tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post9167344517140944771..comments2023-06-29T03:45:18.969-07:00Comments on The Constellation Hypothesis: A Critical Review of Gordon H. Clark's "God And Evil: The Problem Solved": Part IIILouishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07276304333361151814noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-49328106761521661732009-09-02T08:28:24.055-07:002009-09-02T08:28:24.055-07:00You reject the idea that God permits evil. Instead...<i>You reject the idea that God permits evil. Instead you believe that God has absolutely no control over it. He is helpless. Thus Clark's illustration is not directed at you. But his very next paragraph is, thus the source of my comments.</i><br /><br />With all due respect, I think you need to "think harder" about my view. Of course I believe that God has power over evil, to stop it or to control it. I do not believe however, that God can cause someone to freely perform good, where "free" means "freedom from external causation". And I believe that God has good reasons for wanting to give people the opportunity to freely perform good.<br /><br />You are right however, in finally realizing that Clark's lifeguard illustration does not exert any force against my view.<br /><br />As for Clark's paragraph proceeding the lifeguard illustration, I believe he "equivocates" too, by saying that since nothing in the universe can be "independent" of God, "free will" has no intelligible meaning. But again, "dependent" for existence is a distinct notion from "dependent" for behavior. Thus, while God is the Creator and Sustainer of the universe, and while it is only in Him that we live and move and have our being, it may yet be the case that He created agents with free will.Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07276304333361151814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-45940032031432492042009-09-02T08:14:58.755-07:002009-09-02T08:14:58.755-07:00This might help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equi...This might help: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation</a>Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07276304333361151814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-16701506759074461902009-09-02T08:12:37.648-07:002009-09-02T08:12:37.648-07:00I'm not equivocating. I'm saying the same...<i>I'm not equivocating. I'm saying the same thing I said originally.</i><br /><br />I apologize for not being clear about what I meant by "equivocating". I didn't mean to imply that your position had changed, but that your latest argument was fallacious due to a semantic ambiguity.<br /><br />To prove that a created force cannot behave independently of its creator, which is the only proposition in focus between you and I at the moment, you argue:<br /><br /><i>If a force is independent, it cannot be dependent.</i><br /><br />You use the term "dependent" in a misleading way because it has more than one semantic sense. Your argument, put more formally, goes like this:<br /><br />1. A given force is "dependent" on something for its existence.<br />2. A "dependent" force is not an "independent" force.<br />3. Therefore, the force in question is not an independent force.<br /><br />(3) is meant to imply that the force in question cannot be independent in its behavior. But this equivocates (confuses due to ambiguity) two of the senses of "dependent". Namely, dependency for existence and dependency for behavior.<br /><br />Below is a parallel example of equivocation. Let's say someone asks me who the pastor of Free Will Baptist Church is, and I don't remember so I reason through it thusly:<br /><br />4. Free Will Baptist Church of Glasgow was started by Zach.<br />5. What is started by Zach is "Zach's church".<br />6. Therefore, Free Will Baptist Church of Glasgow is "Zach's church".<br /><br />And I use (6) to imply that FWBC is being pastored by Zach. This equivocates due to the two senses of "Zach's church". Namely, people sometimes use a phrase of that form to describe the state of having been started by someone, and other-times to describe the state of being pastored by someone. But just because FWBC was started by Zach, doesn't mean it is currently being pastored by Zach, even though it may in one sense be described as "Zach's church".<br /><br />Similarly, just because a force was created by God, doesn't mean it is being controlled by God, even if it may in one sense be called a "dependent" force.<br /><br />Naturally it will be a little bit different, because God is the Sustainer of all that exists. But nevertheless, sustaining the <i>existence</i> of a force is not tantamount to controlling the <i>behavior</i> of a force.<br /><br />I hope this helps you understand what I mean when I say you are equivocating. There may yet be reasons for believing that if a force that is dependent on something for its existence, then it must be dependent on it for its behavior too, but so far you have not offered any.Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07276304333361151814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-10118834406932605822009-09-01T22:29:19.171-07:002009-09-01T22:29:19.171-07:00Louis,
I'm not equivocating. I'm saying t...Louis,<br /><br />I'm not equivocating. I'm saying the same thing I said originally. I apologize because I do not think I was as clear as I could have been.<br /><br />I see now that part of the confusion stems from the fact that the lifeguard illustration specifically does not appear to apply to your view, thus Clark is not arguing against you on that point. Clark's entire point in the illustration is to demonstrate that <em>"permission of evil as contrasted with positive causality does not relieve a lifeguard from responsibility. Similarly, if God merely permits men to be engulfed in sin of their own free wills, the original objections of Voltaire and Professor Patterson are not thereby met. That is what the Arminian fails to notice."