@Entropy56 Hello. I know this is a long time coming so I don't know if you're still around or not. Anyways, I am a student of Dr. Groothuis and was present at the filming of this video. The connection between your argument and this video is rather loose so I'm not sure if you meant it as a rebuttal to his argument or not. If indeed you did, I would suggest visiting Dr. Groothuis' blog just search "the constructive curmudgeon" - he replies a lot I think.
1. -- It is interesting that Christians claim God demands people love him and that our love by definition must be free to chose not to love him. Christians use the argument of free will as a way of explaining why God sends some people to hell even though he knew in advance they would chose not to love him.
But then for some unexplained reason those rules don't apply to the saints in heaven who will worship God forever whom he promised eternal life. They cannot sin yet can still love God.
2. -- So it seems that God could have created people on Earth who loved him without the possibility of sin. And since God chose to knowingly create people who would go to hell then God is not good. And if God is not good then God does not exist.
3. -- You might ask me who am I to judge God? But it is the Christian who set the terms of love, not me. They said that free will is a requirement for love, and so, since there is no possibility for sin in heaven, then there is no possibility of love in heaven either. So the very thing God required on earth is not required in heaven and thus God failed to get what he wanted - namely free loving worshipers.
I do not believe that your argument is valid because the line of reasoning you use does not point to the conclusion that God does not exist as you conclude in part two. This argument only works against a Christian understanding, and only one form of Christian understandings of this issue. Dr. Groothuis is a Calvinist so his understanding is different from mine. Also I don't think your argument dispels this particular understanding of God either....
@SobrietySobriquet I tried to argue that God is not good, therefore does not exist. You disagree? Sure, technically God could still exist as an evil tyrant, but I don't think that is what most Christians want. They are committed to the idea that whatever God does is by definition good.
The question then becomes who determines the definition of good? This is similar to the problem of God commanding Abraham to sacrifice his son, which most would agree is evil.
My reasons for thinking this are: First this argument only seems to work if the people in heaven in this scenario are metaphysically distinct from the people on earth in said scenario. These people who have already lived a life composed of free choices may or may not be metaphysically prevented from making bad ones in heaven. It's possible that only the incentives to sin have been removed, rather than the possibility of sin's actualization.
@SobrietySobriquet If the incentives for sin are removed in heaven, then why not on earth? As I already argued, why the double-standard? All men on earth will fall in the face of temptation, would they also fall in heaven?
@Entropy56 So why should God create beings who can do wrong? To allow for the existence of good. When we say something is good, as God did in Genesis, we imply that it could be otherwise. So the actuality of good requires the possibility of evil. Now why should God create a situation such as heaven? To implement justice. If good does not ultimately win out over evil, God is unjust.
Thank you for stating your position so civilly, in contrast to many Youtube discussions.
@SobrietySobriquet There seems to be a similar argument that in order for the possibility of a good God, then there must also be an evil God. Ying and Yang?
If God is eternal, does that mean the possibility of evil is also eternal? Why does God, who is defined as good, need to be referenced by anything else? Isn’t he self-contained? Go back in time billions of years or more where only God existed; was God good then? Where was evil back then define God as good?
My understanding of good evil differs from a Manichean or Daoist understanding in that I don't believe evil eternally exists in actuality. Evil exists as a modal property of free choices whenever those free choices have the potential to reflect or contrast with God's nature. God is the standard, therefore what constitutes good on the part of God is a different situation than for the non-standard. I realized however that much of what I said was unnecessary, explained....
@SobrietySobriquet “modal property” “potential” vs “actuality” Hmmm… Definitely not the material for an evangelical camp meeting, I suspect. I might agree with some of it, but admit don’t know what to say except that I keep hearing, that for one to love God one must have free choice, which is why this point came up. One must ask how it is conceivably possible for an omnipotent God to allow for independent wills. This eventually plays into the hands of Calvinists which I suspect you are not.
@Entropy56 I'm not sure I understand, but it seems as though your definition of omnipotence and mine are different. It seems from my reading of that paragraph that you are using omnipotence as something like: For all items which constitute abilities, lets call that x, x is the sole and exclusive property of God. OR, God is the sole possessor of every member of the set of things that represent elements of power. (Hope I'm using my terms correctly)
It goes like this; God has a nature that must display not only his mercy, but also his justice. This is why Christians "fear" God. He also has announced his future plans which are immutable. Therefore actual free will on the part of man is not possible, etc. God creates an individual fully aware he will burn in Hell forever, but the lucky ones go to Heaven. How does one come to have a predisposition for faith?
