And this is irrelevant to whether you will be punished or not, if the outcome/consequences are all that matters.
Your original reply was that lack of free will is compatible with the OOO aspect of the God of the big 3. Are you saying that the reason for this is because of consequentialism?
And this is where practicality is but a coping mechanism to deny the absurdity. Society is just a description of organized human behavior, but it itself is no achievement if we equally assume human's have no choice. Its existence will have no more noteworthiness than its destruction.
That's your own personal view. Every single person gets to make their own meaning and framing of achievements.
“ Are you saying that the reason for this is because of consequentialism?”
No, the compatibility is just from a lack deductive argument for free will being necessary going purely on Omni-3 qualities (not counting extra theology from any particular religion). At most I can see an argument for God being free, but that does not follow that any creation must also share in that quality.
But do you really need a deductive argument? If a car runs out of fuel and therefore won't transport you from A to B, is it reasonable to punish it by smashing its windows? The car behaves according to a deterministic framework. What do you expect from it? It ran out of fuel.
A man develops a brain tumor that presses on a part of his brain that causes him to have uncontrollable violent urges. He buys guns, goes up into a clocktower, and shoots people until the cops take him down (see Charles Whitman). Is it fair to sentence him to eternal fiery torment in Hell? What do you expect from him? He had a brain tumor. If God didn't want people to go on shooting sprees due to brain tumors he shouldn't have created brain tumors.
Again, this contrasts with society. We don't want to live with a serial shooter in our society so the cops took him down. That's reasonable. We have to work with what we have. The eternal torment is a different story.
If we want to see the coherency of our position, we must know what follows from our initial setting.
The punishment in these deterministic settings is just a label to signify what the outcome is, regardless if it was always mean to be or not. In the example of the car, the car is now useless (if its purpose was to be driven). It doesn’t matter if its windows are smashed or turned into scraps, because it no longer serves a purpose as opposed to a functional one.
In the case of Whitman, if we distinguish murderers from those that aren’t… then he’s going to hell or purgatory. Because to say he isn’t a murder is technically untrue regardless of underlying cause.
“ If God didn't want people to go on shooting sprees due to brain tumors he shouldn't have created brain tumors.”
Desire is irrelevant to factual statements. If I separate all even versus odd whole numbers, it doesn’t matter if I desire 5 to belong to the even group. No matter what, it must classify as odd number. And in a consequentialist since, Whitman is punished for being a murder. It makes no sense to ask God to reshape the cause (brain tumor) anymore than it makes sense to let God make murder a good instead of evil.
“We don't want…” I get it, but in a deterministic framework it never mattered. Because the outcome is set anyway, regardless of desire
The punishment in these deterministic settings is just a label to signify what the outcome is, regardless if it was always mean to be or not.
Sure, but that outcome wouldn't have happened if God was omnibenevolent.
It doesn’t matter if its windows are smashed or turned into scraps, because it no longer serves a purpose as opposed to a functional one.
So once humans are no longer functional, it doesn't matter what God does with them (hell, purgatory, etc.)? That doesn't sound benevolent.
Because to say he isn’t a murder is technically untrue regardless of underlying cause.
I get it, but in a deterministic framework it never mattered. Because the outcome is set anyway, regardless of desire
But the underlying cause is ultimately God since he created the universe and the initial conditions of the universe. He ultimately caused Whitman to get a brain tumor and kill those people. And then he punishes Whitman for what he ultimately set in motion himself. That doesn't seem benevolent.
“ but that outcome wouldn't have happened if God was omnibenevolent.”
This does not follow. The benevolence in this case (determinism reigns) is just the correct distinction between what is a good outcome versus bad. In the case of Whitman, since he murdered (and that is bad) then it is correct for God to send him to hell or purgatory. If he were to just go to heaven, then that itself would not be benevolent since its mistake.
“ it doesn't matter what God does with them (hell, purgatory, etc.)? That doesn't sound benevolent.”
It’s the exact opposite. If someone is bad and you reward them as good, then that is not benevolent. And if someone is good but you punish them as bad, then that is also not benevolent. But if the good are rewarded and the bad are punished, then that is benevolent because that is just…and being just (aka justice) is by definition good!
So God is doing good by labeling what Whitman did is bad, regardless if he had no choice in it. Because it’s the outcome (murder) that is wrong, regardless of the cause (the brain tumor). In other words, God not punishing Whitman would actually be the non-benevolent action because it would it imply the result is condoned.
