CHRISTIAN APOLOGIST ON WHY GOD DIDN'T PREVENT LUCIFER'S EXISTENCE [ANALYSIS]
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- *ThinkingTheology is dedicated to philosophically analyzing theological topics.
*If you are interested in having one-on-one conversations with Don, email him at ThinkingTheologyToday @ gmail dot com for details.
__________________
DONATION REQUESTS are via PayPal or Venmo and should fit the channel's theme. Suggested gift is $25 per request..
PAYPAL LINK: paypal.me/epcDON
VENMO ADDRESS: @EPC-Don
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
#Reason #Philosophy #ThinkingTheology #Religion #Logic
The first query to answer is does god actually exist as an independent agent?? There’s no evidence for that proposition. So the question why did god make Lucifer? Is actually irrelevant until the existence of god has been demonstrated with empirical evidence within a CAUSAL relationship. Since it’s already difficult as it is to draw empirical conclusions using just empirical evidence, I suspect it would be impossible to draw any cause < effect relationship between the physical universe and a Supernatural deity.
That entity would need to be proven to have an “intellect”, what exactly would that intellect be held in Or bound to, one would need to show there is consciousness without any physical structure (something I don’t believe is physically possible).
So it’s generally pointless to ask questions about a god without having demonstrated that entity’s actual existence.
I would say we wouldn't really have free will if we couldn't choose evil as an option, we would just been picking between different versions of good things.
If god is omniscient you don’t have free will, just the illusion of one. And in that case he pretty much created evil for you to choose it.
I think an oft overlooked issue with the "free will" defense against the problem of evil is that freewill is typically talked about as a black & white sort of dichotomy. "Either you have free will or you don't." But that's clearly and demonstrably false and I think most theologians would even concede that, upon refection, no one, not even God has _unlimited_ free will. For example, most theologians would agree that God can't lie, because it isn't in his nature to lie. I can agree with that conception, but this shows us that limiting one's nature, doesn't seem to ultimately prevent them from having free will, rather it prevents them from having _unlimited_ free will. As any mother if they think they even have the capacity to destroy their child without cause or provocation. Most will affirm that the are incapable, because it's not in their nature to do so. So not only does it appear that limiting one's free will via their very nature, it seems that specifically limiting one's free will to make them incapable of at least some types of sin is also something God is allowing.
So the real question becomes why even make man capable of sin in the first place? It seems that limiting him in such a way is perfectly compatible with most theological concepts of free will, so would a world with inhabitants that are still free to make whatever choices that want, apart from sin, a preferable world to one where they can and do choose sin? I could even grant that a person could still freely reject God (which is a sin) but otherwise is incapable of any other sin, which should (at least from within the Christian worldview) get you to a world, absent pretty much any _perceivable_ sin but free will is still intact and God isn't forcing his subjects to choose him.
If you are Christian you have to accept that god does lie, as he does so in genesis when he says to Adam and Eve that if they eat the forbidden fruit they will die that day. And then comes along Satan and tells them the truth.
Also you asserted that having free will is a false dichotomy without demonstrating it. I can’t see how it would not be.
@@AlexeiX1 _"If you are Christian you have to accept that god does lie"_ No, you don't. There are plenty of apologetics to explain that and various other apparent lies in the Bible. Yes, I agree that the claim that God can't lie seems dubious, but I'm happy to grant that to the Christian. But if you don't like that specific trait that is attributed to "God's nature" pick any other trait. It doesn't really matter for the point of the argument. Having _any_ specific "nature" is going to inherently limit one's free will. _That_ is the point.
_"Also you asserted that having free will is a false dichotomy without demonstrating it."_ Already explained. Free will (as conceptualized by Christians) is not a binary, black & white phenomenon. On one end of the spectrum you have limitless free will (the ability to do anything) in the middle you have limited free will (free will, bound by one's own nature) and an absence of free will (determinism) Christians typically try to defend against things like the argument from evil, by relying on free will, specifically that "limiting" free will is somehow bad, but they totally ignore that the free will the seem to be experiencing (and the free will the attribute to their own God) is already very much limited, so the idea that limiting free will is bad simply doesn't hold water.
