil, that's the logical basis of the Greater Good Defense after all. Thus, without the complementary force of evil, the greater good would not be realized and hence, foregoing evil could not be outweighed.
This means, from beginning to end, evil is involved as a necessary opposite to God, where each other's character is measured and definable in terms of the other. This is a classical unbiblical dualism akin to what you are charging arminianism to entail. In calvinism, evil is eternally necessary to realize God's innate properties! Therefore, the dualism charge you raise against arminianism cuts both ways.
-a helmet
a helmet, help me out with something.
ReplyDeleteIn order for God to be Creator, he must (necessarily) create something. But when he does so, unless you are a pantheist, then there is a necessary non-God entity. Therefore, it seems by your logic that belief in God as Creator commits one to dualism.
But if we understand that this world is not a necessary world, the problem goes away. But if it goes away for God as Creator, then it would also go away for the greater good defense.
Am I missing something?
Who is up for instituting a rule that A Helmet cannot complain about the Greater Good Defense until he puts forth his completely unargued for alternative that he claims to some day write a book about?
ReplyDeleteAs it is, he reminds me of the scene in Hot Fuzz where everyone mumbles "the Greater Good" repeatedly.
What is it about Arminians that they can't think straight? It's like pulling teeth to get an argument out of them, much less one without blatant fallacies.
ReplyDeleteAnd my favorite response is "wow just wow". I get that a lot.
Translated, it means "I have no argument with which to refute your position. But I don't like what you said, because it doesn't fit my morally relativistic worldview, so I'm just going to make fun of you and call you an idiot and hope nobody notices."
Brett,
ReplyDeleteFirst, please try applying what you just said to the former claim that arminian=manichean, too!
Second, yes you are missing the whole point. According to the greater good defense, God's mercy and wrath are two of his innate properties. In order for God to demonstrate the fulness of his properties and hence, the fulness of his own essence, evil must be present to begin with. Therefore, the greater good that shall outweigh evil, can only be defined in terms of evil. In calvinism, good cannot exist without evil! That's the dualism that calvinism entails.
-a helmet
The charge that arminianism is neo-manichaeism is so ridiculous that it cannot be taken seriously. I found an article at the Society of Evangelical Arminians that answers Steve Hays:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.evangelicalarminians.org/The-Funniest-Anti-Arminian-Post-I-Have-Ever-Seen
Read!
-a helmet
a helmet,
ReplyDeleteIt seems that Steve’s key point was not that evil was “non-God,” but that evil existed independent of God.
But your attempt to make dualism stick to calvinism runs like this “In calvinism, good cannot exist without evil! That's the dualism that calvinism entails.” Could we not also say, “In Christianity, a Creator cannot exist without creation! That's the dualism that Christianity entails.?”
Brett,
ReplyDelete“In calvinism, good cannot exist without evil! That's the dualism that calvinism entails.” Could we not also say, “In Christianity, a Creator cannot exist without creation! That's the dualism that Christianity entails.?”
No, these two are completely different things. In christianity God can exist without a creation, but calvinism's greater good defense makes evil a necessity.
-a helmet
Thus, without the complementary force of evil, the greater good would not be realized and hence, foregoing evil could not be outweighed.
ReplyDeleteYou're kidding right? Evil is a force? C'mon, what is this, Star Wars?
a helmet,
ReplyDeleteGod can exist without displaying his mercy also.
The greater good defense exists as an explanation of the evil, but it does not make evil necessary in other worlds. Given this world, then God as creator makes creation a necessity. I am still not seeing the key difference. Thanks for your patience, I am kinda new at this.
a helmet,
ReplyDeletePlease explain how mercy and justice exist in a world that does not contain evil.
Thank you
If by dualism we merely mean a general opposition between two forces, then every Christian is a dualist because we all believe in the cosmic war between the forces of good (God, his people and angels) and evil (Satan, his people and fallen angels). However, if we mean by dualism two opposing *ultimate* forces, then Calvinism doesn't fall under that category because evil is not as ultimate as (the) good. Especially since evil is parasitic of the good. The twisting of the good (blessings of God). In a consistent Christian worldview, evil depends on the good for its existence, while the good is not dependant on evil for it's existence.
