Peter Berg on the theological problem of evil:
"'Man - intelligence everywhere - must have free will. Otherwise we're puppets and have no reason to exist. Free will necessarily includes the capability of doing wrong.'" (p. 46)
We have been through this before but here goes again.
A child is motivated to touch something hot. An adult, watching, says, "Don't touch it." The child continues to approach the hot object. The adult chooses: either let the child exercise his free will, touch the object and learn from experience or intervene. (The adult should intervene if the child is likely not just to experience mild pain but to be badly burned.)
Is God in the position of the adult? No. God is believed to be - I do not think that this idea makes sense but that is another matter - the omnipotent creator from nothing of everything other than Himself, including:
4 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Of course I can see the value of a child learning, thru a bit of MILD pain, the wisdom of avoiding fire or extremely hot objects. And I would say, rather, that God PERMITS, but does not force the child to touch the hot object.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But God has created/caused everything in this scenario: a hot object; a child that can be harmed by it; the child's motivations both to touch the object and to disobey the order not to touch it. It was 100% predictable how the child would behave. God could have created any element in that scenario differently, including a child identical in every respect except that he would not WANT to touch the object and/or would be so motivated that he WOULD obey the order. There is room for the child to have some freedom in relation to the adult but not in relation to the omnipotent creator.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Again, we can't agree. I do not believe divine foreknowledge is the same as compelling somone to do something. I'm reminded of how Paul and Karen Anderson thought of free will as a mystery in THE DOG AND THE WOLF.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
However, I have argued not from divine foreknowledge but from omnipotent creation. (I agree that foreknowledge of an action does not compel the action.) The child sees an object, is able to touch it and wants to touch it. The child exists with the power of sight, the ability to touch and the want/desire/motivation to touch. He exists the way he is because he was created the way he is. (God creates everything.) The child could have been created with the same powers and abilities but with different motivations. I feel, as on previous occasions, that I am merely repeating a point here.
Paul.
Post a Comment