[jayceeii]

You know nothing about what it takes to make a world, nor has anything like that been revealed in religion. Thus 2 is unsupported. You are only imagining about God’s powers.

[Johan]

That is an interesting stance to take. The methodology that Dr. Craig uses is that everything is logically possible until it has been shown to be logically impossible. This is the same standard the OP was employing. If this is true, then it is up to the person claiming that it is impossible to demonstrate it first, otherwise possibility is assumed.

It seems that like me, you disagree with Dr. Craig and take the alternative stance. Basically that impossibility and possibility both must be demonstrated before either stance can be accepted. Without a good argument, we neither know that it is possible or impossible for God to create a world absent suffering given that we don’t know the capabilities of God. I think this approach makes the most sense, however it completely breaks the modal ontological argument since you can no longer merely assume the possibility of God existing for premise 1.

[jayceeii]

 “Without a good argument, we neither know that it is possible or impossible for God to create a world absent suffering given that we don’t know the capabilities of God.”

How about:

1. God, being good, makes the best worlds that He can make. Always.
2. This world has suffering.
3. Making a world without suffering is not possible for God.

Trying to insist on a shallowly omnipotent God results in presumptions He must have been pulling His punches in this one, not doing His uttermost that it be a happy world.

But you can remember too, the suffering of pain is overwhelmingly a blessing as it alerts the entities to trouble in their bodies. The negative suffering is from bodily imperfections.

Remember also that intelligence should be at work in humans to prevent suffering but they often neglect these bodies, such as through obesity, walking directly into suffering.

Many of the diseases of old age are preventable through better diet and more exercise. So some suffering humans are experiencing God might have prevented could they be guided.

[Walter]

1. God, being good, makes the best worlds that He can make. Always.
2. This world has suffering.
3. Making a world without suffering is not possible for God.

The default position is that everything is possible for God.

[jayceeii]

One can say this is a simplistic and unrealistic view. I don’t want to say childish, but spiritually immature, obviously. We find ourselves in a real world. If God made this why do people speculate He could have done more if He wanted? Doesn’t any good worker always do his best? But God hasn’t been seen as a Worker, despite creation needing work.

[Walter]

One can say this is a simplistic and unrealistic view. I don’t want to say childish, but spiritually immature, obviously. We find ourselves in a real world. If God made this why do people speculate He could have done more if He wanted? Doesn’t any good worker always do his best? But God hasn’t been seen as a Worker, despite creation needing work.

I agree that it is a simplistic and unrealistic view, but it’s not my view. It is a view shared by lots of theists, including Craig.

[jayceeii]

I hadn’t quite looked at it this way before, that a shallowly omnipotent God making a faulty creation would seem devious. The only God that is trustworthy is one who always does His best but comes across limitations in what can be done with the stuff of creation.

I’ve been guessing a secret motive for this talk about total omnipotence is flattery, that giving God all the credit they expect to receive all the benefit. But it is possible God could have used open cooperation from the citizens of this globe to achieve the very best.

[Walter]

You know nothing about what it takes to make a world, nor has anything like that been revealed in religion. Thus 2 is unsupported. You are only imagining about God’s powers.

I am simply using a definition of omnipotence that most people, including Craig, agree upon.

It onIy only takes God’s Will and the execution of His Will to make a world. There are no other conditions for a being who is capable of willing things from nothing.

[jayceeii]

I argue for the Real God in the face of a history of shallow expectations of omnipotence. Science is only discovering what the Real God actually made, in all of its dimensions. But the churches aren’t making a living connection to science, keeping God on a dusty and imaginary shelf. They say God is the Creator, but don’t really believe He made it all.

[Johan]

Firstly, if God themselves is incapable of creating a world absent suffering, then what good is God?

Secondly, your points wreak of privilege and an almost child like naivety of the world around us. To say that “the suffering of pain is overwhelmingly a blessing as it alerts the entities to trouble in their bodies.” means you are oblivious to the people that suffer chronic pain that serves absolutely no purpose. There is something wrong with the nervous system that triggers pain receptors when there is no actual stimulus for the pain. Yes, in general pain is a warning that something is wrong, and as such is a good thing, but not all pain is created equal. Some pain is unnecessary and crewel.

As for elderly disorders being a result of bad health, that too is too naïve. Some can be in great physical health, but still die of a heart attack while out for a jog or walk. Someone can otherwise be healthy, but then get struck by Alzheimer’s or dementia, etc. not all of our ails are self inflicted.