ReplyDeleteIn Calvinism there are no metaphysically contingent uncaused chance events that can ultimately oppose or frustrate God's will or creation. While in worldviews where there are creatures with libertarian free will, there are uncaused chance-like events *independant of God* that can ultimately (at least in theory) oppose the will and purpose of God. But since there are as many wills as there are creatures, it's doesn't merely lead to a dualism, but to a form of pluralism. Or even possibly "polytheism" since the wills of libertarianly free creatures can bring about metaphysical changes to reality by their choices in a way that God can.
A Helmet said
No, these two are completely different things. In christianity God can exist without a creation, but calvinism's greater good defense makes evil a necessity.
It makes evil necessary for the manifestation in the creation of God's attributes of justice and mercy, not for the *reality* of God's attributes of justice and mercy. Evil is not metaphysically necessary for God to be just and merciful. Rather evil is necessary for their manifestation "within" the created world. That's a hugh difference.
A Helmet, I think you're confusing metaphysical/ontological necessity with logical necessity (and possible causal necessity).
ReplyDeleteEvil is not "metaphysically" necessary. Though, it is "logically" necessary in order for some of God's attributes to be expressed *within* creation.
I agree, A.P.
ReplyDeleteThat was why I asked for him to clarify his statement on evil being necessary in Reformed theology.
Seems that is a Christian problem, not a Calvinistic one.
Dominic,
ReplyDeleteEvil is a force?
You may call it
different, "power", "suffering", "painful illusion of a force", "felt lack of goodness" or whatever. I leave it up to you.
-a helmet
Brett,
ReplyDeleteGod can exist without displaying his mercy also.
That's right and without sin there'd be no grounds for mercy.
The greater good defense exists as an explanation of the evil, but it does not make evil necessary in other worlds.
The greater good explains nothing. The greater good defense goes like this:
-Why does God permit evil?
-Because it serves a greater good
-What is this greater good?
-For God to exert his mercy and wrath
-Why/how is the exertion of mercy and wrath ultimately better than evil?
-Because it demonstrates innate attributes of God, namely his mercy and his wrath.
-Basically, what are wrath and mercy?
-Responses to evil. They are only definable and comprehensible in terms of evil.
Therefore, if mercy and wrath are intrinsic characteristics of God, then the idea, the thought of evil is eternally wrapped up in God, who is holy, and evil's existence necessary for God to reveal his essence fully. The Almighty One wouldn't be able to reveal his full essence without the existence of evil! Here evil's necessity becomes apparent.
Given this world, then God as creator makes creation a necessity.
Right, but God's creation was very good. He could have renounced creation and stayed alone. Then he would not be a creator. But he would still be fully God. Could God as well have renounced the existence of evil? According to the Greater Good Defense, mercy and wrath in response to evil are ultimately better than no evil.
That means "mercy" and "wrath", that are based on the thought of evil, would have to be innate divine attributes for the Greater Good Defense to even begin to sound plausible.
If the demonstration of God's mercy and wrath didn't demonstrate God's own nature, then you could not even begin to answer the question above: "what is the greater good?"
-a helmet
Please explain how mercy and justice exist in a world that does not contain evil.
ReplyDeleteWhy do we need responses to evil? (Mercy and justice) anyway?
Wouldn't it be better if there were no evil to begin with? Then mercy and justice wouldn't exist. So what?
Annoyed Pinoy,
ReplyDeleteIn a consistent Christian worldview, evil depends on the good for its existence, while the good is not dependant on evil for it's existence.
According to calvinism, the "greater good" depends on evil`s existence!
The revelation of God's essence depends on evil`s existence!