</em><br /><br />His argument is thus directed at those Arminians who claim that God's permission of evil relieves him of responsibility. These would be Arminians like Jack Cottrell who believe God can override man's will, but He chooses not to. <br /><br />"<em>God exercises his sovereign control especially through his permissive will, which presupposes divine foreknowledge of future freewill choices. Such foreknowledge gives God the genuine option of either permitting or preventing men's planned choices, and prevention is the ultimate control... This highlights the fact that having free will gives human beings only a relative independence since the sovereign God maintains the right and power to intervene in the world's circumstances in whatever way he chooses. Through his special providence he can intervene in and influence the laws of nature without actually violating them and thus use natural events to influence human decisions. The reality of free will means that such influence can be resisted (Amos 4:6-11; Hag. 1:1-11); thus God sometimes exercises his right to intervene in natural and human events in a direct way. This means he sometimes suspends natural law and performs miracles; it also means that he is able to suspend free will itself if his purposes require it (as with Balaam, Num. 23-24).<br /><br />That God has such sovereign control means that although the creation has been endowed with independence, such independence is only relative. True control does not require causation, predetermination, or foreordination of all things; but it does entail causative intervention when necessary. Free creatures are usually allowed to go their own way, but God can and will intervene when his purposes require it.</em><br />-Perspectives on Election<br /><br />You reject the idea that God permits evil. Instead you believe that God has absolutely no control over it. He is helpless. Thus Clark's illustration is not directed at you. But his very next paragraph is, thus the source of my comments.Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15693380017090778540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-49047372343667810272009-09-01T20:58:16.423-07:002009-09-01T20:58:16.423-07:00"But this ignores the verse that says it woul..."But this ignores the verse that says it would be better for a man who causes a little one to stumble if he had not existed."<br /><br />Right. Surely <i>for the man</i> who does such, it would be better that he didn't exist. That is to say suffering from the consequences of your own sin is unbearable, so unbearable that you would, in some sense, naturally long for non-existence.<br /><br />But the "better than" relation that <i>having the opportunity for bliss yet rejecting it </i> has to <i>not existing in the first place</i> doesn't have to be a subject relative property. That is, the goodness of a universe from the view of eternity is not merely the net difference between <i>the quantity and quality of the experiences of the blessed</i> and <i>the quantity and quality of the experiences of the damned </i>. <br /><br />From the view of eternity, but maybe not the pleasure of those in hell, it’s surely a good thing that men are responsible for themselves and that some men had the opportunity to enter the KOG but they nonetheless refused. That is, imagine someone like Hitler who never repents. Assuming he can see clearly, he will know that <br /><br />(1) He is suffering for his own sins that he freely caused. And, <br />(2) He freely rejected forgiveness from the Righteous and Merciful Judge. <br /><br />(1) and (2) enable the <i>contingent</i> good of getting what one deserves. Someone like Hitler, if he doesn’t repent, could see that it’s a good thing there is Justice, even if what Justice requires is experientially unbearable. <br /><br />Hence, <br /><br />(2) <i>Sub specie aeternitatis</i>, it is better if a person be responsible and have the opportunity for bliss, yet reject it, than that person not existing in the first place. <br /><br />And <br /><br />(5) Sub specie Hitler in hell, it would be better <i> for him </i> that he didn’t exist.<br /><br />Are entirely compossible. <br /><br />Cf. Swineburne’s “Some Various Stands of Theodicy”Derekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12421656514032288339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-5368658482825312022009-09-01T14:39:46.994-07:002009-09-01T14:39:46.994-07:00The existence of a force is distinct from the acti...The existence of a force is distinct from the actions of a force. Therefore a force can be dependent for its existence but independent in its behavior. You are wrongly equivocating between the two.Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07276304333361151814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-81400385255083144892009-09-01T14:36:33.170-07:002009-09-01T14:36:33.170-07:00There's no jump. If a force is independent, it...There's no jump. If a force is independent, it cannot be dependent.Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15693380017090778540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-27669233300034748242009-09-01T14:32:26.651-07:002009-09-01T14:32:26.651-07:00So now your argument seems to be:
1. A boy's ...So now your argument seems to be:<br /><br />1. A boy's existence is not independent of God<br />2. Therefore a boy's will must be wholly determined by God<br /><br />Why make the jump from (1) to (2)?Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07276304333361151814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-84778323433754531902009-09-01T14:28:45.621-07:002009-09-01T14:28:45.621-07:00Louis,
If the boy is dependent upon God for his e...Louis,<br /><br />If the boy is dependent upon God for his existence, then he is not independent of God.Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15693380017090778540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-7343485729904433882009-09-01T14:19:39.270-07:002009-09-01T14:19:39.270-07:00@Brandon:
Your argument seems to be this:
1. The...@Brandon:<br /><br />Your argument seems to be this:<br /><br />1. The boy did not will himself into existence.<br />2. Therefore created forces cannot act independently.<br /><br />Can you please help me understand your jump from (1) to (2)?<br /><br /><br />@Derek<br /><br />Your argument seems to be that it was better for a reprobate to exist than to not exist, thus God's motivation for creating him. But this ignores the verse that says it would be better for a man who causes a little one to stumble if he had not existed.Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07276304333361151814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-52469513714855111942009-09-01T13:48:18.724-07:002009-09-01T13:48:18.724-07:00"Does the boy will himself to exist?"
