Is God the Author of all Evil?

[Marcia]

God put the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" in the garden.

Gen 2: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Evil existed prior to at least the creation of the Garden of Eden.

Well, we know that Satan sinned before man did, since he tempted Eve in the Garden before man sinned. So there was evil from Satan's sin, and the angels that went with him.

 

[Brandon C. Jones]

As I said above to Webdog this all sounds like further proof and substantiating evidence from you. Your response proves the conclusion of my argument and P is less than a first truth. I already said above it does not prove P false, but that was not my point, my point was to prove that P was less than a first truth.

You need to show that my counterexample is beneath logical discussion and is symptomatic of being produced by someone who is less than a person of reason and may qualify as crazy or a subhuman for rejecting what is universally known as a "first truth." For instance, if I tried to show a counterexample to prove that the law of noncontradiction is false (philosopher joke: I would simply say it's both true and false at the same time in the same way; how can you prove me wrong? ).

While I'm sure some people who hold to libertarian free will may view all compatiblists as unreasonable and making everyone subhuman, hopefully there's more to the charge than mere intuition . In the example, I was ignorant that I couldn't leave the room but I was blameworthy for choosing to stay there with the sole intent to annoy you; I acted on my desire to annoy you. To be sure, annoying you is not sinful but it's not nice or Christianlike to behave in such a way, and I am responsible for doing it in the example even if I could not have left the room. My choice to stay in the room and annoy you was not constrained because it appeared to me that I could have simply left before you woke up. An act (including a thought) is blameworthy or praiseworthy if it is based on one's desires and is not constrained. There is choice there Heavenly Pilgrim and we are justly judged by God for the evil choices we make.

I suppose you could focus on the difference between a free moral act and just a free act, but that seems to be an immaterial distinction regarding this discussion. I could tweak the counterexample to include beyond a free act to a free moral act, but the logic of it would not change so such a tweaking should be unnecessary.

The counterexample does not quibble with whether or not choice is involved in free acts: on that much we agree. The counterexample is aimed to address the part of your claim that tries to sneak in libertarian free will with talk of "could have done otherwise" or "under the same set of circumstances." We agree on the choice part, but does there have to be another factor to make an act free, namely the principle of alternative possibilities. Is this the misunderstanding that you think I'm arguing about choice? It's not choice that I'm arguing about when it's at the creaturely level regarding acting on one's desires without constraint. The issue is whether or not that is enough for freedom. It is for me, but not for you because it lacks the extra qualification of meeting the principle of alternative possibilities which talks of "could have done otherwise" and the like.

There are other Frankfurt counterexamples that surely address some of the points you brought up, and that is the point I'm trying to make. You can't marginalize compatibilists as irrational pariahs because your intuitions point you to libertarian free will. That may be your intuition, but let's not universalize it for everyone say that God revealed it to everyone and make it tantamount to a law of logic. Like I said is it too much for you to at least agree that what is a universal intuition is the place of freedom in blame or praise, but the verdict is still out as to if that freedom is libertarian or compatibilistic? Why on earth is that too much to ask especially from someone who claims to believe that our finite minds can't grasp all realities and there is much of how God works that is ineffable?

PS-Who mentioned fate? Get necessity out of your head I swear some Baptist Board gnome is including the word "necessity" into my posts or something when you read them. I believe that God freely chose to create this world, and He can declare the end from the beginning; that is quite different fom believing in logical fatalism.

Regards,
BJ

 

[BobRyan]

As to my view making God the author of sin I'd be careful how narrowly you want to pin that charge because most Arminians believe that God passively foreknew the evil actions in this world but chose to create this world as it is anyways, yet they do not believe that this alone makes God the author of sin. I agree with them that their view does not make God the author of evil, and my view does not either. We should all agree that God holds creatures responsible for choosing evil actions because Scripture reveals this to us.

Well it is easy to see that the Ariminian view does not make God the author of evil - as we may know that the terrorist will do more evil our KNOWING it does not mean we MADE them do it.

But it is much harder to imagine how Calvinism can MAKE God the OWNER of ALL the deeds of evil people without also having him take the blame for what HE makes happen!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Brandon C. Jones]

If I CAPITALIZE some WORDS, then I may APPEAR more persuasive

Just kidding BR, after 15,000 posts I think we're all aware what your thoughts are on this among other things. Do you still post your "Calvinist Future Scenario" or whatever it's called regularly?
​

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BJ: You need to show that my counterexample is beneath logical discussion and is symptomatic of being produced by someone who is less than a person of reason and may qualify as crazy or a subhuman for rejecting what is universally known as a "first truth."

