This is where I think your view runs into problems. Your view robs the term "good" of all inherent meaning. "Good-ness" ceases to become a property that God possesses and it's meaning is subsequently subsumed in simply what God "wants" to happen. But this is not true. God is recognizably "Good". The definition from the Hard Determinist merely wraps the definition of "Good-ness" into "Omnipotence" so that the two have no distinct meaning. Given your definition, than if God were cruel, capricious, deceitful, or what-have-you, than he would STILL have to be described as "GOOD". Given your definition, to say "God is good" is nothing more than to say "God is ______".
God is good just as God is logical. Both are eternal attributes of God. But your definition of good is the problem.
Good is that which brings glory to God.
Good is not that which makes the most human beings happy.
In order for you and I to discuss this further we need your concrete definition of "good" as it pertains to God.
No, he's just "All-Powerful".
No, he is both so long as in everything he does he is pursuing his own highest honor and glory.
Well, the fact that God is NOT the author of evil is the problem.
No it is not. Not in the context of this discussion. This discussion is about air-tightness- whether or not there IS a view which is consistent through and through.
To the adherent of LFW then, yes, in that sense. But that is only to say that God is the "author" in the sense that God chose to create.
But he chose to create knowing full well the trillions of murders and child molestings and rapings that would take place before he would eventually eradicate evil.
He did not create blindly. This world is the one he always intended to create.
You've got to deal with that and show how your view addresses that problem.
And you don't get to attack the future knowledge of God in so doing- not and remain orthodox.
Skandelon's arguments fell through here. He wanted to pretend mystery so that he could continue to resist Calvinism.
But there is no mystery about how God knows the future. He KNOWS it- precisely as it will unfold.
There is a second problem with your quote above. It is that God did not JUST create the world and then evil come to pass in it.
God SUSTAINS the world- on a molecular level. Nothing moves apart from his power. The very synopses of your brain look every millisecond to God for power and guidance.
God powered the arm that dropped down upon the skull of Able.
This is something your system has to address. God did not JUST create a world knowing EXACTLY how much evil would unfold in it, but God also sustains that world every second.
That is only to say that God is the "author" in that: post the creative act evil occurred. But an adherent of LFW must only accept that evil was unavoidable given God's purposes. He is NOT the author in the sense that a Determinist would say. Determinism forces God to be the "author" in that God is:
1.) a "Cause" (either proximate or immediate) or
2.) that evil was initially conceived in his mind as a means that he desired in order to create an end.
Nothing that exists was not known about by God forever in the past.
I can conceive of evil before it exists without being evil myself. God certainly can.
True, at least, it is not the sum total in any way. But, I would say that a truly "Good" God would seek (by definition) human welfare to the extent possible.
This is where you are most wrong, imo. This proves that you define good based, in part, by how God behaves towards sinners.
It has you believing that in order to be good God HAS to be as nice as possible to sinners.
This is very problematic.
The welfare of man is not even PART of what makes God good. Not even part of it.
That he is benevolent towards sinners proves he is gracious but it is not an essential part of his goodness.
Then "Evil" itself is also robbed of any meaningful definition because "evil" is now a critical and indispensable component of maximal "good". Your view would hold that:
1.) Good is whatever God wants
2.) God wants Evil in order to maximize his glory
3.) God's glory is the measure of "Good"
4.) Therefore "Evil" is indispensable for ultimate "Good"
That is right.
As an mere existential issue it serves as no defeater....indeed. Simply crying that "Your God is a 'meany-head", is decidedly no argument. But a valid objection would be:
God's "goodness" in the Determinist model is inconsistent with the "goodness" of God as he has revealed himself in the Scriptures and in Natural Theology.
I would argue that man can KNOW the real parameters of "goodness" in at least three ways
1.) The Scriptures
2.) Natural Theology
3.) Intuition
I would argue that the Hard Determinist model that you are suggesting is NOT consistent with a right view of "goodness" as understood in these ways.
The problem, brother, is that your system leads to the EXACT same conclusions.
God is willing, more than willing, for billions of people to go to hell in order to achieve an ultimate good.
God is MORE than willing for children to be molested and others starve to death by the millions in order to achieve an ultimate eternal good.
Your system has that exact same problem.
But for me, it is not a problem. That's the only difference. I accept this fact and say, "God, you are the measure. I trust you. Man is not the measure. you know what you are doing. And I recognize that all the suffering that will ever take place from human beings is an infinitesimally small price to pay for the glory that the Trinity will receive forever for having made this very world."
