God: The Ultimate Author Of Evil?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Perhaps ck can explain how God can be the complete author of evil when he could have otherwise not done so, yet not be evil.

[cksalmon]

Yes. And I responded right away that I would ask that it be changed. I pm'd a mod who apparently didn't have time to read my message. Though I asked for the subtitle to be changed, I am still interested in how you believe God isn't evil. He is the ultimate source of it in your view if I understand you correctly. Please explain how God is not evil if he could prevent evil but doesn't.

They're apparently much quicker to fix errors of spelling than they are gross distortions of non-Mormon theological positions.

If I choose to continue to participate in yet another of your threads that somehow revolves around me personally (what is this nowâ??the third?), I will continue to participate. I'm not at your beck and call.

If it's no matter, than why did you mention it here?

Because it struck me as funny.

See bold.

See bold.

Oh, foundationally, you're correct. I make no apologies for deriving my theology from the Bible. It's your apparent insinuation of glibness on the part of those who would actually do such a thing that I find ignorant and unbecoming.

I think it is very good that you are quite frank here with your biblical interpretation. You do face your conviction up front, and I can respect that. Your position, of course, I disagree with, but think your willingness to boldly state that God would inflict an infant with AIDS or allow countless folks to starve to death, or die without a knowledge of Christ and be consigned to hell all because he created them for that reason for his own pleasure, is as blasphemous as you apparently find my position.

I don't mind your appeal to emotionalism here. It would, of course, be fallacious if you were using it actually to argue the case against my position. You're obviously not attempting to do that.

I appreciate your posting your biblical case for God and evil in your view.

You're welcome.

cks

[Markk]

cksalmon once said:

It seems to me a small swipe at Mormons who assert that they are uncomfortable with a God who "for his own glory and good pleasure" allows a small child to be raped and murdered that they do so because such a thing is "unnerving." Thus, somehow, it is their fault for being disgusted by such an act. CK, you almost sound like there is something wrong with finding God abhorrent if this is his doing. But I guess we could claim that we Mormons only think so because God is making us.

ps- I disagree that such a notion is "clearly and repeatedly" taught in the Bible.

Hi,

I'll be the first to admit I do not understand this, either as a Mormon or a Christian, but I would most likely agree with CK ( I need to read in full context).

LOAP, are you saying that God could not stop a child from being raped? If He can't stop such things or if He can not control such things...why even bother to pray? Bottom line is if you believe in a all powerful God, an all knowing God, then you have to believe that at the most God is the author of evil, and at the least simply allows it, either way whether we like it, or whether we understand this, kids do get raped and murdered, no denial there, so again if we believe in an all powerful God the we have choices to make. Personally it is a Isaiah 55:8,9er to me.

Interesting scripture to chew on...God is speaking to Moses when Moses was whining about his lack of being able to speak well...

Exd 4:11 And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?

I'll use this as a example, and I know we all have similar stories.

I have a cousin, very TBM, whose daughter had a rare disease, her body had open sores that would not heal and as she grew older it got worse. Our family prayed very hard for this little girl that God would heal her. He didn't, she passed away very young in a painful way. Did God ignore these prayers? Was His hands tied? Did Satan block Gods healing Power? I believe from either the Christain view or the LDS view the answer is the same, God is Just, powerful, and in complete control, and that why He allows evil, whether He is author or not, it is for Gods own purpose and pleasure. IF not, then there are forces beyond Gods control and anything he says is subject to change, and that is not a option to me, or His Word.

Thoughts

Mark

John 1:12

[johndoe]

Perhaps you can shed some more light on how you think they can be compatible.

To me, it hinges on what it means to be truly free. Wikipedia has a good summary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism...incompatibilism

[LifeOnaPlate]

They're apparently much quicker to fix errors of spelling than they are gross distortions of non-Mormon theological positions.

I guess you'd need to take that up with them, ck.

If I choose to continue to participate in yet another of your threads that somehow revolves around me personally (what is this nowâ??the third?), I will continue to participate. I'm not at your beck and call.

One of the main reasons I have started threads involving issues with you is because I value your input. I have found you to be more thoughtful and careful than many other posters when dialoging. (Certainly we both must not be showing our best sides in this current topic, however, and that was initiated by my own tone. I hope we can move past that.)

Oh, foundationally, you're correct. I make no apologies for deriving my theology from the Bible. It's your apparent insinuation of glibness on the part of those who would actually do such a thing that I find ignorant and unbecoming.

As you say, "foundationally" it is correct to say "the Bible." I hoped to see some of your biblical basis on the issue and you provided some.

I don't mind your appeal to emotionalism here. It would, of course, be fallacious if you were using it actually to argue the case against my position. You're obviously not attempting to do that.

For me the emotion of the issue is very involved in the discussion of evil. Call it fallacious and cite your experts, but in the end, human emotions are involved in this topic as much- and perhaps more so- than any other.