@@ajhieb apologetics, sure you can make stuff up to try and go against what is actually in the text, or you can just read what is in the text, where god clearly lied, and became the first lier in history according to the Christian cinematic universe canon.
Again you failed to explain how it’s not a dichotomy. You just said that it’s a spectrum, saying there are two ends but not demonstrating what would be in the middle. There is no spectrum, there is no grading amount of free will. And also, If god is omniscient, there is no free will, just the illusion of one.
@@AlexeiX1 _"apologetics, sure you can make stuff up to try and go against what is actually in the text, or you can just read what is in the text, where god clearly lied, and became the first lier in history according to the Christian cinematic universe canon. "_ Okay, so it's obvious you don't understand what an internal critique is, so maybe learn what that is and how it works before you keep chirping at me. But the whole point is to grant them _everything_ and then show how it doesn't make any sense. Quibbling over details that are irrelevant to the argument (like you're trying to do) only serves to undercut the power of the argument.
_"Again you failed to explain how it’s not a dichotomy. You just said that it’s a spectrum, saying there are two ends but not demonstrating what would be in the middle."_ No, you failed to grasp it. *in the middle you have limited free will (free will, bound by one's own nature)* Not only did I show a middle, I showed the version of free will they and their God have is the version in the middle.
_"There is no spectrum, there is no grading amount of free will."_ Demonstrably false. (as already demonstrated... twice)
_"And also, If god is omniscient, there is no free will, just the illusion of one."_ Agreed, but it's obvious you don't understand what an internal critique is, so maybe learn what that is and how it works before you keep chirping at me. But the whole point is to grant them _everything_ and then show how it doesn't make any sense. Quibbling over details that are irrelevant to the argument (like you're trying to do) only serves to undercut the power of the argument.
@@ajhieb like most religious apologetics people, all you do is talk in circles. You just keep calling what you are doing different things to avoid looking at it directly. Trying to define things away or into existence.
I suggest you look into critical thinking before chirping more.
If the Omniscient god existed, foolish and self-deceiving apologists would not be required to argue its existence on a stupid human platform like UA-cam.
Around 4:00 It doesn't matter if God created men (and other beings) only to do good / his will. The free will is still as illusion because of God's omniscience. By Christian teaching. literally everything happens only because God wills it or allows it; aka, God's plan.
God knows what will come from every choice I make, but I have the free will to choose. If I'm at Crossroad, I can go left or right. If I go left God knows what will happen. And he knows what will happen if I go right. But he doesn't know which choice i'm gonna make. Like I said , that's where free will comes in. I could be wrong. But from everything I've read, that makes the most sense to me.
Being able to go left or right is not free will. Choosing an unobstructed desire to go left or right is, and you can't do that. When you get to that crossroad, you know already whether you want to go left or right. If you want to go left, you may choose to follow that desire and indeed go left. Likewise you may also go right in spite of your desire to go left because you feel actively opposing your desire is a better choice. You control your actions. Don't confuse those with free will.
Except the Bible does say god knows which choice you will make. There are many examples of God knowing the future in the Bible. Here are a couple...
"Even before a word is on my tongue behold, O Lord, you know it altogether” (Psalm 139:4).
This passage claims god knows exactly what someone will say before they even say it. He knows their actions before they make them.
In the book of John, Jesus (god) tells Peter that before the rooster crows, Peter will deny him 3 times. God knew the actions Peter would make before he made them.
Back to your example at the crossroads. God knows the consequences of your choices, and he knows exactly which choice you'll make. Free will cannot exist based on an all knowing, all powerful god as described in the bible.
Every christian is a God expert when asked about God,
too bad they all give different answers.
I contend that we had to have the choice. If we had no other choice than to obey and choose God that would not have been free will and would not have been love, as the professor stated. In order for good to exist, you are more invested in philosophy than I am, does there not need to be something to compare it to in order to identify it as good?