@SobrietySobriquet Yes, there are Christians that don't grant deterministic sovereignty to God. Many Calvinists do believe in determinism though. They have their own way getting around the problem of election, predestination, foreknowledge, and how it relates to love and goodness, etc.
There are definite problems with free will from a pure materialistic worldview too. Life is a mystery and that is why Doug G. has a job. He has said that suffering is the most difficult problem in theology.
@Entropy56 I agree that materialism would fit best with determinism and Dr. Groothuis is a lot more deterministic than I am, though we both agree on a much thicker metaphysic than that of naturalism. But I still maintain God is not wrong in creating free beings, if God is a free agent and God is the greatest conceivable being, possessing all qualities that it is better to have than to lack, then it is better to be free than not free.
(Represent wasn't the right word there, these things actually are the constituent parts of maximal power) I would see omnipotence rather as the ability to do that which it is possible to do. Obviously I see some actions as inherently impossible, such as creating a world full of created beings with the potential for good without those same beings having also the potential for evil. The existence of entities that possess true ability does not negate omnipotence, thusly defined.
Whether citizens of heaven can metaphysically do evil or not is not really the issue, what's important is that they are not people all the sudden deprived of choice. Dedicated Christians will often say that their goal is to day by day become more and more conformed unto the image of that which God created them to be, and are ultimately awaiting the day when they will be free from sin. So being free from sin is not the end of choice, it's the completion of a Godward life.
@Entropy56 So why not be created that way initially? I know it seems to you like God is wrong in doing it the way I think He did, and that would be true if only from humanity's perspective. However God could either create or not create. By creating he allows the potential for freely chosen love. By creating free beings, God allows greater potential for good and the possibility of God's mercy having a recipient. If we could only do so, it would mean little to say we acted like God's nature.
@SobrietySobriquet I don't see why it is not possible for God to simply create beings that love him completely and cannot do otherwise - metaphysically or potentially. I think this is a restraint placed upon God by those who assert that love and obedience must be free. However, whether one has free will or not, God (damn well) knew what the outcome would be for individuals. You say it had to be this way because God has a need to show off his mercy and justice…. Continued…
Boyd says that God knows all that there is to know, but claims that future free acts do not exist in the present to know, therefore God can still be omniscient (knowing all that there exists to know) and still not know the outcome of future free choice, since these do not exist in this view right now. Even if foreknowledge and goodness cannot be squared, then, which I don't concede, Christianity is by no means dead. Sorry for the length this is fifth response.
So, it seems that the issue is about God and I, as an individual, mean far less to him than his “need” to show off. It seems that if God cannot do other than what he did then he is not free.That shall be of little comfort to those burning in Hell. Heh. I assert that the problem of foreknowledge intensifies the argument that God not good. I’ll sit back and let the Calvinists and Arminians hash that one out.
BTW, do you even believe Hell exists? Annihilation?
I believe hell exists but not annihilation. As far as God's need to "show off" his mercy and justice, that's an idea I'm playing with but haven't fully formulated of yet. It sounds a bit more Calvinist, which you are correct in assuming I am not. As for whether or not God is free, I guess that's in the other response.
Oh I should note, as you probably are aware, that there are Christians who do not believe that God has exhaustive foreknowledge. This view, called the Open view, Open theism, or the Openness view, is expressed by Christians such as Greg Boyd, Clark Pinnock, etc. Although this position is not presently mine, Boyd seems to make it more feasible by defending this view and still defending God's omniscience.
i like the argument...save for the implication that evolution necessarily contradicts the Bible...i think it's only a matter of rethinking the meaning of our terms and thinking "outside the box"...anyway, the argument is pretty good as a whole...tnx for posting...
For more on this, see chapter 18 of my book, Christian Apologetics (InterVarsity Press, 2011).
DougGroothuis 5 months ago
For more on Pascal, please see my book, On Pascal (Wadsworth, 2003).
DougGroothuis 1 year ago
@Entropy56 Hello. I know this is a long time coming so I don't know if you're still around or not. Anyways, I am a student of Dr. Groothuis and was present at the filming of this video. The connection between your argument and this video is rather loose so I'm not sure if you meant it as a rebuttal to his argument or not. If indeed you did, I would suggest visiting Dr. Groothuis' blog just search "the constructive curmudgeon" - he replies a lot I think.
