tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post8379588802509225071..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Video games and the argument from evilRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-72410379744164370142010-06-11T17:00:29.117-04:002010-06-11T17:00:29.117-04:00JD WALTERS SAID:
"Why do I get the feeling y...JD WALTERS SAID:<br /><br />"Why do I get the feeling you don't necessarily think God is omnibenevolent?"<br /><br />True. I believe that God is benevolent, but not omnibenevolent. Only a universalist could consistently maintain that God is omnibenevolent, and even then, he has an odd way of showing it.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-78980298694625834582010-06-11T13:25:36.565-04:002010-06-11T13:25:36.565-04:00"Redeem for whom? For the injured party? For ..."Redeem for whom? For the injured party? For every injured party?"<br /><br />Yes, I believe so, except perhaps those who end up completely rejecting God. <br /><br />"You seem to be combining the freewill defense with a soul-building theodicy."<br /><br />That's probably fair to say. God allows the consequences of our actions, but he coopts even the bad consequences to his good purposes. The textbook case, of course, is the story of Joseph. His brothers do a terrible thing to him, which God allows to happen, in order to bring Joseph to Egypt, to ultimately save Israel as well as the Egyptians from famine, and his brothers are morally reformed in the end. "You meant it for evil, but God used it for good"<br /><br />"Either separately or in combination, that type of theodicy generally presupposes the omnibenevolence of God. God acting in the best interests of everyone."<br /><br />Why do I get the feeling you don't necessarily think God is omnibenevolent?<br /><br />"On the other hand, the details of your argument involve some agents who morally evolve at the expense of others."<br /><br />Not at their <i>ultimate</i> expense. I think the problem with many theodicies is that they are not diachronic. Again, take the story of Joseph. If you just looked at the incident where Joseph is thrown down the well and gets sold into slavery, you would think that this is just a gross injustice and that God should have prevented it from happening. But look where Joseph ended up. It might seem that Joseph's brothers morally evolve at Joseph's expense, but he himself became prince of Egypt and saved Israel from perishing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-58398699700175271752010-06-11T08:54:08.071-04:002010-06-11T08:54:08.071-04:00JD WALTERS SAID:
"I do think that the good o...JD WALTERS SAID:<br /><br />"I do think that the good of moral choices being meaningful justifies allowing some horrendous consequences, but of course I also believe that in the end God will redeem all those evil consequences."<br /><br />Redeem for whom? For the injured party? For every injured party?<br /><br />You seem to be combining the freewill defense with a soul-building theodicy.<br /><br />Either separately or in combination, that type of theodicy generally presupposes the omnibenevolence of God. God acting in the best interests of everyone.<br /><br />On the other hand, the details of your argument involve some agents who morally evolve at the expense of others. In that event, you seem to ditch omnibenevolence for something more utilitarian.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-9140311047391014632010-06-11T00:12:33.372-04:002010-06-11T00:12:33.372-04:00Hi Steve,
You raise a lot of good questions which...Hi Steve,<br /><br />You raise a lot of good questions which I'm not prepared to answer at this point. I didn't mean to develop a full-fledged theodicy, I hadn't posted on the blog in a while and just wanted to 'warm up' again with a few thoughts that occurred. I do think that the good of moral choices being meaningful justifies allowing some horrendous consequences, but of course I also believe that in the end God will redeem all those evil consequences. He doesn't 'rewind' or let people go back to the beginning of the level. Bad things that people do cannot be undone. But going forward, he can redeem the evil, in ways we can only glimpse in a glass, darkly right now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-278686461970200702010-06-09T21:18:01.564-04:002010-06-09T21:18:01.564-04:00Similar arguments could be constructed for determi...Similar arguments could be constructed for determinist theodicies, then. Suppose for full moral development one must experience evil; not only that, but it may be the only way God could have us learn the value of goods like mercy. So God determined to bring about these actions and events so his designed creatures could learn by means of the design plan.Maul P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15227129983621069565noreply@blogger.com