Well, it becomes a problem when you introduce punishment. If you create a super evil, super powerful entity that tricks people, and then punish the people who get tricked, that doesn't sound very good. There is also a problem if we are supposed to assign "glory" to the creator, for every good thing that happens through the creation, but no accountability. If God is not responsible for what he has created when it does things He knew would be bad, then He shouldn't really take the glory for anything good either, from my view. I struggle with this a lot, and I wouldn't have any problem with your idea if Christian theology said that God thought life would be more interesting if there was some evil in it, or that He wanted a bad guy to be compared to, but that is not Christian theology.
You can choose to not love someone without doing them wrong. Creating the devil and hell and then putting the snake in the garden is a complete fuck you setup. I choose not to love you. Am I doing you evil?
And god doesn't want love. He wants blind obedience
@@HenrikBSWE We simply needed to accept our position as viceroys and not try to become kings. God provided us with everything we needed and all He asked for in return was to love and worship Him. First Satan and then humankind tried to supplant God. A comfortable place to live, food to eat, and a mate to share pleasure with and all that I have to do in return is give love, worship, and obedience, sign me up.
@@chrisphinney8475 We are forever over thinking everything. We had all of our needs met in exchange for love, worship, and obedience and we decided we wanted something more. That is called the mess we is now in.
@@user-ld4xx1el6q I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I was answering what you said about the need for evil in order for free will to exist, and pointing to internal inconsistencies within modern Christian theology.
I think what you are saying is quite dangerous, at least if what the bible is true. If the Bible is true, there will come someone who offers you that kind of deal. All you will have to do is put a number on your hand or forehead, and he will make you happy.
I'm glad for you if you don't wrestle with the problem of evil, but many Christians today dismiss the problem without thinking it through deeply. If God is God, then He knew that Satan would rebel, and that it would lead to the fall of man and people burning. He knew that long before creating Satan. So, if He just wanted us to love Him, why create Satan? Why punish those who fall, for eternity? They are very, very hard questions that I personally don't know how to answer.. And I've prayed for so many hours over this, I've cried over this and still do. Often.
Many Christians answer people who have this kind of thoughts with very simplistic answers. And that is not a good way to love your neighbor or your enemy, and it will drive people away instead. A simple "I don't know" would be better, if you want to bring people to Jesus that is. And if you believe in God and don't care if others get saved or not, you are not following Jesus.
Those who teach will, according to the bible, be held to a higher standard.
More bend over backwards apologetics. You can't have it both ways. Either your god created all with foreknowledge or he doesn't have foreknowledge and allows free will. And, of course, the same old 'god works in mysterious ways" excuse.
What you are saying is consistent with a "very good and powerful god", not with a god that is omniscient, omnipotent, or omnibenevolent. In all of the monotheistic religions we find the same: god is supposed to have found a "reasonable" balance between good and bad, benevolence and evil. And then, the word plays start, mixing perfection with the best that was available in a difficult situation, as if the two were the same.
The Abrahamic God could have reached absolute perfection, or something very close to it, by only having a universe with angels, and where any evil angels were zapped out of existence before they had a chance to do evil. It is we, the human beings and other animals, who don't fit in any concept of perfect good. Dancing around this fact will never work.
I tried watching this and gave up before three minutes. The first speaker in the video being reviewed is disingenuous. He says God knows everything, including our "free will decisions." If God knows our decisions, then we are not free to choose. This was a word trick to assume we have free will. If God knows the future, then we have no free will. Then he says God knows the future but created Satan because some other being might have turned out to be worse. But again, if God knows the future, then he would understand about the being worse than Stan being created and not create him.
To those who invoke free will, what is the purpose of free will, or I suppose more to the point, for whom is free will granted?
Judas had the opportunity for "doing right". Really? If he had not done what he did, then god's plan would have never happened... oh but free will.
Judas was a vessel of wrath. He did nothing wrong. God created him specifically to complete that task and then suffer in hell.
To say god wants no one to perish goes against what the Bible teaches. How can he want that yet create vessels of wrath? How is he love when he creates things to just destroy. And then torture for eternity? That is evil. Not love