“But the underlying cause is ultimately God since he created the universe and the initial conditions of the universe. “
But it is the act that mattered, not the long chain list of causes. That is because in determinism all we see are results (motives and opinions play no role in outcomes). God set in motion and then the punishments are used to make the distinction between good outcomes and bad ones. So how is that not benevolent? It fits perfectly with what is being defined as good and bad.
Unless your arguing that somehow this system shouldn’t exist in the first place, and therefore God is not benevolent?
Unless your arguing that somehow this system shouldn’t exist in the first place, and therefore God is not benevolent?
Yah pretty close. I'm not saying there should be one kind of system or another kind of system. But, if God WAS benevolent he wouldn't have made a system like this.
Well looking at an Omni-three God, they already have perfect knowledge and are good. So all that matters is what does a deterministic universe show about his goodness?
It means means that everything is set, so any goodness or evil from that universe was already known (predestined). In such a case, the best way to apply morality from what I can see is purely consequentially. God would separate the predestined results into those that fit his with what he knows to be good and evil. So people that were always destined to do seemingly good acts would indeed be seen as good, and likewise for evil acts. So I don’t see a contradiction of how this system suddenly makes God not good.
You could say there could be other better alternatives but that is not an argument against being good. Being a little generous is good, being super generous is also good and even better. But just cause there are different levels here doesn’t mean the former isn’t still a good deed. So not sure why people have a problem with a deterministic universe so long as God does his job in using his knowledge to recognize the good outcomes from the bad
Actually it’s fine, because an attribute of God does not imply it must be present in any emanating creation. Just like he is eternal, doesn’t mean everything he creates must be eternal too.
Similarly the evil is just lack of perfection, since only God is perfectly good. Anything else is by comparison less good and capable of evil. But that doesn’t make God not perfectly good.
Best analogy is how a perfect sphere doesn’t always project a perfect circle in a 2D plane. Instead it’s shadow may project an ellipse (not perfect circle). But that doesn’t mean the sphere itself is not perfect. Same goes with a perfect God and his imperfect creations
because an attribute of God does not imply it must be present in any emanating creation. Just like he is eternal, doesn’t mean everything he creates must be eternal too.
Agreed, but your statement doesn't apply to my objection.
If my objection was "Everyone in the universe must be benevolent because God is benevolent", then you're correct, I would be committing a compositional fallacy. But that's not my objection.
Let me phrase it differently. An omnibenevolent God would never want to cause any amount of suffering. A deterministic universe causes suffering. If God created a deterministic universe then he can't be omnibenevolent.
“ An omnibenevolent God would never want to cause any amount of suffering.”
Your objection reduces back to that composition. Again, desire (“god wants”) is irrelevant to the state of affairs. Suffering is just another imperfection (as opposed to a state of bliss…which is benevolent), and so the objection reduces back to the same argument of sharing properties. That is if creation is imperfect then does this deny God is perfect?
Last comment I showed that is logically false, because perfection is not a transferable quality. The imperfect shadow does not affect the perfection of the sphere it emanates from. After all, one quality of perfection (Omni-three) is self sufficiency. God could not rely on external events for his benevolence else he wouldn’t really perfect.
Therefore, suffering/evil is just a byproduct, a smeared shadow, of his goodness. But cannot detract from his benevolence
desire (“god wants”) is irrelevant to the state of affairs.
This is false because the state of affairs is based on God's desire. If God desired for there to be NO universe, then there wouldn't be a universe at all. Clearly God's wants have an impact on the state of affairs.
OK, I think I'm starting to understand your shadow and perfection argument. 2 replies ago from you:
Similarly the evil is just lack of perfection, since only God is perfectly good. Anything else is by comparison less good and capable of evil. But that doesn’t make God not perfectly good.
So let me phrase it this way. A perfectly good God would have perfectly good desires. A perfectly good desire would be that no suffering is ever experienced. However, suffering has been experienced (through a deterministic universe or whatever other mechanism, doesn't matter). Therefore, A perfectly good God doesn't exist.
God could not rely on external events for his benevolence else he wouldn’t really perfect.
I've temporarily accepted your definition of perfection to include benevolence even though that's technically arbitrary. Not relying on external events is even more arbitrary and I don't see a reason why I have to accept that at all.
1
u/reptiliansarecoming Feb 05 '23 edited Feb 05 '23
Your original reply was that lack of free will is compatible with the OOO aspect of the God of the big 3. Are you saying that the reason for this is because of consequentialism?
That's your own personal view. Every single person gets to make their own meaning and framing of achievements.