Dragaera

Agnostic definition... or not.

David Dyer-Bennet dd-b at dd-b.net
Fri Nov 29 21:55:58 PST 2002

Matthew Hunter <matthew at infodancer.org> writes:

> OK, here we have to fork the argument.
> 
> Either 1) you actually mean omnipotent, or 2) you mean 
> omniscient.  Now, an omnipotent God could conceivably design a 
> world that included free will and so on, but didn't allow anyone 
> to commit evil acts.  An omniscient God would presumably know the 
> consequences of all his acts, and thus would responsible for 
> later actions exactly as if setting up a stack of dominoes to 
> topple.
> 
> The counterargument to both forks remains the same: free will.  
> If omniscient, then God may know the results of his actions, but 
> he is not making our choices for us.  We choose to do good or 
> evil, and foreknowledge of that choice does not equate to a lack 
> of choice.  If omnipotent, then by removing the consequences of 
> evil choices from the world, God would be negating the 
> significance of free will.  If there are no consequences to evil 
> acts, than why does it matter whether you choose good or evil?  
> Thus, an omnipotent God cannot logically protect us from evil 
> acts, freely chosen, without removing our free will in 
> practical, if not theoretical, terms.

So, are you arguing that we have to be *this* weak a vessel to have
free will?  That we're as morally strong as is possibly compatible
with any free will, pushed right up to the edge?  

And I think your argument about consequences is backwards -- if the
consequences of evil acts are why they're bad, then what's this
assertion of morality all about?  That "evil" is what it is because it
hurts people is *my* position.
-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b at dd-b.net  /  http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
 John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
	   Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info