Your taking issue with my subtitle gives you a good opportunity to refute it, doesn't it? Perhaps you will explain how God can be the complete author and source- ongoing- of evil when he could have otherwise not done so, yet not be evil.

[jwhitlock]

To me, it hinges on what it means to be truly free. Wikipedia has a good summary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism...incompatibilism

Thanks for the reference. A few observations:

- I don't buy the compatible notion that free will exists if no one is actively forcing you to make a choice. The article acknowledged that the deterministic portion of compatiblism says that all choices were predetermined long ago; if that is so, it seems logical that one is forced, since the choice has already be predetermined, to make that choice, and that the immediate absence of "force" in making the choice is irrelevant. The "forcing" already occurred with the predetermination.

- Hume's rationalizations concerning causal effect in making choices evades, in my mind, the issue. The initial predetermination has set the paths and avenues that a person's "choices" will take, and there is no other path than the one set in place that will occur. That is, in my mind, incompatible with free will in any real sense of the phrase.

The whole concept of compatibility continues to seem strained. If determinism is allowed, then there is no real place for free will. If CEN is doctrinally true, then man cannot be condemned for what he is. Determinism and CEN appear to be very much intertwined, and they continue to appear to be doctrinally contradictory to the concept of a God who has no respect to persons.

On the other hand, the Book of Mormon is very clear about the level of agency we have in this life, and the choices we are given to make of our own free will. There is no room for determinism in the theology of the Book of Mormon; this is one area where the BofM serves to shed light on a Biblical doctrinal concept that has become muddied over the centuries.

What I will admit is that our choices in mortality are limited, due to the nature of our mortal being. However, they are still free choices, unconstrained by any determinism. Though our choices may be influenced (even heavily!), those choices are still ours to make, and ours to bear responsibility for. In my mind, any taint of determinism releases us from responsibility for our "choices". Since no true free will is involved, such choices are not really ours, but are the choices of God who created us out of nothing.

[johndoe]

Thanks for the reference. A few observations:

- I don't buy the compatible notion that free will exists if no one is actively forcing you to make a choice. The article acknowledged that the deterministic portion of compatiblism says that all choices were predetermined long ago; if that is so, it seems logical that one is forced, since the choice has already be predetermined, to make that choice, and that the immediate absence of "force" in making the choice is irrelevant. The "forcing" already occurred with the predetermination.

- Hume's rationalizations concerning causal effect in making choices evades, in my mind, the issue. The initial predetermination has set the paths and avenues that a person's "choices" will take, and there is no other path than the one set in place that will occur. That is, in my mind, incompatible with free will in any real sense of the phrase.

The whole concept of compatibility continues to seem strained. If determinism is allowed, then there is no real place for free will. If CEN is doctrinally true, then man cannot be condemned for what he is. Determinism and CEN appear to be very much intertwined, and they continue to appear to be doctrinally contradictory to the concept of a God who has no respect to persons.

On the other hand, the Book of Mormon is very clear about the level of agency we have in this life, and the choices we are given to make of our own free will. There is no room for determinism in the theology of the Book of Mormon; this is one area where the BofM serves to shed light on a Biblical doctrinal concept that has become muddied over the centuries.

What I will admit is that our choices in mortality are limited, due to the nature of our mortal being. However, they are still free choices, unconstrained by any determinism. Though our choices may be influenced (even heavily!), those choices are still ours to make, and ours to bear responsibility for. In my mind, any taint of determinism releases us from responsibility for our "choices". Since no true free will is involved, such choices are not really ours, but are the choices of God who created us out of nothing.

How one views this issue is a product of intuition. My intuition is obviously quite different from yours. I have had several discussions on this topic on these boards, sometimes at length. Ultimately, the discussions always break down to some elemental level where we stick to what feels right to us.

One thing I will say is that the scriptures, and LDS doctrine, absolutely do not specify whether our agency is of a libertarian or compatibilist sort. Interpretation could really go either way. Strong insistence that the Book of Mormon requires understanding agency in a libertarian sense is beggin the question, IMO. I would like to remind you of your statement that different interpretations of the Bible start off with a philosophy that is subsequently injected into the text. The same thing can happen in interpretation of other scriptures.

[jwhitlock]

How one views this issue is a product of intuition. My intuition is obviously quite different from yours. I have had several discussions on this topic on these boards, sometimes at length. Ultimately, the discussions always break down to some elemental level where we stick to what feels right to us.

The concepts free will and determinism are, by definition, incompatible. From what I have seen, it takes some pretty complex rationalization to try and make them "compatible". I would suggest that chalking up the differing viewpoints to intuition is an oversimplification, and does not take into account the complex rationalizations that compatibility requires. I do not see them same level of rationalization needed for the concept that free will and determinism do not mix well.

