[quote=Luke2220]I need better philosopher to help me logically unravel this broken view.
( I don’t agree with it).
Since evil happens, and our all powerful God allows it to happen, it is His will that evil occurs; therefore His will is evil.
And even if it is not His will that event ‘x’ occurs (free choice rebutal), He still allows it to occur ( the 2nd degree murder argument).
I bought a gun.
I gave the gun to the murderer.
I witness the murderer commit the evil act of murder.
I did not stop the murderer.
I did not pull the trigger, but I did not exercise any effort to stop the crime.
With God, He allows evil, and does not stop it. Therefore it is His evil will that the evil occurs.
How can I argue against this broken view.
( I could not find an argument in search )
There is no argument and there cannot be. Your analogy needs to be modified - very slightly, but still. The second line should read: “I gave the gun to somone knowing fully well that he intends to murder someone”. Your knowledge is important.
If someone believes in God, and the “usual” omnimax attributes, then God is ultimately responsible for everything, be it good, or evil. Observe the highlighted “ultimately” not necessarily “directly”. But that is not a significant difference. To allow something to happen carries the same responsibility as committing the act itself. Whether God actively “willed” it, or passively “allowed” it is of no relevance. There are a few usual attempts, like “free will” or “bringing out good from the evil”, but these cannot erase the fact that “ultimately” God is responsible for everything. In other words, IF God really did not want something to happen, he could prevent it from happening.
[quote=spockrates]1. Does God want us to love one another?
2. Is it possible to love without being free to choose to not love?
3. If God forced us to not do anything evil, would we still be free to love?
- Completely irrelevant. God’s desire is unknown and unknowable. It has nothing to do with allowing evil actions.
- Not to love is not the same as actively doing harm to someone.
- There is no need to use “force”. No one is “forcing” me to respect other people and leave them alone. Of course I am capable to love some of them, even hating some of them, but still not lifting a finger against them - even if I could do it with impunity.
This “love” argument simply does not work. Too bad it keeps coming back.
[quote=Peter Plato]The problem with this analogy is that it plays off an ambiguity. Guns are intended to kill things, so to buy a gun means you are implicitly giving it to someone with the understanding that it could very well be used to kill something. A more apt analogy would be giving someone a morally neutral item (free will is morally neutral), not a weapon.
If I gave someone a car, for example, and they used it to intentionally run down another person, this does not render me culpable in the least.
Oh yes, you would be fully responsible, if you knew (not just suspected, but really knew) that he intends to run down someone. Objects (even guns) are inherently morally neutral. It is the knowledge coupled with the lack of action which would render the “giver” fully responsible for the action of the recipient.
There is no solution for this problem. At best one may appeal to “ignorance” and say that we cannot know why God allows these things to happen, but expresses his trust that it is all for the best. That is at least logical, even if irrational and unreasonable (argumentum ad ignoratiam). It is futile to try to offer a rational solution, because there is none.