HP : Logical discussion
------------------------
Your counter example
:smilewinkgrin:

Your example was simply not reasonable, and being the reasonable man that I am, I am able to be the judge of that.

Seriously, the example lacked any semblance of moral blameworthiness by attaching the wrong attitude to the wrong person in the wrong way at the wrong time to be blameworthy.

Because one does not utilize the wisdom God gave to man in the development of their theology does not equate to the man not being in possession of the knowledge of first truths. You utilize this first truth of reason everyday, yet deny it in your theology. It is beyond me why reasonable men would develop and hold to such a contradiction of life/theology. Even a small child recognizes this first truth by remarks such as “I couldn’t help it!” “I didn’t mean to!” Any reasonable man or women will see that these remarks are in fact reasonable cause not to place blame if in fact the pleas are in keeping with the truth.

BJ: I suppose you could focus on the difference between a free moral act and just a free act, but that seems to be an immaterial distinction regarding this discussion. I could tweak the counterexample to include beyond a free act to a free moral act, but the logic of it would not change so such a tweaking should be unnecessary.

HP: Hey that is a thought. At least if it is a moral act blame will apply. Be sure to clearly establish the intent so as to be able to determine clearly its moral basis. Tweak away.

BJ: The counterexample does not quibble with whether or not choice is involved in free acts: on that much we agree. The counterexample is aimed to address the part of your claim that tries to sneak in libertarian free will with talk of "could have done otherwise" or "under the same set of circumstances." We agree on the choice part, but does there have to be another factor to make an act free, namely the principle of alternative possibilities. Is this the misunderstanding that you think I'm arguing about choice? It's not choice that I'm arguing about when it's at the creaturely level regarding acting on one's desires without constraint. The issue is whether or not that is enough for freedom. It is for me, but not for you because it lacks the extra qualification of meeting the principle of alternative possibilities which talks of "could have done otherwise" and the like.

HP: Your words here show to me that you indeed understand the problem clearly. If there is no alternative possibility, or nothing one could have one to the contrary, you have just described a reflex action, or any number of necessitated actions, but you have not entered the realm of intent, choice, or morals, blameworthiness or praiseworthiness. You are bound fast only to things of necessity, not freedom.

There is another principle that applies to any discussion of freedom and necessity, regardless of the illustration. If there is only one possible consequent for a given antecedent, not freedom can be predicated. For freedom or choice to be predicated, there must be at least two possible consequents for any given antecedent. There are no exceptions. If you believe there is, set forth another illustration that you feel denies this basic principle.

BJ: There are other Frankfurt counterexamples that surely address some of the points you brought up, and that is the point I'm trying to make. You can't marginalize compatibilists as irrational pariahs because your intuitions point you to libertarian free will.

HP: Do not confuse intuition with first truths. They are not the same. One should be as sure of the veracity of first truth as they are of their own existence once they are brought to the attention of the mind. They need nothing to support their veracity and they change not. They are God instilled principles of truth, without which nothing could be established as truth.

BJ: Like I said is it too much for you to at least agree that what is a universal intuition is the place of freedom in blame or praise, but the verdict is still out as to if that freedom is libertarian or compatibilistic?

HP: What in the world is universal intuition? I would agree that with some the verdict is still out on the issue of freedom being necessitated or not. Do you need living proof? Pinch yourself.

 

[Brandon C. Jones]

Well, you have failed miserably to prove your ridiculous notion that libertarian freedom is a first truth. What a universal intuition is is your false claim that libertarian freedom is as true as existence itself. It's a reified intuition presented as a law of logic.

My example showed that my action was not a reflex action because it was based on my desire without constraint. A reflex action does not involve intents of the heart, but my decision to stay and annoy you did.

HP: Do not confuse intuition with first truths. They are not the same. One should be as sure of the veracity of first truth as they are of their own existence once they are brought to the attention of the mind. They need nothing to support their veracity and they change not. They are God instilled principles of truth, without which nothing could be established as truth.

LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL. I LOVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

I couldn't have said it better myself about you HP, lol.

This is not the first time I've felt like part of a Monty Python skit on this board. This statement perfectly applies to you as far as I'm concerned. In fact, that was the point of my modus tollens, which you have failed to prove false since you've spent not a few words trying to support something, that according to you needs no support-perhaps it's not as self evident as the law of non-contradiction. I think plenty of things can be established as truth while believing in compatibilistic freedom. For instance, 2 + 2 = 4 even if compatibilistic freedom holds. In fact, I fail to see what truths cannot be established if compatibilistic freedom holds instead of libertarian freedom. Hmmm, the only one I can come up with is the "truth" that libertarian freedom is true; well that is surely something less than a first truth. However, if the laws of identity and non-contradiction, actual first truths, are not true 2 + 2 = 4 would be problematic and any truth would be difficult to establish. Like I said before, perhaps the first truth is freedom's necessity for praise or blame, but the verdict is still out this side of eternity what kind of freedom that is.

I just freely pinched myself because I desired to and I was not constrained to. [Waiting, waiting] I still don't believe in libertarian freedom HP; what was the point of telling me to pinch myself?

I wasn't joking that for you to get past my modus tollens, you must prove that my beliefs are the result of someone who is not a person of reason or a subhuman and that my argument was illogical and irrational. You've failed to do that. In order to claim that something is a first truth that's the kind of evidence you need; you don't have it with libertarian freedom and I'm not the only compatibilist in the world you know. Your argument shows you disagree that the example reflects freedom, but that is because of your presuppositions not because the argument defies the laws of logic. You can't say the example defies the first truth of libertarian free will because the argument itself involves proving whether or not libertarian freedom is indeed a first truth (this is a logical fallacy my friend).

Like I've said before I think there should be some humility in discussing these things, but forgive me for failing to see humility in someone trying to equate their theological views with logic itself given by God to all people. There's nothing humble in that especially if the only support for the position is intuition (my guess for your presuppositions--and yes all I have is guesswork because someone refuses to reveal more about his/her metaphysics, so I guess it's intuitions guiding your ship). You've presented mere circular reasoning: everyone believes this because I believe that everyone believes this and I believe it because everyone believes this. Brandon doesn't believe this, well Brandon doesn't count because he should believe this because I believe that everyone believes this so he's just being difficult.

You can tweak the example yourself. Simply include, before the first sentence that Brandon is 17 years old and under the authority of his parents who have told him not to purposely annoy Heavenly Pilgrim. Thus, his actions were sinful, blameworthy, and did not honor his parents as Scripture commands. That wasn't too hard to do because the logic still holds. You think Brandon was not blameworthy because there was not another condition of "could have done otherwise" despite Brandon's intent to do evil and choice based on that intent to carry it out. Why is Brandon off the hook here, surely this qualifies as a free action. He could make the case that the door was locked and he was carried in there and he had no choice, but that would be a lie. He chose to do disobey them ignorant of the fact that the door was locked; his parents I doubt would find him blameless in this example (unless they firmly believed in libertarian freedom, then perhaps he wouldn't get in trouble because they'd consider his decision merely a reflex action).

Well in other times when I get in a decent conversation and then get hit with the Monty Python moment, I usually decide to stay off the board for a while and let others duke it out. Perhaps that is in order this weekend.

Take care my friend,
BJ

PS-All of those necessary words again. Man that gnome is quite a busy body including necessity in my posts. I believe that God freely chose to create this world, and that He declares the end from the beginning. That is far different than believing in logical fatalism.

 

[BobRyan]

BJ: The counterexample does not quibble with whether or not choice is involved in free acts: on that much we agree. The counterexample is aimed to address the part of your claim that tries to sneak in libertarian free will with talk of "could have done otherwise" or "under the same set of circumstances." We agree on the choice part, but does there have to be another factor to make an act free, namely the principle of alternative possibilities. Is this the misunderstanding that you think I'm arguing about choice? It's not choice that I'm arguing about when it's at the creaturely level regarding acting on one's desires without constraint. The issue is whether or not that is enough for freedom. It is for me, but not for you because it lacks the extra qualification of meeting the principle of alternative possibilities which talks of "could have done otherwise" and the like.

That is an example of doublespeak to claim that "total depravity IS FREEDOM" when even GOD calls it "SLAVERY" in Romans 6 and in Eph 2:1-6.