[jayceeii]

JB: Firstly, if God themselves is incapable of creating a world absent suffering, then what good is God?

JC: I can certainly say I’m glad yours is not the voice of the Creator! You’d throw it all in the garbage because of a few rough edges. Yourself included, I presume.

JB: Secondly, your points wreak of privilege and an almost child like naivety of the world around us.

JC: These are just and well-considered overviews, meant to endure the test of time (and wisdom).

JB: To say that “the suffering of pain is overwhelmingly a blessing as it alerts the entities to trouble in their bodies.” means you are oblivious to the people that suffer chronic pain that serves absolutely no purpose.

JC: There is negative suffering from bodily imperfections, but the vast majority enjoy the majority of life in a relatively pain-free condition. Just look at any of the armies of the world. You make it sound like everyone is a cripple. Even so were that the best God could do, there you’d be.

JB: There is something wrong with the nervous system that triggers pain receptors when there is no actual stimulus for the pain.

JC: I guess it is upon you then to design and build a better nervous system, then implement it in all the bodies. Shouldn’t take much longer than to write that sentence.

JB: Yes, in general pain is a warning that something is wrong, and as such is a good thing, but not all pain is created equal. Some pain is unnecessary and cruel.

JC: You almost admitted my main point but won’t let me walk away with it, will you? You make it sound like God made a 10% good world, when I’d say it is a 90% good world.

JB: As for elderly disorders being a result of bad health, that too is too naïve.

JC: Humans have been so slow to realize this that the relevant statistics aren’t even being kept. Yet there is general agreement the major killers, stroke and heart disease, are a result of diet. Of course people can’t even stop smoking, though it’s a proven killer.

JB: Some can be in great physical health, but still die of a heart attack while out for a jog or walk.

JC: Citing the extreme case is poor argumentation, not balanced. Have you heard of statistical outliers?

JB: Someone can otherwise be healthy, but then get struck by Alzheimer’s or dementia, etc. not all of our ails are self inflicted.

JC: You think you can smash me down by hunting around for counterexamples while ignoring the vast majority who are given healthy bodies, if they don’t destroy them. It’s the fly in the ointment that really bothers you, although it was an ointment leading to bliss.

[Johan]

The fact that you are accusing me of wanting to throw it all out shows me that you aren’t engaging honestly with my post. Your response has nothing to do with my comment about God not being worthy of the title given the world. There are many great things in the world, but so, so many things that could easily be changed to make it a lot better. If I can easily think of these things, clearly God could. The fact that God would fail to implement them speaks volumes to his impotence.

Also, it doesn’t matter if the vast majority do not experience chronic pain. That doesn’t excuse the fact that it exists for a minority. Does God simply not care about the minority? Do, a fallible limited human care more for my fellow humans than God does? Again, speaks volumes to the character of such a being.

Give me omnipotence and omniscience and I will gladly create a better nervous system than we currently have.

I also wasn’t admitting your point. A God who would only make a 90% good world is still lacking if they are all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful. There is simply no excuse. If they were just some highly advanced alien race, then sure they did great with what they had available to them, but a God, no, not good enough.

The extreme cases are exactly my point though. There shouldn’t be outliers or things that exist beyond the plan of God. If God deliberately created all of this, it did so knowing that there would be people like this. Imagine that you planned to have 10 kids but knew for certain that one of your kids would have a crippling condition that caused them to suffer horribly for 20 years and then die in agnoy, would you still have kids because the other 9 wouldn’t suffer the same fate? If I knew that, I likely wouldn’t have any.

Yes! The counter examples prove my point. That is exactly what I am saying. If you take a 2 liter bottle of water and put in a teaspoon of diarrhea, would you still drink the water? Why not, the teaspoon is only a fraction of the volume of the water, right? The other 99% of the water is pristine reverse osmosis filtered water, why not have a drink? Isn’t it great that God gave you this wonderous bottle of water that is only 0.1% diarrhea?

[jayceeii]

JB: The fact that you are accusing me of wanting to throw it all out shows me that you aren’t engaging honestly with my post.

JC: I must interpret this that you are ceding the point. Therefore you will perhaps you will now admit you were speaking hyperbolically and not literally as you asserted:

“Firstly, if God themselves is incapable of creating a world absent suffering, then what good is God?”

That is to say, although our world has suffering, you now admit, contrary to this assertion, that God would still be good if He had made an imperfect world. The assertion throws out God, and with Him this world, and you. If there is a God, since you don’t agree about it.