The greater good defense puts the cart before the horse and argues that evil exists so that it can be responded to (by mercy or justice)
It makes evil necessary for the manifestation in the creation of God's attributes of justice and mercy, not for the *reality* of God's attributes of justice and mercy. Evil is not metaphysically necessary for God to be just and merciful. Rather evil is necessary for their manifestation "within" the created world.
Well, this pulls the rug out from under the Greater Good Defense, and you are back at the beginning: "Why does God permit evil?"
-a helmet
A Helmet said:
ReplyDelete---
Wouldn't it be better if there were no evil to begin with?
---
And it is here that the true reason A Helmet doesn't like The Greater Good(TM) is shown. It ultimately boils down to this: A Helmet doesn't believe that mercy and justice being exhibited is better than a world with no evil at all.
Not much of Scripture makes sense for A Helmet. He can't figure out "Greater love hath no man than this: that he lay down his life for another" nor can he grasp "Rarely will a man die for another, although for a good man I suppose someone might dare to die. But God shows His love to us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." These are just meaningless squiggles on a computer screen to A Helmet.
Furthermore, A Helmet has *STILL* refused to offer any alternative whatsoever to the Greater Good defense. He doesn't seem to grasp the quandary that NO MATTER WHAT VIEW HE PICKS he must resort to a "greater than" defense. Because if God exists and if evil exist while God could have stopped it, then it necessarily must follow that God has something in mind that is of more importance to Him than keeping the world free from evil.
A helmet,
ReplyDeleteForgive me if this does not flow well, I am kind of in a hurry.
I think AP was right in saying that you're confusing metaphysical/ontological necessity with logical necessity given certain set of conditions.
Ontologically, a man may have a self-sacrificing love for his wife, but absent certain conditions that may never be proven. His character does not require peril. He is the man he is (ontologically) whether or not danger threatens his wife. But in order to demonstrate that he would lay down his life for his wife certain conditions must exist (logical necessity).
God is ontologically a merciful God.
God is onlotogically a creative God.
He can exist without creating anything and therefore he can exist without being merciful to anyone. Neither creation nor evil are ontologically necessary.
However, if God will demonstrate his creativity, then creation is logically necessary.
If God will demonstrate his mercy, then evil is logically necessary.
If this logical necessity for mercy entails dualism, then so also does the logical necessity of creation entail dualism.
The whole flow of things seems to go like this:
1. God’s being (ontology) includes being creative and merciful.
2. From his being flow certain actions like creation and objects of mercy (not necessarily, but freely).
3. From the fact of these actions, certain theories are developed. (Whether the geocentric or heliocentric model is true is immaterial to the point. Both exist as an explanation of what is observed. Since they are explanatory, they presuppose the existence of that which they seek to explain (the heavenly bodies), but these explanatory theories do not make the existence of these celestial bodies ontologically necessary).
Just out of curiosity, why can't you share your alternate theory? I don't need to write a book (of if I am I don't need to finish a book) on the greater good defense in order to present it to people. It seems that if you are writing a book on the matter then you could easily share some of that with us.
A Helmet doesn't believe that mercy and justice being exhibited is better than a world with no evil at all.
ReplyDeleteAnd the bible nowhere suggests such a thing. In fact, it doesn't make much sense in light of the biblical view of sin and evil which portrays the culpability of evil. Nowhere does the bible suggest a good outcome of evil. That's why you have to be saved from evil, because it won't ever turn into good. You keep portraying God as a theatre player and have no idea about the genuineness of sin and its genuinely punishable essence. If evil served a greater good, it would be good!--simple. The bible however, knows of no bad tree with bad fruit that changes to produce good fruit.
So why should I believe that the exhibition of mercy and justice is better than a world without evil since:
1) The bible knows no such philosophy.
2)God's greatest good with respect to the world cannot be realized without evil, yet God was free to create this world ex nihilo or to refrain from creating this world?
---
"Greater love hath no man than this: that he lay down his life for another"
Amen.
"Rarely will a man die for another, although for a good man I suppose someone might dare to die. But God shows His love to us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."
Amen.