Why keep denying what God already stated?

The only way to BREAK that chain of slavery is to have "God DRAWING ALL" which thank God HE DOES John 12:32!!

Another part of God's Word that Calvinism needs to ignore.

But what IS clear is that EVEN Calvinism will admit that THOSE DRAWN ARE enabled to CHOOSE something OTHER than rebellion against God!

So again - why deny Calvinism in the tiny areas where it IS right??

Why deny everything??

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Brandon, (and the list)

May I offer a real life illustration for you to judge?

A women went out to her car to go to the store and became engaged with a conversation with someone else. Her toddler infant was in the house being watched by someone else. Unknown to her, the toddler had made her way out outside through a door that was not locked, and toddled her way behind the car without anyone seeing her do it. As the women got into the car and started to back up, she accidentally run over the small child killing the child.

Would you find this women guilty of murder? Was this woman in violation of any moral law? What principles would you use to establish guilt or innocence?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BJ: I just freely pinched myself because I desired to and I was not constrained to. [Waiting, waiting] I still don't believe in libertarian freedom HP; what was the point of telling me to pinch myself?

HP: Sometimes things do not work the same for all persons. Some have thicker skin and skulls that others. You might try :BangHead: :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Brandon C. Jones]

Brandon, (and the list)

May I offer a real life illustration for you to judge?

A women went out to her car to go to the store and became engaged with a conversation with someone else. Her toddler infant was in the house being watched by someone else. Unknown to her, the toddler had made her way out outside through a door that was not locked, and toddled her way behind the car without anyone seeing her do it. As the women got into the car and started to back up, she accidentally run over the small child killing the child.

Would you find this women guilty of murder? Was this woman in violation of any moral law? What principles would you use to establish guilt or innocence?

What response would you expect if you understand compatibilistic free will?

Murder involves intent to kill, and I am ignorant of the local laws of the jurisdiction around her whether it counts as involuntary manslaughter due to negligence of some sort. I doubt any locality has written the law that strictly though considering no one checks around their cars for toddlers before getting in them and backing up. I personally don't find her negligent, but I don't write the laws. She acted on her desire to freely get in her car and leave and there was no constraint. I assume (without getting into her head) that she had no desire to kill someone with her actions.

That's a sad story indeed. If it happened in real life I'm sure the woman was crushed.

There are infinite examples to provide of this sort where the distinction between compatibilism and libertarianism doesn't come into play. After all both systems are aiming to explain real life are they not?

Okay back to my break...I've got some reading to do.

 

[BobRyan]

Brandon, (and the list)

May I offer a real life illustration for you to judge?

A women went out to her car to go to the store and became engaged with a conversation with someone else. Her toddler infant was in the house being watched by someone else. Unknown to her, the toddler had made her way out outside through a door that was not locked, and toddled her way behind the car without anyone seeing her do it. As the women got into the car and started to back up, she accidentally run over the small child killing the child.

Would you find this women guilty of murder? Was this woman in violation of any moral law? What principles would you use to establish guilt or innocence?

I think that actually happened here in Atlanta this year.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BJ: Okay back to my break...I've got some reading to do.

HP: The point I was trying to show with this illustration is that you utilized first truths of reason to reach your conclusion, cognizant of the fact or not. God has programmed man with certain principles of truth that guide us in all our judgments of moral issues. It matters not what the locality has written into law, for the heathen which have not the law, do the things contained in the law, thus becoming a law unto themselves according to Romans. Even the heathen have a conception of right and wrong based on first truths of reason. We are just as compelled by conscience to live and judge according to these first truths regardless of what society allows or disallows.

This was an actual occurrence and the mother and family was rightfully much distraught.

I believe you showed wisdom in your judgment. Man did not reveal the principles of truth to you that lay at the heart of your judgment. You know intuitively via the first truth of reason that if there is no choice involved, and there is no intent to do evil involved, one cannot justly attach moral blame or praise.

Don’t let me keep you from your reading and studies. I sincerely hope that we can continue to discuss these issues as you have time. I have to attend as well to some duties myself. You have made me think, have presented your points in a manner that has captivated my attention, and have a lot to offer this list. You have a very bright intellect.

