What if the theft was to save the life of a person that would be evil later on? What if it was a death that god intended but because of free will a person chose to do the act of theft which saved the evil person life? Would it still be a moral act from god's perspective? Would god allow an idividual's free will to counter his will or plan? If so, how does that affect God's greater plan? God has a plan but does our free will alter or change that plan? Is god powerless against our free will?
An all-powerful God could certainly ensure that a person who is meant to die will die. An all-powerful God could also remove free will or limit the choices available in a given circumstance if he so chose.
So then from our perspective: god does immoral things. It does not matter what the outcome is because we may never what it will be.
From our perspective, God does things that if a person without omniscience were to do them would be immoral.
I don't know what you mean by the sentence that I've put in bold. Please explain.
Can you give me a brief sound bite answer? To be honest I don't see how god knowing what our choices will be in advance equates to us having free will from his perspective.
Not really, but here are some quick synopses of some of the possibilities:
- One answer had to do with the idea of "middle knowledge." This means that God doesn't know directly, but can predict what you will choose to do of your own free will.
- Another answer was that omniscience simply means the ability to know anything that is knowable, just as omnipotence means the ability to do anything that is doable. Since it is simply a logical absurdity to know something that is unknowable (such as the result of a free choice) God doesn't actually know what the result will be, but is still omnipotent. This is logically equivalent to the question of whether an omnipotent being can make a boulder larger than it can lift. The answer is that the concept of lifting the unliftable is simply a logical absurdity, and therefore is not something that an omnipotent being would be required to do.
- Another is that although God CAN know your future action, he can choose to restrict his knowledge in order to allow for free will. In other words, God's knowledge and your free choice are mutually exclusive, but under God's control.
- Another answer had to do with God operating outside of and being unlimited by time. If the timeline of the universe is established in a single instance (actually timelessly) then it is possible that the choices we make are free, but that God can then examine the timeline, essentially peeking into the future, and determine what you will do of your own free will. This would essentially mean that God knows what you will do by simply observing it (just as we can know what occurred in the past by observation).
This topic really is a total derail of the thread though, so I'm not going to comment any further (and some of these do require further comment to fully understand them).
I don't think you can separate suffering from evil. We consider things that are evil things that cause suffering. Althogh not everything that causes suffering is considered evil.
You also come up to the problem of good and evil. You said yourself that what is good and what is evil depends on the circumstances.
But again, suffering caused by natural disasters have nothing to do with good and evil. It's just a consequence. Possibly a meaningless consequence which would mean meaningless suffering.
If god has no power to affect our free will (other wise how free would that will be) then those who chose to live (wether knowingly or unknowingly) within an area where there is a natural disaster may die for no reason or part of god's plan. Would that not be meaningless death and suffering?
It's possible that natural disasters truly are random and God doesn't specifically control them. So why would a benevolent God put something like that into motion? Possibly because without them, we would have no incentive to do evil, and therefore no freedom to choose to do good despite the temptation to do evil. So, it is possible that random suffering leads to a greater good.
Again that would suck for the victim. His/her life becomes forfiet for the benefit of another. How does god wiegh one life against another? Is one more important than the other? Does god consider one life disposable against another's?
Again, I agree it would suck for the victim. And whether or not God exists, there is no doubt that suffering sucks for the sufferer.
That said, it is possible that the suffering is entirely random. It is also possible that it's not random and that God makes a choice as to specifically which lives will be ended to produce the most good.
If the "most good" is related to the human species having free will, you cannot say that one life is forfeited for another, but rather that some lives are forfeited for free will (which benefits us all). It can also be argued that were no lives forfeited and free will therefore were not to exist, that it would be a fate worse than death for us all. In that vein, those whose lives are "forfeited" also benefit from others before them forfeiting their lives, and that death and suffering are a small price to pay for free will.
To be honest, I don't know but I've heard it quite a bit. I'm sure the entomology could be googled. And if it does not pertain to god but yet we hold ourselves to that ideal. That would be an example of how we would hold ourselves to a higher moral ideal than god would hold for himself.
It can be argued that "the ends don't justify the means" is
not an ideal, but a necessity due to our limitations (limitations that God doesn't have). It would not be an example of our holding ourselves to a higher moral standard -- it would only be an example of our holding ourselves to a different moral standard due to the fact that we cannot know the full consequences of our actions.
In the case of the theft to save a life. By definition theft is an immoral act.
I disagree. Theft is generally immoral, but in some circumstances
not stealing would be more immoral.
That platitude would hold that the ends, even though benevolent, would not justify the act. In reality the justification would be decided by a court of peers.
In a court of law, it's called "extenuating circumstances" and people are often held to a less severe punishment or completely absolved of any wrong-doing based on extenuating circumstances.
God could just say well that doesn't apply to me because i see a bigger more benevolent picture. But then again the platitude says..............
If God is omnibenevolent, he would be compelled to follow the more benevolent picture regardless of the saying.
-Bri