One thing I will say is that the scriptures, and LDS doctrine, absolutely do not specify whether our agency is of a libertarian or compatibilist sort. Interpretation could really go either way. Strong insistence that the Book of Mormon requires understanding agency in a libertarian sense is beggin the question, IMO. I would like to remind you of your statement that different interpretations of the Bible start off with a philosophy that is subsequently injected into the text. The same thing can happen in interpretation of other scriptures.

2 Nephi 10:23

Therefore, cheer up your hearts, and remember that ye are free to act for yourselvesâ??to choose the way of everlasting death or the way of eternal life.

Helaman 14:30

And now remember, remember, my brethren, that whosoever perisheth, perisheth unto himself; and whosoever doeth iniquity, doeth it unto himself; for behold, ye are free; ye are permitted to act for yourselves; for behold, God hath given unto you a knowledge and he hath made you free.

I simply don't see much room here for determinism; indeed, as noted above, compatibility requires some rather complex rationalization in order to make it fit into what otherwise seem to be clear scriptural pronouncements on the subject. Indeed, the BofM has some rather detailed pronouncements (summarized as follows) that point very solidly in the direction of free will. Putting a deterministic perspective on these kinds of things requires some significant rationalization. Reading agency / free will into them does not, so I firmly disagree with your statement that the BofM especially does not lean either way, or that it makes a case for compatibility.

2 Nephi 2:14,16,26

14 And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon.

16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.

26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.

[Jason]

The biggest problem with determinism is that it means we will be punished for things we really had no choice in doing. How can God be just if he punishes people who could not have chosen otherwise?

[johndoe]

The concepts free will and determinism are, by definition, incompatible. From what I have seen, it takes some pretty complex rationalization to try and make them "compatible". I would suggest that chalking up the differing viewpoints to intuition is an oversimplification, and does not take into account the complex rationalizations that compatibility requires. I do not see them same level of rationalization needed for the concept that free will and determinism do not mix well.

The proper definition of free will is the very subject of the entire debate. To simply assert that free will and determinism are incompatible by definition is circular reasoning. You have so far offered no substantial arguments as to why the libertarian view should be held as the proper definition of free will. Such arguments do exist.

2 Nephi 10:23

Therefore, cheer up your hearts, and remember that ye are free to act for yourselvesâ??to choose the way of everlasting death or the way of eternal life.

Helaman 14:30

And now remember, remember, my brethren, that whosoever perisheth, perisheth unto himself; and whosoever doeth iniquity, doeth it unto himself; for behold, ye are free; ye are permitted to act for yourselves; for behold, God hath given unto you a knowledge and he hath made you free.

I simply don't see much room here for determinism; indeed, as noted above, compatibility requires some rather complex rationalization in order to make it fit into what otherwise seem to be clear scriptural pronouncements on the subject. Indeed, the BofM has some rather detailed pronouncements (summarized as follows) that point very solidly in the direction of free will. Putting a deterministic perspective on these kinds of things requires some significant rationalization. Reading agency / free will into them does not, so I firmly disagree with your statement that the BofM especially does not lean either way, or that it makes a case for compatibility.

2 Nephi 2:14,16,26

14 And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon.

16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.

26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.

You are certainly free to disagree (pun intended). However, there is nothing in any of these scriptures that provides any information whatsoever regarding how their authors intended the term free to be defined. Once again, your logic here is circular. You are simply reading into the text your own bias, as you have accused Calvinists of doing to the Bible.

You seem to be of the impression that libertarianism should be a default position, and that compatibilism is a strained rationalization. Actually, the vast majority of empirical evidence suggests a deterministic universe, not an indeterministic one. The one observed exception is quantum mechanics, and it is by no means clear that quantum randomness has any effect whatsoever on our decision making processes.

[Log]

Actually, the vast majority of empirical evidence suggests a deterministic universe, not an indeterministic one.

Actually, this is far from obvious. Indeed, I personally would go so far as to say it's self-evidently false. That's one of the upshots of applied design theory.

[cksalmon]

Actually, this is far from obvious. Indeed, I personally would go so far as to say it's self-evidently false. That's one of the upshots of applied design theory.

Hi log--

I hope you'll spell this out for the dunderheaded.

(Me.)

cks

[Jason]

There are couple of quotes from Joseph Smith in today's lesson that indicate to me that he was not a determanist.

Satan cannot seduce us by his enticements unless we in our hearts consent and yield. Our organization is such that we can resist the devil; if we were not organized so, we would not be free agents.

This would indicate that Joseph felt that "free agency" meant making choices without enticement.

President Joseph Smith...observed that Satan was generally blamed for the evils which we did, but if he was the cause of all our wickedness, men could not be condemned.

And this is the viewpoint I've expressed earlier - that men cannot be condemned for things they weren't ultimately responsible for.