JB: Your response has nothing to do with my comment about God not being worthy of the title given the world.

JC: This is really baffling me. Are you saying you would hate and revile a God that did not make the world to your liking? That you cannot find enough joy to make life worthwhile? You speak as though making a world is a small, easy thing. It is not.

JB: There are many great things in the world, but so, so many things that could easily be changed to make it a lot better.

JC: You know nothing of God’s powers or the challenges He faces, of which humanity is one of the foremost particularly in this era. In thinking you could give God advice on how to do better you show your God-concept to be of one below and obedient to you. For, if the God-concept is authentic it is seen God’s wisdom surpasses that of man, and no advice from man is necessary or helpful.

JB: If I can easily think of these things, clearly God could.

JC: See, this sentence is actually one that is close to humility and wisdom. Surely God has thought of everything you could tell Him! So then you have to ask yourself whether the things you think would be easy for God, are in fact easy. Such as curing cancer or ridding a body of bacteria. Sure it sounds easy, but if it isn’t happening the conclusion is that it is not within God’s powers. If you can think of a way to make the world better and it isn’t being done, don’t impugn God’s wisdom.

JB: The fact that God would fail to implement them speaks volumes to his impotence.

JC: Unfortunately this becomes one of the “battle lines,” dividing humanity from its Maker. God is good for some things, like building largely successful and diverse biospheres, but as I said rough edges remain, that He also finds ways to work around wherever possible. Screaming about an impotent God since He couldn’t fix the 5% remaining is a grave insult to Him. He sees a complex soul/body which detests Him. But this can only occur because the soul/body is not finding deep satisfaction or bliss in life.

JB: Also, it doesn’t matter if the vast majority do not experience chronic pain. That doesn’t excuse the fact that it exists for a minority. Does God simply not care about the minority? Do, a fallible limited human care more for my fellow humans than God does? Again, speaks volumes to the character of such a being.

JC: Awareness of the whole by no means limits compassion in individual instances. God is there too, even when He can’t help by miraculous actions. I’ve been enduring chronic pain, sometimes severe, for the last nine months. I don’t ask for or expect miraculous help. Science may be able to aid me eventually, but I’ve found it is not as mature as it should have been, to understand my symptoms and to guard my health.

JB: Give me omnipotence and omniscience and I will gladly create a better nervous system than we currently have.

JC: Give God the omnipotence and omniscience you expect, and He will gladly create a better nervous system than we currently have. You expect too much of God, following imagination rather than reality. The nervous system we have is the best God could do. It is enough to give a heavenly and blissful life to some, but not to those whose minds are torn by greed and anger.

JB: I also wasn’t admitting your point. A God who would only make a 90% good world is still lacking if they are all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful. There is simply no excuse. If they were just some highly advanced alien race, then sure they did great with what they had available to them, but a God, no, not good enough.

JC: You seem to be almost entirely lacking in fortitude. This set of assertions appears to be boasting of weakness. If you were in the Navy and serving on an aircraft carrier you’d say to the admiral, “Sir, I have an ingrown toenail, by no means can I continue in this man’s Navy.” He’ll say, “Son, we have doctors who can take care of that hangnail. It’s a small thing, don’t let it ruin your career and end your life.” You’ll say, “No, it’s all about the smallest things going wrong. We have to dump the whole lot.” Things don’t become big just because you are looking at them.

JB: The extreme cases are exactly my point though. There shouldn’t be outliers or things that exist beyond the plan of God. If God deliberately created all of this, it did so knowing that there would be people like this. Imagine that you planned to have 10 kids but knew for certain that one of your kids would have a crippling condition that caused them to suffer horribly for 20 years and then die in agnoy, would you still have kids because the other 9 wouldn’t suffer the same fate? If I knew that, I likely wouldn’t have any.

JC: If you won’t take my example of any army in the world, all the soldiers fit and eager for a fight, consider the huge workforce the world’s human population represents. Every day for forty to fifty years they all get up and go to work, achieving mountains of labor. Surely there is some good in all of this, and it isn’t ruined by some in the hospital! And there are many handicapped persons too, who rejoice to find they can still contribute to the world by meaningful labor. They bear their lot, and God has better plans in store.