No, these are not meaningless statements to me, but they don't justify the Greater Good Defense and the doctrines of grace in the slightest way!
You should forsake the doctrines of grace!
-a helmet
Brett,
ReplyDeleteIf God will demonstrate his mercy, then evil is logically necessary.
If God will demonstrate his mercy/justice in reality, then there must be a plausible ground for evil in the first place, or else the following mercy/justice would not be plausible either, but only a fake and everything sort of a theatre play. You cannot *PLAY* a game called sin-and-forgive! Or make-sin-and-be-angry. At least God isn't doing it. You neglect the question of the basis for human guilt! Notice, man is really culpable before God. On what basis? There is a real guilt of man, not a faked one. On what basis, is mankind really guilty before God? Why did Jesus have to pay a real price by dying a horrible death and shedding real blood, dying a real death, undergoing real suffering?
Because nobody is guilty without a real reason and culpability is a reality, mankind's state is genuinely directed against the holy God in the sharpest way.
Brett, you don't take the *GENUINENESS* of human guilt seriously! The Greater Good Defense underestimates the genuineness of guilt.
So if God's glorious mercy and justice are in any way real, then their basis, that is, human guilt must likewise be real. But on what basis is there a real culpability of man??! You may say there is no real guilt of man, however then there cannot be a real display of God's mercy and wrath.
-a helmet
"If evil served a greater good, it would be good!--simple."
ReplyDeleteNo it wouldn’t. Saying it is so does not make it so. This very point has been addressed many times on this blog alone, and yet, without resolving the counterpoints, you keep raising it unmodified.
Was the crucifixion of Christ a good or bad thing?
You are changing the discussion. We were discussing your charge of dualism, not culpability.
ReplyDeleteWell, if arminianism is dualism like Manichaeism, then calvinism is dualism in a similar sense.
ReplyDeleteNote, if God is ontologically merciful, then the next question is, what the mere concept of mercy means. It means unmerited favor towards evil. So the ontological mercy includes ontological evil. You cannot think of mercy without thinking of evil. The (ontological)nature of of mercy includes the nature of evil.
The same holds true for the ontology of justice and wrath. If mercy/justice/wrath are ontologically preserved in God, so is evil. Now, can the almighty God fully demonstrate his innate (ontological) attributes? -- Not without evil. Thus, the revelation of God's fulness hinges on evil, here's the dualistic nature of the Greater Good Defense.
Now, in order for God's mercy and justice to be genuine, the underlying human guilt must be genuine. Yet the greater good defense puts the cart before the horse. There's sin in order to respond to it, either mercifully or angry.
The Greater Good Defense owes the world the explaination how this mercy and justice, and their basis, the culpability, are in any way *real*.
-a helmet
Addition:
ReplyDeleteThe mere concept of evil isn't even part of God. Yet the mere concept of mercy includes the concept of evil. Mercy is a response to sin, not its reason!
"Well, if arminianism is dualism like Manichaeism, then calvinism is dualism in a similar sense. "
ReplyDeleteAll you’re doing is restating your initial accusation without taking into account the distinction made in the original post (which was subsequently pointed out to you in the commets). You need to either address that distinction, modify our accusation, or stop bringing it up.
"So the ontological mercy includes ontological evil."
Ontological creativity includes ontological creation. Dualism according to your logic.
“If mercy/justice/wrath are ontologically preserved in God, so is evil.”
This does not follow because if creativity is ontologically preserved in God, so is creation. Hence creation is eternal – dualism.
“Thus, the revelation of God's fulness hinges on evil, here's the dualistic nature of the Greater Good Defense.”
Thus, the revelation of God's fullness hinges on creation, here's the dualistic nature of the Christianity.
“The Greater Good Defense owes the world the explaination how this mercy and justice, and their basis, the culpability, are in any way *real*.”
This is a different objection from the one we were discussing
“The mere concept of evil isn't even part of God. ”
Did God have no concept of evil until it happened? Was he surprised? Did he learn something in that moment? Or does God still have no concept of evil?
