@xris,
xris;125867 wrote:There are so many contradiction in your stated belief I have trouble knowing exactly how to reply. You appear to invent this illogical god as questions are posed. Im so glad you came to your god with such ease and that god decided to allow that child access to heaven with so much pain but no knowledge of him. So how must I suffer to be able to gain gods image?
So its decided by your view that evil was not a necessity. So why does a god with his all mighty power and his immaculate goodness allow evil to exist?
lol. This is not a made up belief system. It's based on Molinsim.
Molinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
IMO Molinism is a sort of Hard Determinism that includes free will(in a sense).
have we not been discussing the problem of evil this entire thread?
Did we not already determine that:
- evil is an objectively morally unjustifiable intent or desire
- pain and suffering are not evil.
It then follows that the only reason evil exists is because we are free moral agents
It also follows that God allows pain and suffering because they are not bad/evil for us.
So the real question then becomes is free will worth the evil we can commit?
To which I emphatically say YES! Keep in mind that for all the evil we are capable of, we are capable of even greater good. In the same way that darkness cannot overcome light....no matter how dark the room may be it cannot extinguish a light source.
Next consider a toy robot that can walk and talk and ask yourself if you'd rather be that. I think the answer is no.
Next consider your concept of perfection. Consider a glove that fits my hand perfectly. Is that glove any less perfect because it cannot bake me a cake? No. We can still say the glove is perfect because it is exhibiting it's nature. In a similar way, it is in our nature to experience pain and suffering. We cannot say we aren't perfect because we cannot live a pain free and suffering free life because it is in our nature to do so. The only reason we are not perfect is because we are free moral agents who do not always do what is right.
---------- Post added 02-07-2010 at 04:46 PM ----------
I will try explain what Molinism posits or at least as I interpret it in as simplistic a way as I can:
First we must define God's ultimate parameter and that is, IMO, that people come to a
free will knowledge of Him.
Now,
God has 3 different types of knowledge which I will call His knowledge of
could happen,
would happen, and
will happen.
Lets start with the overall example of Situation A: where we must choose either X or not X
1.
could happen gives God the knowledge of what is possible absolutely. For example, it is not possible to do both X and not X. Could happen essentially lays out necessary truths. Through this knowledge God formulates all possible world's that he could create.
2.
would happen gives God the knowledge of what will occur if we we find ourselves in Situation A. Through this knowledge God's choices are then narrowed from all possible worlds to all feasible worlds. The reason this is so is because of our presupposition that God wishes to maintain our free will. The implication is that if we are in Situation A, God knows, for example, that we will choose X even if His desire is for us to choose not X.
3.
will happen gives God the knowledge, once God decides which world to create, of exactly what will occur in that world.
That being said, consider this:
God may know(through his middle knowledge/would happen) that, by being in Situation A, Person Z will freely choose God. But being in Situation A, Person Z will die.
God is not forced to create this world unless, no other situation exists in which Person Z will freely choose God. What I mean to say is, it may be the case that, unless Person Z finds himself in Situation A, then in no other situation will Person Z freely choose to come to a saving knowledge of God. If that is the case, since Gods overriding goal, as I stated above, is to have Person Z come to a free will knowledge of Him, then God has a duty to create that world.
This also means that there may be
no world in which Person Z will ever freely choose X, but given
any situation, he will always choose not X, If that is the case, then God can not create a world in which Person Z will freely choose X.
The reason I think this is a sort of Hard Determinism with free will elements is because If God knows what we'll choose given a set of conditions, He simply needs to manipulate the conditions such that we will do what He wants. Say for some reason God wants me to choose Y, well if a situation exists such that, if placed in it, I will freely choose Y, God needs but to place me in said situation.
So the world is hard deterministic is because God sets up ALL the situations.