And you should admit the dire truth about your example. Huntington’s chorea is a disease that strikes in the thirties or forties, meaning the parents are raising the children before they know if they have the disease. If it runs in the family they have a high chance of not only succumbing themselves, but passing it on, as there is a 50% chance of inheriting it when a parent has it. This has almost no effect on the decisions to have children. You postulate that humans would be wise enough to avoid this, but actual humans are not.

JB: Yes! The counter examples prove my point.

JC: The counterexamples show the creation is not perfect. They do not disprove God, only a shallowly omnipotent one. (You can still call God omniscient; that isn’t shallow.)

JB: That is exactly what I am saying. If you take a 2 liter bottle of water and put in a teaspoon of diarrhea, would you still drink the water? Why not, the teaspoon is only a fraction of the volume of the water, right? The other 99% of the water is pristine reverse osmosis filtered water, why not have a drink? Isn’t it great that God gave you this wonderous bottle of water that is only 0.1% diarrhea?

JC: It’s funny that you should use this example. In my twenties I worked as a nurse’s aid among Huntington’s patients, getting a direct view into the terrible devastation this wreaks in them. One day just before leaving work a nurse said to me, “You have to go clean room 11! There’s a horrible mess!” It was one of the Huntington’s patients. He had smeared his own excrement all over the room, on the walls, on the floor, and on the bed.

[Johan]

I wasn’t using hyperbole, I guess at best you could re-phrase my point to “Why call them God?” My previous assertion does not “throw out God, and with him this world, and you”. That is not a logical consequence of what I said.

Again, I don’t feel like you are fairly interpreting my messages. I never said I would hate or revile a god that did not make the world to my liking, I never said anything about hate or reviling at all. I also never said anything about not being able to find enough joy to make life worthwhile. Were you actually responding to my post here, or something else altogether? Yes, to a maximally great God, making a world is a small easy thing. If it is not, then that being is not a maximally great god. Simple as that. If God isn’t maximally great and just doing the best they can with what they have available to them (like any other human), then I can’t really fault them for the flaws in this world. However, that is not the God proposed in Christianity, nor by most religions, so I don’t think it is unreasonable for me to expect that kind of God given that we are on a Christian board.

“Sure it sounds easy, but if it isn’t happening the conclusion is that it is not within God’s powers”. Yes, since God doesn’t exist, then these things are not within his powers. If he did exist, they would be, so clearly since these things exist then he doesn’t. Your approach is completely backwards to me. If I were to take your approach, I would get to conclusions like “If God wanted to solve world hunger, then he would have done so already. Since God hasn’t done so, that must mean that he wants world hunger to exist, therefore I ought not do anything to combat world hunger!”. Horrible right? Conversely, I could also argue that “God hasn’t done anything about world hunger, therefore he is incapable of doing anything about it. If God can’t do anything about it, then clearly I can’t do anything about it since God is more powerful than me. Therefore I ought not do anything to combat world hunger!”. Again, horrible. The only non-horrible outcome would be to say “Clearly God is incapable of combatting world hunger, and I am stronger than God, so I ought to step in and fix the things he is powerless to do anything against.” I can’t imagine most theists going along with this one though.

“Screaming about an impotent God since He couldn’t fix the 5% remaining is a grave insult to Him.” Yes! It was intended to be an insult.

“God is there too, even when He can’t help by miraculous actions” There is no “can’t help” here, it is “won’t help”. Unless of course, like I have been saying, the God you are describing is powerless. If you have been experiencing chronic pain yourself, then surely you must understand that it is unnecessary. If I had the resources, knowledge and ability to stop your pain, and I sat back and did nothing, what would you think of me? Surely you would think poorly of me, right?

Unfortunately, the God you are advocating for seems to be little more than a human. It has some power, but isn’t even as strong as the Greek pantheon. This God is not maximally anything, it is just simply more powerful and more knowledgeable than us. This God isn’t a God at all, but merely a more advanced life form than us. Why should we waste any time at all on such a being? What good does any of that accomplish? Clearly this is not the God of the Bible that will reward or torture you in the afterlife, so what good does discussing such a being do?

I don’t understand how your story answers my question? Would you still drink the water? Would you still praise the person who gave you the water? Context is important.

I guess to add a TLDR to this: The God you seem to be advocating for, while powerful enough to create something, does not appear to fit the definition most people would accept that a God meet. Because of that, I wouldn’t even consider the being you are describing as a “God”, but possibly just a creator. I don’t need to praise or worship, or anything at all to a creator tweaked a few variables, set off a chain reaction and let nature take its course. This a week deist God at best, and as such isn’t something that anyone needs to worry about. It has nothing to do with our lives, nor how we live them. I don’t see any reason to believe that such a being has even tried to contact us, so what difference would such a being actually make in the world? What need do we have of that hypothesis?