“Yet the mere concept of mercy includes the concept of evil. Mercy is a response to sin, not its reason! ”
Nobody is saying it is the reason.
Note, if God is ontologically merciful, then the next question is, what the mere concept of mercy means. It means unmerited favor towards evil. So the ontological mercy includes ontological evil.
ReplyDeleteI'm fascinated—absolutely fascinated—to learn what "ontological evil" is. A Helmet, ironically, sounds like a Gnostic rather than a Christian.
A Helmet said:
ReplyDeleteNowhere does the bible suggest a good outcome of evil. That's why you have to be saved from evil, because it won't ever turn into good. You keep portraying God as a theatre player and have no idea about the genuineness of sin and its genuinely punishable essence. If evil served a greater good, it would be good!--simple. The bible however, knows of no bad tree with bad fruit that changes to produce good fruit.
A Helmet, you seem to be confusing what Calvinists believe about how God can bring about good FROM (allowing, permitting, yes even ordaining) evil, and God turning evil INTO good (which we deny). Good remains good and evil remains evil. Please represent our position accurately.
Also, Calvinists don't deny that man's guilt is genuine. You can disagree with Calvinism and state that Calvinists are being inconsistent in claiming that man's guilt is genuine even though ordained by God; but it would help if you attempted to show by argumentation how we're being inconsistent in our claims rather than merely asserting it.
Hello Brett,
ReplyDeleteOntological creativity includes ontological creation. Dualism according to your logic.
As said before, God's creation was very good, not evil at all. Yes, ontological creativity seems to be an attribute of God and creation is even said to be a revelation of God's glory. Glory however, is the radiation of one's essence, a self-revelation. Creation bears witness of God. Yet this creation was made good. Evil in any form isn't ontological in God. God's creation testifies of God. Evil does not. God's creation displays God's power. Evil does not. God's creation displays God's goodness. Evil does not.
Neither is God the origin of actual evil, nor of the idea thereof.
Nobody is saying [mercy] is the reason [for sin].
Yes, the greater good defense is saying this. Like this:
-Why is there sin?
-Because mercy (and justice) shall be exhibited.
The reason for the existence of sin is the greater good: mercy and justice demonstrated.
The greater good defense is a holey pail. It doesn't hold water. You should abandon it!
-a helmet
Dominic,
ReplyDeleteI was following Brett's differentiation between metaphysical and logical necessity and adopted the terms.
God is ontologically a merciful God.
God is onlotogically a creative God.
I added the phrase "ontologically evil". And I understand what Brett means. Perhaps you don't.
:-)
-a helmet
Hello AP,
ReplyDeleteCalvinists don't deny that man's guilt is genuine.
And theodicy indeed demands an explanation why/how man's guilt is genuine in face of a sovereign, almighty, all-loving God.
You can disagree with Calvinism and state that Calvinists are being inconsistent in claiming that man's guilt is genuine even though ordained by God;
I do. In fact, here's a problem. How is culpability real, if even human thoughts have their origin in God? Can man think thoughts that have never been thought before? Can he have ex nihilo thoughts? According to the doctrine of exhaustive determinism, the answer is no. So the question of genuine culpability stays.
but it would help if you attempted to show by argumentation how we're being inconsistent in our claims rather than merely asserting it.
I just did.
You should forsake the doctrines of grace.
-a helmet
a helmet,
ReplyDeleteCould you give us a glimpse of how you solve it?
You said you are working on a book, but surely you could throw us a bone. Anything that we can work with here.
OMT, both Calvinism and Arminianism use the greater good defense yet I've yet see you tell the Arminian to abondon his views, why?
Could you give us a glimpse of how you solve it?
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, I cannot give you a glimpse of how I solve it, and in order to explain why, I just posted an explanation on the blog
combatingcalvinism.blogspot.com
I've been asked this several times now, so I wrote that article. Please, see for yourself!
-a helmet
a helmet,thanks for your response.
