I don't get this, espcially as people seem to believe that the only way to have a choice is to have good and evil. (Secondary Question) Couldn't an all knowing God come up with a better choice?
2007-09-19 06:21:42 · 13 answers · asked by Pirate AM™ 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I fail to see the correspondence between an obvious paradox and a valid design question. I assume that a god that can design quarks could come up with a better choice.
2007-09-19 06:38:16 · update #1
Definitely choice requires at least two options, but it does it have to require good and evil?
2007-09-19 06:40:46 · update #2
For the "evil is needed to know good" answers, Do you really need to see genocide in order to love your parents? While it sounds "right" I still don't see the *need* or that it even helps.
2007-09-19 06:43:28 · update #3
Could an all-knowing God come up with a better choice?
Your question is kinda like Can God make a boulder so big that not even He could pick it up?
Omnipotence and omniscience doesn't mean God is magic, like Sabrina the Teenage Witch. Good and bad are part of duality, which is simply one of the cornerstones of reality.
God deals in reality. Not science fiction. Making a universe where He contradicts Himself without contradicting Himself isn't what He planned. That kind of universe only exists in the fervid imaginations of fundamentalists, not in reality.
2007-09-19 06:27:59 · answer #1 · answered by Acorn 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Okay, from a purely theological perspective, you need to understand what evil is.
In religion, evil synonymous with sin. According to Judaism and Christianity, sin is the result of dissociating from god's will. Evil is generally considered the willful disobedience of god.
So, anytime you break one of gods laws or resist his will, you are committing an evil act. Thus, using the lords name in vain is an evil act. Steeling is an evil act. Murder is an evil act.
Theologically speaking, without free will, we would never be able to break a rule of god because we would basically be automatons doing as we were told without question or regret. Thus, we would never break the laws or the will of god. Since we have a free will, we are able to choose if we wish to follow the will of god or choose not to.
So, if god gave us free will but made it impossible for us to kill, steel, lie or whatever, it wouldn’t really be a free will would it. It would be partly free will.
In a more modern context, it's like surfing the internet. Some parent trust their children not to look at restricted material on the internet so they don’t have any content blocked. Other parents don’t trust their children so they block a great deal of content. So, which child has free reign of the internet. You can’t say you have free reign of the internet if some content is blocked. The same is true of free will.
Of course, I don’t believe in god and thus the entire argument is mute, but hey, I understand theology and religion all to well...Why do you think I'm an Anti-theist. Way too much bible study! ;-)
I hope this helps.
2007-09-20 17:57:14 · answer #2 · answered by deknowsit 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Choice requires 2 options, at least, or else you just have what is. The idea of "choice" can't even exist unless you have the option of "no choice." Welcome to the paradox that are opposites.
Light needs dark. Up needs down. Left needs right. The only thing that doesn't need anything is "0" or "balance" which is neither left nor right, up nor down, light nor dark.
call that "in between" God, if you must label it, call it a paradox, call it "opposites," call it "balance." Hell, call it "nothing."
2007-09-19 13:27:51 · answer #3 · answered by Corvus 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Evil had nothing to do with free will. We had free will before evil even came to be. Thru free will Adam supposedly chose to commit sin for the first time letting evil into our nature. Now WE have a choice.
2007-09-19 13:30:27 · answer #4 · answered by christian_me 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Evil is not needed for free will but it can be the result of the wrong choice. God gave Adam and Eve the choice of eating the fruit of many trees in the garden but there was only one tree they were told not to eat from.
2007-09-19 13:39:01 · answer #5 · answered by Mr. E 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
because we are supposed to choose between God and all else. All else would be considered evil, which makes the definition of evil pretty broad.
2007-09-19 13:30:13 · answer #6 · answered by The Naughty Librarian 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Free will be definition is a free choice of the entire spectrum...otherwise limiting the options hedges the free will.
2007-09-19 13:40:48 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Without evil, there would be nothing to compare "good" to. Without the opposite, there would not be an option. Circular reasoning at its best.
2007-09-19 13:28:37 · answer #8 · answered by The Apple Chick 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
k...how about good and better!...hmm its like saying yes and absolutely, no alternatives there.. how about you can choose good or the opposite of good, evil..like yes or no. I think opposite words give a broader choice, unless you have a better idea...
2007-09-19 13:35:33 · answer #9 · answered by ♥JCluvsu2!♥ 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness or happiness there be no punishment or misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act or be acted upon, wherefor all things must have vanished away.
"Wherefor the Lord gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefor man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed one to another." (Book of Mormon).
2007-09-19 13:47:44 · answer #10 · answered by Lex 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