Theodicy

[Luke2427]

Okay, I gotta say that I actually lean more towards what Luke is saying in this thread;

...

To keep this conversation on Luke's point, focus on the definition of evil: the absence of good. Without good, the only choice is evil. The only intent is what's best for the individual, with no regard for others or God. I believe this is the point Luke is trying to make. Please feel to correct me, and/or clarify further.

I am not speaking about choice.

I am speaking about the origin and nature of evil.

Evil is not dependent fully upon choice.

Pride is not necessarily the result of choice, for example.

Pride is the result of ignorance (privation of understanding), and delusion (privation of truth), irreverence (privation of the fear of God), etc, etc, etc...

Pride can CAUSE a choice but pride is not necessarily the result of choice.

Such was the case with Lucifer when pride was found in him.

 

[Don]

I am not speaking about choice.

I am speaking about the origin and nature of evil.

Evil is not dependent fully upon choice.

Pride is not necessarily the result of choice, for example.

Pride is the result of ignorance (privation of understanding), and delusion (privation of truth), irreverence (privation of the fear of God), etc, etc, etc...

Pride can CAUSE a choice but pride is not necessarily the result of choice.

Such was the case with Lucifer when pride was found in him.

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.

 

[Luke2427]

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.

Basically, yes.

 

[Don]

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.

 

[Skandelon]

To bring this back to the opening post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skandelon 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.

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?

 

[Luke2427]

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?

That's irrelevant.

 

[Skandelon]

Oh, it is? Ok. :laugh:

 

[Luke2427]

Oh, it is? Ok. :laugh:

Glad you finally get it.

 

[Skandelon]

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.

 

[Luke2427]

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.

What is funny to me is your claim that there is contradiction and your total inability to substantiate that claim.

 

[Don]

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.

 

[Skandelon]

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?

 

[Luke2427]

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?

You've already been proven wrong on this so thoroughly that you have not been able to offer any retort- just unsubstantiated unwarranted claims.

And cold, which is nothing, does cause h2o which is something to become ice.

Once again that is plain enough for a small child to understand. You do not get it, not because you lack the intellect but because you lack the objectivity.

 

[Don]

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.

 

[Winman]

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.

 

[Aaron]

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.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

So, if evil is mere the absence of something, then it is NOTHING, thus you have just said, "Nothing originated the intent."

How can NOTHING cause SOMETHING?

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.

 

[webdog]

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.

 

[webdog]

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.

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

 

[Skandelon]

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.

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:

I am wondering how evil is the absence of something.

Sin/Evil is much more than the absence of God or His love - it is the presence of something that is actively set against Him. That, by definition it seems, could not be described merely as an 'absence.'

This very much betrays Arminianism - wicked men are not simply those unredeemed by God who would love Him very much if properly introduced. They know Him, reject Him, and fight him with all their hearts, souls, minds and strength.

That is to say that evil includes, in some sense, the lack that he asserts. But it is certainly not limited to it.

If evil wars against God (and it does), then this is as much nonsense as saying terrorism does not exist - there is only a lack of love for the targeted city/people. Wars cannot be accounted for by merely noting a lack of harmony.

Here is another...

Cold is the absence of thermal energy, not heat. Individual particles of matter have kinetic energy and are bouncing around (or wiggling around for solids), and that is thermal energy. Cold is indeed what we call having less of this energy. Technically, heat is the transfer of thermal energy and so is not the same thing as thermal energy, so cold is not the absence of *heat*.

It seems to me that comparing this to evil and good without any proof that good and evil have a similar relationship as cold and hot is stupid. You could compare any pair of opposites to any other pair of opposites, and use that to prove all manner of ridiculous things.

and...

Would the earth have been called cold or dark or void before the heat, light, and stuff came along? Void means empty right? Out of nothing God created all these things.

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.