SobrietySobriquet 1 year ago
Comment removed
SobrietySobriquet 1 year ago
Comment removed
SobrietySobriquet 1 year ago
1. -- It is interesting that Christians claim God demands people love him and that our love by definition must be free to chose not to love him. Christians use the argument of free will as a way of explaining why God sends some people to hell even though he knew in advance they would chose not to love him.
But then for some unexplained reason those rules don't apply to the saints in heaven who will worship God forever whom he promised eternal life. They cannot sin yet can still love God.
Entropy56 2 years ago
2. -- So it seems that God could have created people on Earth who loved him without the possibility of sin. And since God chose to knowingly create people who would go to hell then God is not good. And if God is not good then God does not exist.
Entropy56 2 years ago
3. -- You might ask me who am I to judge God? But it is the Christian who set the terms of love, not me. They said that free will is a requirement for love, and so, since there is no possibility for sin in heaven, then there is no possibility of love in heaven either. So the very thing God required on earth is not required in heaven and thus God failed to get what he wanted - namely free loving worshipers.
Entropy56 2 years ago
@Entropy56 My response:
I do not believe that your argument is valid because the line of reasoning you use does not point to the conclusion that God does not exist as you conclude in part two. This argument only works against a Christian understanding, and only one form of Christian understandings of this issue. Dr. Groothuis is a Calvinist so his understanding is different from mine. Also I don't think your argument dispels this particular understanding of God either....
SobrietySobriquet 1 year ago
@SobrietySobriquet I tried to argue that God is not good, therefore does not exist. You disagree? Sure, technically God could still exist as an evil tyrant, but I don't think that is what most Christians want. They are committed to the idea that whatever God does is by definition good.
The question then becomes who determines the definition of good? This is similar to the problem of God commanding Abraham to sacrifice his son, which most would agree is evil.
Entropy56 1 year ago
@Entropy56
My reasons for thinking this are: First this argument only seems to work if the people in heaven in this scenario are metaphysically distinct from the people on earth in said scenario. These people who have already lived a life composed of free choices may or may not be metaphysically prevented from making bad ones in heaven. It's possible that only the incentives to sin have been removed, rather than the possibility of sin's actualization.
SobrietySobriquet 1 year ago
@SobrietySobriquet If the incentives for sin are removed in heaven, then why not on earth? As I already argued, why the double-standard? All men on earth will fall in the face of temptation, would they also fall in heaven?
Entropy56 1 year ago
@Entropy56 So why should God create beings who can do wrong? To allow for the existence of good. When we say something is good, as God did in Genesis, we imply that it could be otherwise. So the actuality of good requires the possibility of evil. Now why should God create a situation such as heaven? To implement justice. If good does not ultimately win out over evil, God is unjust.
Thank you for stating your position so civilly, in contrast to many Youtube discussions.
SobrietySobriquet 1 year ago
@SobrietySobriquet There seems to be a similar argument that in order for the possibility of a good God, then there must also be an evil God. Ying and Yang?
If God is eternal, does that mean the possibility of evil is also eternal? Why does God, who is defined as good, need to be referenced by anything else? Isn’t he self-contained? Go back in time billions of years or more where only God existed; was God good then? Where was evil back then define God as good?
Entropy56 1 year ago
@Entropy56
My understanding of good evil differs from a Manichean or Daoist understanding in that I don't believe evil eternally exists in actuality. Evil exists as a modal property of free choices whenever those free choices have the potential to reflect or contrast with God's nature. God is the standard, therefore what constitutes good on the part of God is a different situation than for the non-standard. I realized however that much of what I said was unnecessary, explained....
SobrietySobriquet 1 year ago
@SobrietySobriquet “modal property” “potential” vs “actuality” Hmmm… Definitely not the material for an evangelical camp meeting, I suspect. I might agree with some of it, but admit don’t know what to say except that I keep hearing, that for one to love God one must have free choice, which is why this point came up. One must ask how it is conceivably possible for an omnipotent God to allow for independent wills. This eventually plays into the hands of Calvinists which I suspect you are not.
Entropy56 1 year ago
@Entropy56 I'm not sure I understand, but it seems as though your definition of omnipotence and mine are different. It seems from my reading of that paragraph that you are using omnipotence as something like: For all items which constitute abilities, lets call that x, x is the sole and exclusive property of God. OR, God is the sole possessor of every member of the set of things that represent elements of power. (Hope I'm using my terms correctly)
SobrietySobriquet 1 year ago
@SobrietySobriquet The word I was looking for was "sovereignty".