ReplyDeleteInitially you said, "There are God and "non-God" as necessary forces to realize the greater good." After a bit of back and forth you acknowledge, "Yes, ontological creativity seems to be an attribute of God and creation is even said to be a revelation of God's glory."
Thus according to your logic, creation is a necessary non-God entity. If a necessary non-God entity is a basic definition of dualism, then that fits with creation as well as evil. If you don't want to acknowledge that Christianity (via the doctrine of creation) entails dualism, then you need to also drop the charge against the Greater Good defense.
Nobody is saying [mercy] is the reason [for sin].
"Yes, the greater good defense is saying this."
No. It isn't.
Suppose that I have the ability to throw a football 60 yards. Suppose that I want to impress my son with that ability. So I subsequently toss the football 60 yards. This begets a "Wow dad! That was great!"
You would say of this that, "Admiration is a response to a 60 yard toss, not its reason!" To which I reply, "True. His admiration was a response of my toss, not its cause. There is no backward causation here. However, my desire for that admiration was why I tossed it in the first place. Thus it flows like this:
My desire for X --> create conditions necessary for X --> X occurs in response to these conditions. It was not admiration itself, but the desire for it that was the reason for the 60 yard toss.
You have no alternative and the greater good does hold water. You should embrace it.
Hello Brett,
ReplyDeletethis dualism discussion was motivated by the comparison of arminianism with manichaeism. Manichaeism is a a dualism between opposing forces, namely light and darkness, which transfered to arminianism, would mean good and evil. Yin and Yang are dualism. So is Manichaeism and any conflict between mutually exclusive forces.
Now, of course man was made in thei image of God and found good. If you say there is some dualism between God and his creation in christianity, well go for it. But the manichaen dualism that Steve Hays tried to set arminianism equal with, is between good and evil, opposing, mutually conflicting poles. God isn't principially in conflict with his creation. But good is principially in conflict with evil.
That's a dualism you can neither apply to arminianism nor to authentic christianity in general.
-a helmet
Regarding your book:
ReplyDeleteQuantum mechanics is a complex and highly technical field. Many books have been written on the subject expounding different theories to resolve the many issues in quantum mechanics. Even so, summaries are still possible. Remarkably, a one page paper can be written to explain a particular theory. This is not the same as an exhaustive proof, but it can be distilled. Einstein once said that if you cannot explain something simply, then you simply don’t understand it. Incidentally the theory of relativity is not easysolutionism. It is elegant, but not easy.
I think your inability to say anything of your theory in less than 200 pages reveals that you simply do not understand it yet.
Was the crucifixion of Christ good or evil?
ReplyDeleteI wish I had more time for this!
ReplyDeleteI'll just refer you a third time to the diction that was made in the original article which you keep overlooking. You even quoted it in your first comment.
Oops. please read that as "distinction."
ReplyDeleteBrett,
ReplyDeletedid you read my post? It seems you don't understand what I am saying there.
Remarkably, a one page paper can be written to explain a particular theory.
Please notice, my book is actually not about a particular theory! What do I mean with that?
For instance, there is the particular theory called "Greater Good Defense". You can write a book about that theory. There is the theory "Free Will Defense". Now one could go and write a book about that theory. Or there is the theory that might be called "Necessary Opposite Theory". One could write a paper about that theory as well.
Or there is the theory of relativity. Of course you could write a book whose subject is that theory.
But my book is actually not on a certain theory, but it is itself the key to the solution of the problem of evil. In other words, the very solution is the reading of the words of the book.
Again, please see the cylinder lock analogy and how this is compared to my book. The book IS the "theory" itself! It is not about a theory, it is not written on theory A,B or C! No, the book itself is the key.
Please be sure to understand what I mean. You cannot give a "summary" of a password! Either you have the complete, correct password, with all characters in the right order and no character missing-- or you can forget it.
Likewise, it is useless to provide a sketch of a key profile. Either you explain the key exactly, with every detail, or it doesn't help at all.
Einstein once said that if you cannot explain something simply, then you simply don’t understand it.