S..."Does the boy will himself to exist?"<br /><br />Suppose, that <br /><br />(3) Whether Derek punches Louis or not is entirely up to Derek, in conjunction with God's permisive will.<br /><br />is true. <br /><br />How does the truth of (3) entail,<br /><br />(4) Derek is a <i> causa sui simpliciter </i>.<br /><br />?Derekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12421656514032288339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-76097377874910780532009-09-01T13:41:41.593-07:002009-09-01T13:41:41.593-07:00"1. You are not avoiding the conclusion that ..."1. You are not avoiding the conclusion that God is responsible, you are simply arguing that it was justifiable. Clark's point here is that the free will defense does not relieve God of responsibility."<br /><br />The issue is God's moral responsibility, right? Everyone grants that God wills everything that is, including the existence of those who suffer. So no one denies that God is fundamentally causally responsible for such being the case. The controversy is whether God is guilty, in the morally responsible sense, of such being the case. If (2) is true, then though God is causally responsible for such being the case, he is none the less, as you say, justified, and hence, not morally responsible.Derekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12421656514032288339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-74487648533181893792009-09-01T13:33:28.316-07:002009-09-01T13:33:28.316-07:00Put another way,
(2) Having the opportunity for ...Put another way, <br /><br />(2) Having the opportunity for bliss, yet rejecting it > not existing in the first place.<br /><br /><br />Hence, there is no injustice if God doesn't prevent, by way of non-existence, that someone should suffer eternally.Derekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12421656514032288339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-19831534634336118142009-09-01T13:30:17.119-07:002009-09-01T13:30:17.119-07:00Derek:
1. You are not avoiding the conclusion tha...Derek:<br /><br />1. You are not avoiding the conclusion that God is responsible, you are simply arguing that it was justifiable. Clark's point here is that the free will defense does not relieve God of responsibility.<br /><br />2. Please review the summaries Louis has posted to answer your question.Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15693380017090778540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-86060474404514825252009-09-01T13:27:40.457-07:002009-09-01T13:27:40.457-07:00If (1) is false, then there is clearly no injustic...If (1) is false, then there is clearly no injustice on God's part for not preventing the boy's eternal suffering <i>by way of not creating him at all </i>.Derekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12421656514032288339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-41072805036486322652009-09-01T13:27:03.602-07:002009-09-01T13:27:03.602-07:00Can you please tell me why you think the answer is...<em>Can you please tell me why you think the answer is "no"?</em><br /><br />Does the boy will himself to exist?Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15693380017090778540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-10732623649465146002009-09-01T13:22:40.893-07:002009-09-01T13:22:40.893-07:00"Then God could have prevented the boy from b..."Then God could have prevented the boy from burning in hell."<br /><br />Only on the condition that <br /><br />(1) it's better to not exist at all than to have the opportunity for bliss and yet reject it and be damned. <br /><br />But what's the argument for (1)?Derekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12421656514032288339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-13693432332167774502009-09-01T13:14:31.907-07:002009-09-01T13:14:31.907-07:00That's not an argument for why a created force...That's not an argument for why a created force cannot be an independent force. It's part of a different argument altogether. I would be more than happy to engage you on it, but I want to sort out the topic at hand first. Your argument currently hinges on whether a created force can act independently. Can you please tell me why you think the answer is "no"?Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07276304333361151814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-7649863071145567212009-09-01T12:35:56.682-07:002009-09-01T12:35:56.682-07:00Then God could have prevented the boy from burning...Then God could have prevented the boy from burning in hell.Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15693380017090778540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-6226297732907128112009-09-01T12:34:47.771-07:002009-09-01T12:34:47.771-07:00Naturally.Naturally.Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07276304333361151814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-77408613152619833002009-09-01T12:34:11.124-07:002009-09-01T12:34:11.124-07:00And He could have refrained from bringing him into...And He could have refrained from bringing him into existence?Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15693380017090778540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-56222770281327889022009-09-01T12:29:18.709-07:002009-09-01T12:29:18.709-07:00That's right.That's right.Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07276304333361151814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-19158846746506419142009-09-01T12:28:50.403-07:002009-09-01T12:28:50.403-07:00So God brought the boy into existence knowing he w...So God brought the boy into existence knowing he would burn in hell?Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15693380017090778540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-16738965403982324632009-09-01T12:26:45.075-07:002009-09-01T12:26:45.075-07:00No. Obviously ;).No. Obviously ;).Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07276304333361151814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755171752803157077.post-437514544643325902009-09-01T12:25:09.592-07:002009-09-01T12:25:09.592-07:00Did the boy will himself into creation?Did the boy will himself into creation?Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15693380017090778540noreply@blogger.com