It goes like this; God has a nature that must display not only his mercy, but also his justice. This is why Christians "fear" God. He also has announced his future plans which are immutable. Therefore actual free will on the part of man is not possible, etc. God creates an individual fully aware he will burn in Hell forever, but the lucky ones go to Heaven. How does one come to have a predisposition for faith?
Entropy56 1 year ago
@Entropy56
I guess that assumes more determinism than I grant.
SobrietySobriquet 1 year ago
@SobrietySobriquet Yes, there are Christians that don't grant deterministic sovereignty to God. Many Calvinists do believe in determinism though. They have their own way getting around the problem of election, predestination, foreknowledge, and how it relates to love and goodness, etc.
There are definite problems with free will from a pure materialistic worldview too. Life is a mystery and that is why Doug G. has a job. He has said that suffering is the most difficult problem in theology.
Entropy56 1 year ago
@Entropy56 I agree that materialism would fit best with determinism and Dr. Groothuis is a lot more deterministic than I am, though we both agree on a much thicker metaphysic than that of naturalism. But I still maintain God is not wrong in creating free beings, if God is a free agent and God is the greatest conceivable being, possessing all qualities that it is better to have than to lack, then it is better to be free than not free.
SobrietySobriquet 1 year ago
@Entropy56
(Represent wasn't the right word there, these things actually are the constituent parts of maximal power) I would see omnipotence rather as the ability to do that which it is possible to do. Obviously I see some actions as inherently impossible, such as creating a world full of created beings with the potential for good without those same beings having also the potential for evil. The existence of entities that possess true ability does not negate omnipotence, thusly defined.
SobrietySobriquet 1 year ago
@Entropy56
Whether citizens of heaven can metaphysically do evil or not is not really the issue, what's important is that they are not people all the sudden deprived of choice. Dedicated Christians will often say that their goal is to day by day become more and more conformed unto the image of that which God created them to be, and are ultimately awaiting the day when they will be free from sin. So being free from sin is not the end of choice, it's the completion of a Godward life.
SobrietySobriquet 1 year ago
@Entropy56 So why not be created that way initially? I know it seems to you like God is wrong in doing it the way I think He did, and that would be true if only from humanity's perspective. However God could either create or not create. By creating he allows the potential for freely chosen love. By creating free beings, God allows greater potential for good and the possibility of God's mercy having a recipient. If we could only do so, it would mean little to say we acted like God's nature.
SobrietySobriquet 1 year ago
@SobrietySobriquet I don't see why it is not possible for God to simply create beings that love him completely and cannot do otherwise - metaphysically or potentially. I think this is a restraint placed upon God by those who assert that love and obedience must be free. However, whether one has free will or not, God (damn well) knew what the outcome would be for individuals. You say it had to be this way because God has a need to show off his mercy and justice…. Continued…
Entropy56 1 year ago
@Entropy56
Boyd says that God knows all that there is to know, but claims that future free acts do not exist in the present to know, therefore God can still be omniscient (knowing all that there exists to know) and still not know the outcome of future free choice, since these do not exist in this view right now. Even if foreknowledge and goodness cannot be squared, then, which I don't concede, Christianity is by no means dead. Sorry for the length this is fifth response.
SobrietySobriquet 1 year ago
@SobrietySobriquet Continued...
So, it seems that the issue is about God and I, as an individual, mean far less to him than his “need” to show off. It seems that if God cannot do other than what he did then he is not free.That shall be of little comfort to those burning in Hell. Heh. I assert that the problem of foreknowledge intensifies the argument that God not good. I’ll sit back and let the Calvinists and Arminians hash that one out.
BTW, do you even believe Hell exists? Annihilation?
Entropy56 1 year ago
@Entropy56
I believe hell exists but not annihilation. As far as God's need to "show off" his mercy and justice, that's an idea I'm playing with but haven't fully formulated of yet. It sounds a bit more Calvinist, which you are correct in assuming I am not. As for whether or not God is free, I guess that's in the other response.
SobrietySobriquet 1 year ago
@Entropy56
Oh I should note, as you probably are aware, that there are Christians who do not believe that God has exhaustive foreknowledge. This view, called the Open view, Open theism, or the Openness view, is expressed by Christians such as Greg Boyd, Clark Pinnock, etc. Although this position is not presently mine, Boyd seems to make it more feasible by defending this view and still defending God's omniscience.
SobrietySobriquet 1 year ago
i like the argument...save for the implication that evolution necessarily contradicts the Bible...i think it's only a matter of rethinking the meaning of our terms and thinking "outside the box"...anyway, the argument is pretty good as a whole...tnx for posting...
vinceism1 2 years ago