[Gary]

Sceptical theism is the mousehole theists hide in to avoid the conclusion of the Problem of Evil: “It’s logically possible God has a reason to permit that suffering and we just don’t know what it is” they squeak in response to every every example of apparently gratuitous suffering. They do this while ignoring the fact that they — like everybody — regularly make judgment calls to differentiate between gratuitous and non-gratuitous suffering. Otherwise, they would never take a pain-killer, nor would they build hospitals or orphanages, or intervene in any instance of apparently gratuitous suffering. They wouldn’t be able to distinguish between surgeons and torturers, because maybe, just maybe, the suffering inflicted by the torturer is required to bring about some greater good and we just don’t know what that is!

• This reply was modified 1 year ago by  Gary.

[Johan]

It seems like we are at an impasse here, either this universe with all its greatness and flaws is simply the best this God being can do, or this God being simply doesn’t exist and the universe just is what it is.

I know which option gets my support.

[kravarnik]

“It seems that the default position should be that God can accomplish whatever He wants to accomplish without suffering unless there are good reasons why that would be impossible.

Now, there may be such reasons, but the burden is on the theist to defend them. It doesn’t suffice to say we do not/cannot know and therefore we should assume that God can have morally sufficient reasons.”

Yes, the doctrines of the Fall and of the essence-energy distinction answer these.

Suffering is absence of God’s Spirit maintaining and sustaining man’s being in its perfect integrity. Since God has envisioned and created man in perfect blessed existence, then suffering is the result of failing to live up to our initial and in-built dignity, from which fall from proper integrity came.

That is: in order to “not suffer/not have suffering”, one needs to have God’s energies uphold him; in order to be in God’s energies, one must have the Spirit; one has the Spirit by acting through the Word of God(His will expressed as to how we should be as men), Who is Christ Jesus, the Son incarnate.

In other words, suffering and death is due to sin, because sin disconnects one from the Spirit, which “Spirit is (eternal)life”. This isn’t God’s doing, but man’s doing, per the doctrine of the Fall.

The morally sufficient reason for God letting us reap the consequences of our choices is because He created beings in His own image – He created sons, – and not slaves. That is: God treats us with the initial grandiose dignity, with which He initially created us, thus He never allows Himself to treat as mere slaves and automatons, thus shelter us from the consequences of our own decisions.

Thus, when we refuse to obey His will, thus walk in His energies maintaining our perfect integrity, He lets us experience the disintegration of our being. It is not an active force, which God applies to us: as He creates violence and throws it at us, but rather, He merely withdraws His energies that maintain us in said blessed state, thus misery follows.

The morally sufficient reason for God to let us abide in suffering is because He treats us with the dignity of being His own sons, thus be able to do our own will. However, He tells us that “life” is found only in doing His will; thus, He doesn’t make sin lead to “non-suffering/death”, because He would then be unfaithful to His own nature: perfection, whereby in order to enjoy Godlike state(free of suffering and death), you have to act like God. If you don’t act like God(do His will, that is), you get a state, that isn’t Godlike, which is misery.

I hope that gives you some food for thought and resolves the issues you have with God. We cause our own suffering and our own suffering isn’t inflicted by God externally, but by us going away from His Spirit, thus God withdraws His good energies that sustain us in the full integrity of our being, which is perfect blessed existence. Once those energies of God are withdrawn, or lessened, so then all that’s come from nothing starts gradually return to nothing: that process is corruption, suffering and death. We caused those for ourselves, by thinking we can have life without God, for He says “if you trespass My Word, on that day you’ll surely die”. You can think it’s a bluff and call that bluff, or have faith in Him and try to do His will, thus have eternal life.

[kravarnik]

In other words, God’s morally sufficient reason is that He does not want to demean man by treating you as if you’re not His son, hence your choices do not matter; or by treating you as a slave, who has no will of his own.

God treats us in such way, because He created us in His image and even His image is too Holy to be demeaned in this way. If He treated us like mere objects, or like slaves, it would be akin to treating Himself as slave, or object. But He isn’t such, thus why He doesn’t treat us as such.

