One defense of the free will argument goes as follows:
An action has moral significance if and only if:
1. There is a real choice in the matter.
2. It has a rational foundation.
I'm not concerned with the second half of the principle, only the first, and how it applies to God.
It's becoming increasingly bothersome to me that questions of free will and morality seem to apply in a special way on earth, and are not consistently applied to heaven. This is an arbitrary and unjustified move. As I pointed out in another discussion about free will, if humans must have free will to make real moral choices, then the only possible way they can make moral choices in heaven is the ability to act immorally. That blows the entire Jesus redemption argument from conservative christian theology out in the window. Divine atonement ends up being conceptually incoherent.
But there is a deeper problem. If we take the real choice matter further, we can see that if God is to make any real moral choices at all, he must possess the capacity to do evil. If anyone tries to argue otherwise, and say God is so wonderful he cannot do evil, then the same rationale could be applied to our free will, and the theist has no ground to stand on. On the other hand, if the theist wants to affirm that morality requires a real moral choice, the potentiality to do evil, then God must at least have the potential to do evil.
When the Will is governed by Truth, the choices are still present but cannot go against the Will, which is in total accordance with Truth.
The concept is incoherent to you because you do not yet understand many things, including the basis of morality.
Heaven is heaven Earth is earth.
While in earth you understand heaven, it is because you are there.
Your whole life journey is for one purpose,,,
That is find Heaven from an earthly perspective.
You be busy truly trying to understand...
or be busy arguing within your limited understanding....
The latter belongs to those who remain in the earth.
Sooner28-yet another two java debate. A fall back position for anyone presented with some of your arguments would simply be that the divine has no moral obligation it is beyond the concepts man has the capacity to understand here on earth. This doesn't truly wash with a lot of people as we are supposedly "Created in his image," what that would entail is God's capacity to do evil but not taking the action to do so. Duality exists in every organism the black to white the good to evil etc. etc. I love your forums as they bring up questions debated by those with much sharper minds then my own. Although the mere fact that issues relating to the existence of God or an individual's concept of God and what that means per the logic behind it,in a sense makes God and the concept of "other" a reality. Nothingness has no argument or debate factor. Or maybe I just need another coffee?
An action has moral significance if it impacts other persons (or other morally significant entities).
I don't see what heaven has to do with it. Two persons who have no knowledge of heaven and so no opinion about it will still be entities with moral significance and still take actions with moral significance.
So free will is not required for an action to be moral? If you affirm this, God has no justification for giving us free will, knowing what some of us will do with it. If you do not, you are stuck with the problem of God having the potential to commit very immoral actions.
I did not say anything about free will. A morally significant action could be reflexive or due to a compulsive disorder. Of course only those actions that are deliberate and voluntary require correction and/or punishment. And all fully developed adult people have the potential to act in a deliberate and voluntary, way regardless of what faith they may or may not have.
Okay. That's interesting. So if scientists in the future find a way to manipulate our brains in such a way that we will always "be moral," you still believe, even if there is no choice involved, the unfortunately manipulated will be acting morally.
Your definition was for 'moral significance'. Significance is determined by standing, not intent.
If you want to talk about what a moral person is, that is a completely different discussion.
No... It's the same thing. "Moral significance" is the same as the "moral worth" of an action. You just claimed the freedom of the agent is not relevant to determining whether the action is moral. Significance is determined by standing and outcome, not intent, i.e., consequences. If that is so, you should rationally accept my scientist scenario.
Moral significance determines the entities you take into account when making a moral judgement. They are not the same thing. The moral worth of the outcome is a third issue.
by Jane Bovary7 years ago
One of the many stumbling blocks non-believers face in the path of christian doctrine is accepting the notion of a loving God, for how could such a God allow such terrible suffering down here on Earth? This is commonly...
by Sooner283 years ago
I must ask: how free is our will?Assuming the theist is right, God created human beings with the ability to choose. This is claimed to be the case because a world of free creatures is better than world...
by the pink umbrella6 years ago
Why did "God" need to send someone here to be murdered for OUR sins?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.