The book is simple! The reading goes simple and smooth like a fitting key! But unless you insert the long key into the lock, you cannot unlock. By the way, the mathematical proof of Fermat's Last Theorem comprises about 100 pages. I don't think you could provide a summary or something like that on a page or two. This holds true for many, many complex theories! So what you're saying that anything fits on one page is absolutely wrong. So just because you can explain something (and understand it) doesn't mean you can pack everythng into an easy, short slogan.
Suppose this were your password:
_kris&4dorf
Now, would you be able to provide a "summarizing description" of this password, so that it would be of any use to others? So that they could sort of access your computer as well? Of course not. That's what I'm saying in this post and that's why I wrote it. (BTW, the password isn't mine....:-))
Sorry, no simple slogans possible!
-a helmet
I believe we've now discovered a working example of hubris.
ReplyDeleteBrett,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure which distinction you mean that I'm overlooking though I cited it myself. Are you referring to that:
That involves a very compartmentalized view of reality, with two ultimate, independent, opposing principles.
?
If so, what am I overlooking here? Is God's creation in opposition to God?
Yes, I read your post.
ReplyDelete"But my book is actually not on a certain theory, but it is itself the key to the solution of the problem of evil."
That is a bit presumptive. All theodicies posit themselves as the solution to the problem of evil. Your’s will be just one more theory. It is presumptive to call it the solution when it has never even been presented for critique.
The password analogy is actually a better analogy for what you are trying to convey. I don’t know how many pages your book is (will be) but if it actually as involved and non-compromising as a 200 page DNA sequence, that is difficult to take seriously. Although Peter Pike could Probably better speak to Fermat’s Last Theorm, but even that can be represented in a reduced form. The proof builds on previous proofs. To state it from beginning end may be quite involved, but there is often no need for it. If I accept Ribert’s theorem along with Wiles proof of the modularity theorem then I have my proof for Fermat’s Last Theorem. Then each of those proofs presuppose certain other mathematical truths. Not every step needs to be proven, much of it can simply be agreed upon.
Unless, of course, your theory does not build one iota on previous theodicies such that your’s is 100% original in every detail. But then again that too would be difficult to believe. Even so, what you do have could be submitted for examination. Grace would have to be extended for the portions of the key which have not yet been ground. A full unlocking is not yet possible. Ok. That is fine. But for each pin that you that you have successfully accounted for, we could read and understand that much.
"Are you referring to that:
'That involves a very compartmentalized view of reality, with two ultimate, independent, opposing principles.'"
Yes. Specifically the "independent" qualification. That seemed to be Steve's point. Evil exists.
Was the crucifixion of Christ evil or good?
I need to proof read better! Forget about the "Evil exists" part. I started going further down the path of the different approaches to dualism we have covered so far but thoughts better of it.
ReplyDeleteA helmet,
ReplyDeleteI need to move on but I appreciate the time you have spent with me. I look forward to reading your book some day and wish you well on that endeavor. Just as a parting admonition, I would encourage you to try harder to understand the position you oppose. You ought to be able to state it in such a way that you opponent can say, “Yes, that is what I believe.” Thus far I have not been able to say that of the things you have written against reformed theology. That is not to say you don’t have legitimate concerns, but it is hard for me to understand your concerns accurately when I can’t recognize my own position in your words.
God Bless
I believe we've now discovered a working example of hubris.
ReplyDeleteActually, A Helmet reminds me a lot of a friend I once had, in South Africa, when I was about 15. He was always very imaginative and prone to exaggeration. But he started to act strangely. One day he finally divulged to me that he had been recruited by the CIA. They had been so impressed by his ambiguous skills that they had sent someone from America to sign him on. I wanted to believe him. But after a couple of weeks, as his raving become more openly delusional, I was forced to conclude that mental illness was the more likely explanation. Eventually he dropped off the radar. Could be he moved to America to help on Sekret Swwl intelligence operations. Maybe that's where he thinks he is. But it's still probably a padded room in reality.