Theodicy

Perhaps "choice" was poor wording on my part. It would be better read as "without good, the only thing left is evil."

In other words: I was agreeing with you.

 

To bring this back to the opening post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skandelon
You still haven't answered the question about how something (Satan's evil intent) came from nothing (the absence of good). When you do that, I'll proceed...


Skandelon has to agree on the definition of evil (the absence of good). If he does, then his question is automatically answered about where Satan's evil intent came from.

Luke has answered Skandelon by stating that evil is the absence of good; and without good, Satan can only do evil, and have an evil intent.

If Luke and Skandelon disagree on the definition of evil, that's where this discussion should focus. The discussions and quibbling about defining the analogies have taken away from the main point.

 

If that is your definition, then you have something (intent) being caused by nothing (the vacuum), which violates the determinists premise that something can't be caused by nothing.

Why not just say that Satan caused or originated the intent while in the vacuum?

 

Oh, it is? Ok. :laugh:

 

Yes, I get that you think something was created by nothing. And I get that you dismiss that contradiction it as being irrelevant to this discussion.

That is funny to me.

 

Before this degenerates much further -- Skan, please reconsider. He's not saying that Satan's intent came from nothing; he's saying it came from an absence of being able to be any other way.

 

The absence of something can't be the cause of something. There must be another factor involved otherwise its "nothing causing something."

For example, the absence of heat alone doesn't make ice. A created substance must exist with the characteristics that it will turn to ice when those given circumstances are present (H2O). So too, the intent is not a result of the absence of goodness alone. Satan, a created being, was present and must have been created with a nature that would necessarily "turn evil" in a given circumstance. Would you agree with this? If not, why?

 

This goes back to whether you agree with Luke's definition of evil: the absence of good. If you agree with that definition, then you have to ask: when good is removed, what's left? If only evil is left, then any intentions are a result of that evil nature. Thus, the intent is not caused by nothing, but by what remains.

If you disagree with Luke's definition, then you need to revisit that issue before the conversation can go anywhere else.

 

But Satan was not created without good, the scriptures say he was "perfect" in the day he was created.

Eze 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

So, you cannot argue that Satan's sin was caused by an absence of good.

The same can be said of Adam and Eve, the scriptures say all of God's creation was "very good", yet they both sinned.

So, Luke's view is not scriptural.

 

Luke's view is eminently Scriptural. The very definition of sin is a missing of the mark, a falling short. Scandal defined sin in another thread as a deficiency.

We are all born sinners not because of what Adam passes to us, but because of what he doesn't. And that thing is life.

 

Sure....nothing causes a void & you've heard the adage that "Nature abhors a void" Logic assumes in the absence of Good then Evil will prevail.

 

The "nothing causes something" crowd here should then view Darwinism as plausible as that is what he based his entire anti-God creation account on.

 

For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

 

I stumbled upon the Puritan thread discussing this exact subject, but ironically the Arminians were making the case that evil was merely the absense of good. Here is the reply of one Calvinist:

Here is another...

and...

I thought these might help to see there is more to this matter from both perspectives, but if Luke wants to keep dismissing my statements and claiming victory to make himself feel better, rather than having an honest discussion on the subject, let him at it. I'd rather discuss it with someone like you, Don, who seems to actually want to engage the subject.