[kravarnik]

For God initially clothed us in His Spirit and that adornment, that perfect robe of Light, was taken off by Adam and Eve and they found themselves naked. When we act against God’s will, or in opposition of it, then by being deprived of His Spirit, you only see how naked you are without Him. It is cold without Him. When He isn’t there to warm you, you find yourself naked and ashamed and the frost that follows bites to death. However, the main point is that it is us that took off the Spirit, but only found death as a result. Therefore, the state of misery is a fitting state that reciprocates the state of man’s will. When man’s will goes against God’s will, that of the Creator, then misery follows, for you cannot get all that’s good, without being good by nature – which goodness is from God and in Him.

Having evil will results in evil state of nature. Doing sin produces misery. Prolonged misery produces death. Man has caused his own death and feeds it on his own, without God having to do anything: He merely withdraws His Spirit, as we wished. What Fallen man wants, though, and it is reflected in such “philosophical problems” as – problem of suffering/evil, – is doing things in opposition to God, yet receive what God has; but that’s incoherent. In order to get what God has, you have to be like God; in order to be like God, you have to do His will. So, it’s incoherent to expect to get further from the Source of all goodness, yet continue receiving goodness; just as it would be stupid to expect that as I get away from the Sun, I’ll get more light – no, I will get darkness, not light.

[Walter]

kranarnik

While I think there is a lot wrong with your theodicy here, you do actually try to give morally sufficient reasons for suffering.

My post was aimed at sceptical theists.

[Jabberwock]

Any metaphysical restraint that you put on God negates his omnipotence. If any Christian maintains that God cannot do something in a certain way, if he wants to be logically consistent, he must accept that God might not be able to do that at all.

[kravarnik]

“Any metaphysical restraint that you put on God negates his omnipotence.
If any Christian maintains that God cannot do something in a certain
way, if he wants to be logically consistent, he must accept that God
might not be able to do that at all.”

Not really, because God being “able” and God “willing” are two different things. If I can murder you, but I am not willing to murder you, it isn’t a metaphysical constraint, but a personal characteristic. That is: it’s not that I am metaphysically “constrained”, thus it is “impossible” for me to murder you; but rather, it is a “personal” constraint – in that, I specify my will to never do X action.

For instance, God CAN make sin not to lead to suffering, but since He is a person, He specifies His Creation, in the way which He created it, to follow a likeness to His Being, whereby failing to be good according to His will and nature coheres with consequences of not being like Him – thus, not having what He has. If He has perfect blessedness, free of suffering, then not doing His will and not emulating His nature leads to the opposite: miserable damnation, full of suffering.

Distinction between nature and person is very important. God has the natural power to do as He pleases – and even make sin lead to “happiness” in His Creation, – but He is also a person, with supreme free will, whereby He specifies a particular way Creation has to be: specifically, in His likeness and image.

Thus, it isn’t a metaphysical constraint out of an impossibility, but a post-hoc and a posterior impossibility out of God’s unwillingness to create a product of His will, which isn’t in the likeness of His nature.Because in God there’s perfect coherence between Person, nature and will, thus the Persons, the Holy Trinity, have particular nature(the Divine essence, which is unknown to us) and They perfectly will in accordance.

In other words, that is to say, God isn’t a hypocrite and cannot make it so that you can receive “blessed reality” and/or “blessed and perfect existence”, outside of emulating Him, as that’s false. That is to say: you cannot “be not like Him(not act and believe like He does)”, yet “be like Him(has the same state of blessedness as He does from eternity)”, as that’s non-sense. All goodness come from Him, and is in His nature, thus He’s unwilling to make it so(and lie) that it comes from non-Him, as if you can act the opposite of Him and His will, yet receive what is good.

[Jabberwock]

Not really, because God being “able” and God “willing” are two different
 things. If I can murder you, but I am not willing to murder you, it 
isn’t a metaphysical constraint, but a personal characteristic. That is:
 it’s not that I am metaphysically “constrained”, thus it is 
“impossible” for me to murder you; but rather, it is a “personal” 
constraint – in that, I specify my will to never do X action.

That is a false dilemma – your ‘personal characteristic’ IS the metaphysical constraint. If you have a character such that you would never murder someone, then you are incapable of murder, i.e. your character makes murder impossible for you. If there is no possible world in which you murder someone, then it is impossible, that is how modality works.

• This reply was modified 12 months ago by  Jabberwock.

[wonderer]

Jabberwock,

How are you creating the quote boxes with the smaller font?

[Jabberwock]

The last option on the formatting (paradoxically called ‘Hide formatting’) ribbon: Preformatted text.