Let me leave you for now with this verse. Pr 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

 

[Brandon C. Jones]

Aww, I'm not used to such nice words in the debate forums . However, people much smarter than me have presented much better arguments in their works and I've mentioned some of them. I like Feinberg's "No One Like Him" and for what it's worth when Keith Yandell (a staunch libertarian advocate) was my professor in a class that covered freedom and foreknowledge he still had us read Feinberg's book. I think it fairly shows both sides of this debate and each position's biblical and philosophical arguments. You should check it out. In fact, I should mention that a certain Frankfurt counterexample on this thread is from his book but the names were changed in my version of it to exploit the guilty .

I'm not denying your concept of first truths. You are correct without them we would not be able to understand God's revelation including what He has revealed in our hearts regarding right and wrong. However, my quibble was your attempt to elevate a type of understanding of freedom as a "first truth." My way of understanding freedom still involves choices based on desires, but it is also compatible (hence the term compatibilism) with God decreeing the events of the world including free acts.

Your sharp as well, and interacting with other peoples' positions and making sure that you attack the position as your opponent understands it will greatly help bolster what you believe. This is helpful not only in what Haanegraff calls "in-house debates" like this topic, but it can also help bolster the truth of the Christian faith to unbelievers. However, our love and actions from our love will make even greater strides than coherent arguments .

May we all have a great Lord's Day tomorrow (or today for Bob) and praise our wonderful God!

 

[BobRyan]

May we all have a great Lord's Day tomorrow (or today for Bob) and praise our wonderful God!

Now see we do agree on "something"!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BJ: However, our love and actions from our love will make even greater strides than coherent arguments .

May we all have a great Lord's Day tomorrow (or today for Bob) and praise our wonderful God!

HP: Words well spoken indeed. I have truly appreciated the attitude of most everyone on this list. The women and men of this list have truly been a blessing to me. May the love of Christ be seen in and through us and may that love shine as a beacon to the lost world around us.

And a wonderful Lord's Day to all as well!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BJ:
You can tweak the example yourself. Simply include, before the first sentence that Brandon is 17 years old and under the authority of his parents who have told him not to purposely annoy Heavenly Pilgrim. Thus, his actions were sinful, blameworthy, and did not honor his parents as Scripture commands. That wasn't too hard to do because the logic still holds. You think Brandon was not blameworthy because there was not another condition of "could have done otherwise" despite Brandon's intent to do evil and choice based on that intent to carry it out. Why is Brandon off the hook here, surely this qualifies as a free action. He could make the case that the door was locked and he was carried in there and he had no choice, but that would be a lie. He chose to do disobey them ignorant of the fact that the door was locked; his parents I doubt would find him blameless in this example (unless they firmly believed in libertarian freedom, then perhaps he wouldn't get in trouble because they'd consider his decision merely a reflex action).

HP: Now we are getting somewhere. You just tweaked your illustration just enough to move clearly from the realm of necessity into the realm of freedom and choice, thus into the realm of morality.

In your first attempt of this illustration, there was not the slightest hint of any ‘intent’ or ‘choice’ to annoy, but rather simply that you were carried in without your consent or will being involved. Now you add the words, “despite Brandon's intent to do evil and choice based on that intent to carry it out.” You have just left the world of necessity due to your tweaking, and entered into the real of morality via the means of choice, without which no morality can be predicated.

Now true blame can be assessed for your intents, because they are the product of your own will apart from force or coercion. Your illustration, as now tweaked, is in clear support of the first truth of reason I set forth, that in order to do anything blameworthy or praiseworthy, man must have choice.

PS: On a side note, just because Brandon, in the illustration, as a 17 year old did not in your eyes honor his parents by intending to annoy Heavenly Pilgrim, is no sign that Brandon sinned. It must be established that Brandon knew the intrinsic value of the command in order to have committed 'sin.'

For instance, a child may disobey his parents without sin. The reason why is that the child is only reacting to punishments or rewards at that early age. They do not yet comprehend the intrinsic value of the command apart from punishments or rewards. A child is only held morally accountable when he or she reaches an age where they clearly understand the intrinsic value of the command in and of itself apart from punishments or rewards.

My question in your illustration should have been, did Brandon, at age 17 understand clearly the intrinsic value of the command? The Jews, I believe, place the age of accountability at somewhere around 18 as I recall. It may be younger for some and older for others.