[wenglund]

Earlier in the thread Dave Waltz asked a profound question with which I would like to juxstapose other questions:

Is good and/or evil in some way material in nature?

If not, then in what sense is either good or evil created?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Log]

Hi log--

I hope you'll spell this out for the dunderheaded.

(Me.)

cks

Perhaps later - it's rough distilling the contents of 4 books into a paragraph.

[cksalmon]

Earlier in the thread Dave Waltz asked a profound question with which I would like to juxstapose other questions:

Is good and/or evil in some way material in nature?

If not, then in what sense is either good or evil created?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

How can good or evil be a material entity? It seems obvious that neither is "created."

cks

[cksalmon]

Perhaps later - it's rough distilling the contents of 4 books into a paragraph.

Well, I certainly understand time constraints. But, then, I can't evaluate the charge of the self-evident falsity of determinism in light of applied design theory without knowing what your point actually is. Maybe in future.

Best.

cks

[wenglund]

How can good or evil be a material entity? It seems obvious that neither is "created." cks

If evil is not in any way material in nature, then in what way does it exist?

Can evil exist absent any material representation/manifestation thereof?

Do evil spirits exist?

And, if so, then how does one distinguish between an evil spirit and a non-evil spirit?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cksalmon]

If evil is not in any way material in nature, then in what way does it exist?

I'd have to know what you mean by "existence" in order to answer this question.

[Jason]

Does math exist? They're not material, but someone created varoius branches of math.

[LifeOnaPlate]

CK, I hope you will explain how, from your view, God can be the complete author and source- ongoing- of evil when he could have otherwise not done so, yet not be evil.

[cksalmon]

CK, I hope you will explain how, from your view, God can be the complete author and source- ongoing- of evil when he could have otherwise not done so, yet not be evil.

Yes, and I had hoped the mods would have seen fit to change your offensive subtitle, per your puported request. Alas, it apparently isn't to be. Did you really ask them to do so? (I mean, c'mon, they certainly edited your mere misspelling quickly enough, per your documented request.)

We all hope for things, Life. Our hopes do not seem to be convergent at this time.

cks

[jwhitlock]

The proper definition of free will is the very subject of the entire debate. To simply assert that free will and determinism are incompatible by definition is circular reasoning. You have so far offered no substantial arguments as to why the libertarian view should be held as the proper definition of free will. Such arguments do exist.

Nothing circular about it. All that needs to be applied initially is common sense. Free will is the ability to choose for oneself. Determinism is to have choices made for you. If you want to get into deeper philosophical reasoning, feel free. However, I don't see any need to go further than the above until valid reasoning can be presented as to why the common sense, obvious contradiction between the two may not be the case.

You are certainly free to disagree (pun intended). However, there is nothing in any of these scriptures that provides any information whatsoever regarding how their authors intended the term free to be defined. Once again, your logic here is circular. You are simply reading into the text your own bias, as you have accused Calvinists of doing to the Bible.

Evidently, compatibilism requires a redefinition of "free" in order for it to fit. Or is that not the case?

You seem to be of the impression that libertarianism should be a default position, and that compatibilism is a strained rationalization. Actually, the vast majority of empirical evidence suggests a deterministic universe, not an indeterministic one. The one observed exception is quantum mechanics, and it is by no means clear that quantum randomness has any effect whatsoever on our decision making processes

Interesting that you should bring this up in light of the BofM passages I quoted. Note the clear difference in the passages between things that act for themselves, and things that are acted upon.

I would suggest that empirical evidence of the material universe not be confused with the subject of this discussion, which is the free will of individuals, who are certainly beings empowered to act for themselves. Matter, in that it is acted upon, is deterministic in nature. Spirit / intelligence, which acts for itself, is libertarian in nature. Perhaps by compatibilism you refer to the combination of matter and spirit; however, the matter portion still is acted upon, and the individual spirit is what acts for itself - as empowered by God - in directing the matter associated with it as a body.

Indeed, perhaps this is the crux of the discussion, in that God has given us - as spirit individuals - agency to act for ourselves, while matter has its course determined for it. Compatibilism would seem to be an attempt to improperly mix the two, when in reality matter and spirit combined are still subject to a hierarchical structure of free will by the individual involved.

[wenglund]

I'd have to know what you mean by "existence" in order to answer this question.

By "exist" I mean: "that which is asserted by the etymologically distinct verb 'is'." For example: "there is evil" or "that is evil".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cksalmon]

By "exist" I mean: "that which is asserted by the etymologically distinct verb 'is'." For example: "there is evil" or "that is evil".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

No, I don't believe there is such a thing as "evil" or "love," for that matter, outside a being-specific instantiator. That is certainly not to say that I believe evil or love is "material" in nature. That strikes me as patently absurd. It would be tantamount to stating that "2" is a material entity.