Yes, this forum system is… not very good.

[wonderer]

Thanks.

[wonderer]

Yes, this forum system is… not very good.

Quoting from a recent post at The Philosophy Forum, “I banned @Varnaj42 for low quality and religious spam.”

TPF seems to be becoming my new hangout for interesting discussions.

• This reply was modified 12 months ago by  wonderer.

[Jabberwock]

Can you provide a link?

[wonderer]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussions

[kravarnik]

“That is a false dilemma – your ‘personal characteristic’ IS the
metaphysical constraint. If you have a character such that you would
never murder someone, then you are incapable of murder, i.e. your
character makes murder impossible for you. If there is no possible world
in which you murder someone, then it is impossible, that is how
modality works.”

You’re missing the point. Person is exactly the specifying “ontology” of the properties of the essence. That is: the fact that God is “omnipotent” doesn’t mean He would create anything and everything, but what specifies what He’d opt to create, or not, or not create at all; is the Person He is. That’s why we continually and for eternity will thank God for who He is. Because He doesn’t have to be like this. He freely is such Triunity of Persons. It’s not determined by His essence, but rather the Persons determine how to use the power available to the Divine essence. The same way that you having hands do not determine how you’re going to use them: you, the person, specify how you’d use them.

So, you’re not addressing the argument for the distinction between natural impossibility, due to essence; and personal specification, due to will. That is: if I simply have no natural means to murder(I don’t have hands, or any other bodily member that allows me to kill another), and me unwilling to murder people, even though I have the means to do so, is not in both cases a “metaphysical constraints that MAKES it impossible for me to murder”.

That doesn’t follow, because personal identity is not the same as natural determination/predetermination that the being cannot escape. You clearly mean to say that God is “metaphysically constrained”, in the sense of having some natural essential property that MAKES Him constrained to do Creation in X and Y way.

I can be the type of person that never murders, while not being metaphysically constrained to never be able to murder – this is believed to be the state of man on New Heaven: we still have the means to sin, and are free to sin, but never will sin(God does not enforce something upon us, but simply, through theosis – becoming like Christ, – one becomes the type of Person God is). And so can God create non-sensical Creation, where sin does not lead to suffering and evil leads to positive reward and eternal life, but He doesn’t will so. Not because He can’t so, but because He doesn’t want so.

So, you’re begging the question, because instead of addressing the argument, and examples, that I provide to establish a distinction between nature and person, you just go to reassert that personal identity is metaphysical constraint, akin to natural impossibility.

[kravarnik]

So, it’s not a false dilemma, but a distinction in fundamental ontology that makes how we conceive of ontology of being.

Your ontology is materialistic and impoverished, whereby you don’t take the phenomena of spirit and person as fundamental to ontology. In best case scenario, you have just essence and essential will driving, necessarily, the essence to do acts in X and Y way(in Christianity we believe objects to be in such a state of being: lacking rational soul, thus deprived of person and spirit, therefore acting on natural and essential predetermination: so, a donkey cannot speak and it is metaphysical constraint, precisely because it is impossible BY ESSENCE: it simply doesn’t have the power to do it).

Christianity, or at least Orthodoxy, provides a different scheme of ontology: essence, energy and person. Rational essence(and consequently the Divine Essence) subsists as Person, who use the energy that emanates from his essence.

This is why the essence of one’s body may include “arms”, but the very fact of your essence having the property of arms does not predetermine HOW you’d use the powers available that come from your arms. YOU decide what to do with it.

Or the fact that you have a mind, that can think of many things, does not predetermine HOW you’d use your mind. YOU decide what to do with it.

This is a basic distinction between nature and person, essence and hypostasis, universal and particular(in case of rational creatures). Person specifying the usage of the powers available from the properties of his essence and the faculties found within his being is not the same as metaphysical constraint on the essence. That is: me refusing to murder someone doesn’t mean it is metaphysically impossible for me to murder. No, I can still make the movement with my arms that need to be done to have someone murdered – I have that power, – but I don’t choose to use it.

Just like God has the power to create a deceptive Creation, but He doesn’t choose so. That’s not because He is metaphysically constrained, but because He doesn’t want to.

Distinction is key.

[kravarnik]

Because He would call people, who do the exact opposite of His will; attain the exact opposite properties to His; do acts that He would never do,”sons”? How are we sons of His, if we don’t do His will? We would be only sons by origin, but not by relation, then, thus He would be merely a cause, but not a Father. He wants to has sons, of whom He is the Father.

Thus, God’s morally sufficient reason for allowing temporary suffering and evil is to show Himself not merely as First Cause to us(as that’s mere deism, or monotheism of Hellenic nature), but also Father.

The context of suffering and evil allows for God to demonstrate His Fatherhood and to convince us, those that are willing, that we are to relate to Him as sons, not of origin, but of relation.

The gods of most other religions have no such aim, have no such goals. Not only aren’t we in the image of said gods, but they are also very often indifferent; nor do they seek to enter any subjective relation with us, but merely require obedience, beyond which nothing awaits.

The Father of Christ, however, is, as His Prophets say, “unlike the other gods”, but He is “an awesome God”. The God, “whose ways are much superior to that of the other gods”.

So, in the context of created reality being an image and likeness to the eternal, uncreated reality – that of the Holy Trinity, – thus all reality is “communal”, then these are morally sufficient reasons, whereby God adopts sons by grace, who truly are Saints of His.

Within the context of a paradigm, or worldview, where the relation between means and end do not matter, where Truth does not matter, but only raw end-results matter – then that’s not a morally sufficient reason. However, within the context of Christianity, God created sons destined to be Saints and god ourselves, who wasted away that inheritance, thus He allows for pain and death to enter, so that He can snatch those willing to see Him as He is and love Him back, out of the self-created hell we fall into.

[Jabberwock]

Again, your distinction is not only false, but self-refuting. If God can freely choose to deceive you, then you cannot know that he would not. If God is not essentially good, as you claim, then you cannot be sure he would not manipulate us for his own purposes.

Your misunderstanding of metaphysical possibility also gets in the way of the discussion. If you believe that God would never do something, then it is metaphysically impossible for him to do that. Believing that something is possible and that there is zero chance that it happens is simply incoherent. If you know that God will not do anything evil, then you believe that he is determined not to do that.

[kravarnik]

So, to tie these two previous posts to the main point I was trying to make:

God’s morally sufficient reason to create a creation that includes temporary suffering and evil is that – He would have to be a liar, if He were to do so(read my previous posts why that is the case); He knows how to turn criminals into Saints, rebels into sons, slaves into freemen, damned into Holy and so on.

So, God allows for temporary suffering and evil, because He attains true sons and true Saints out of it; and God does not lie and say that you can have eternal life, even when you sin(are not like Him, that is), because He wouldn’t have “true” sons and “true” Saints, but rather a big lie, whereby He lies to Himself and to us that you can go around rape, murder, have sex all the time – be enslaved to passions and so on, – and be perfect.

No, as that would be a lying and false definition of “Perfect” and “Holy”. And God is too perfect to lie to Himself that anything that is opposite of Him is Holy. God has to become a schizophrenic.

Actually, one of the arguments for why “Trinity”, as opposed to “Duality”, or “Singularity”, is that when Two subjects only love each other, then they can get lost in the subjectivity and cannot affirm their love between each other, thus why Third exists: the Spirit, which is the real love between the First, Father and the Second, Son.

But, of course, that assumes personal God and personalist metaphysics, that of the traditional Church – in particular, Orthodoxy(since Catholicism has long deviated from this kind of metaphysics). In the case of deistic, or pantheistic, or deceptive gods, then they can do whatever they want, because there’s no person specifying, freely, the usage of the powers and there’s no subjectivity in such gods. They are pure machines that act by natural predetermination. However, since we speak within the context of Christianity, I provide an answer that I’ve gathered from studying and practicing Orthodox Christianity, which heavily relies on God as person and man as person, supposed to enter in communion with God.

[kravarnik]

In simpler words, God is coherent and does not devolve into a hypocrite, or a liar. In order to have what He has, then one needs to be as He is.

If one fails to be what He is, then one would fail to obtain, or persist in, what He has.

Your point about God unwillingness to do particular actions only make sense in light of a God, who is a liar; or a God, who isn’t a person, but pure object(pure actuality of some sort, with no subject).

A personal God, who is Truth, however, is coherent to Himself and His nature, thus He “wouldn’t” create a deceptive creation.

Actually, a God, who isn’t “Truth Himself”, then, I don’t see why would such a god ever express itself outside itself, create a creation. In deism, and pantheism, “creation” and “the universe”(the god expressing himself or his abilities) is inexplicable, thus why these two schools of thoughts often resort to creation/the universe being necessary, because it’s inexplicable why such a being would act outside itself.