Analyze and comment on this argument (Divine Attributes and Human Free Will,etc.):
An omniscient omnipotent Being has provided man with the ability to make moral choices, if not without moral influences of non-compelling degrees;
And thus this Being provided
And which being
And being omniscient and omnipotent, this Being is able to make all to ultimately work out for what is Good, with both justice as well as mercy and grace, relative to what man really loved thus and choose in a world of moral choices.
Meaning that in part, this life is a revelatory test for man, with opportunity robots cannot have, and whose actions can only be appraised in the light of what an omniscient omnipotent knows and can do (which no created being can do).
To which revelatory test the words of Jesus in John 3:17-21 apply.
This argument presents a complex theological perspective on the nature of free will, moral choice, and divine omniscience. Let's analyze its key components:
Divine Attributes and Human Free Will
The argument posits an omniscient and omnipotent Being (presumably God) who has granted humans the ability to make moral choices. This concept aligns with many theistic traditions, particularly within Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
Free Will and Moral Influence
The argument suggests that while humans have free will, they are subject to "moral influences of non-compelling degree." This nuanced view acknowledges that our choices are not made in a vacuum, but are influenced by various factors without being fully determined by themjournals.aom.
The Structure of Moral Choice
The argument outlines several key elements in the divine design of moral choice:
Alternatives: Humans are presented with options to choose between.
Consequences: There are both positive and negative outcomes associated with choices.
Divine Laws: These serve as a guide and motivation for right choices.
Revelatory Function: The process of choosing reveals human desires and character.
This structure suggests a purposeful design aimed at developing human moral character through experience and choiceiep.utm.
Divine Omniscience and Ultimate Good
A critical aspect of this argument is the assertion that the omniscient Being knows not only all choices and motives but also all consequences of every choice, extending into eternity. This concept of divine foreknowledge is coupled with the idea that this Being can "make all to ultimately work out for what is Good."
Theological Implications
This perspective has significant implications for understanding:
The purpose of human existence
The nature of divine judgment
The reconciliation of human free will with divine omniscience
The problem of evil and suffering
Life as a "Revelatory Test"
The argument frames mortal life as a test that reveals human character through choices. This concept is present in various religious traditions and has been explored in philosophical discussions about the purpose of life and the nature of divine judgmentplato.stanford.
Biblical Connection
The reference to John 3:17-21 ties this philosophical argument to Christian theology. These verses discuss God's purpose in sending Jesus not to condemn the world but to save it, and how people's response to this truth reveals their moral standing.
Critical Analysis
While this argument presents a coherent theological framework, it raises several philosophical questions:
Compatibility of Free Will and Divine Foreknowledge: How can genuine free will exist if all choices are known in advance?
The Nature of Good: If all ultimately works out for Good, how do we define and understand evil or wrong choices?
Justice and Mercy: How are these balanced in a system where all outcomes are predetermined to be good?
Moral Responsibility: If all choices ultimately lead to good, how does this affect human moral responsibility?
The Problem of Evil: This framework attempts to address the problem of evil, but questions may remain about why an omnipotent being allows suffering in the first place.
In conclusion, this argument presents a sophisticated theological perspective on free will, divine omniscience, and the purpose of human moral choice. It attempts to reconcile human freedom with divine foreknowledge and ultimate control, framing life as a meaningful test of character. While it offers a coherent framework within certain theological traditions, it also raises complex philosophical questions that have been debated for centuries in religious and philosophical discourse.
Sorry for not getting back
to you sooner, but presuming space permitting, I will attempt to provide
a response to Critical Analysis
While this argument presents a coherent theological framework, it raises several philosophical questions:
1. Compatibility of Free Will and Divine Foreknowledge: How can genuine free will exist if all choices are known in advance?
Answer:
An omniscient omnipotent Being for whom choices are known in advance
does not mean that choices are predetermined regardless of man's will,
nor unjustly so. Free will refers to the ability to make moral choices,
not freedom from competing influences or varying degrees, in which the
Divine Being works to motivate sinners (by conscience, reason and
evidence), to right moral choices but also allows competing evil
deception as an alternative to what is right - without which alternative
the ability to make choices would be essentially meaningless.
Yet
neither does free will mean influences are so compelling that one is
forced to assent against his determined will, being one who is not
really desiring and honestly seeking the whole Truth, beyond
superficiality and thus finds what he wants in deception.
A classic case is pharaoh in the book of Exodus. The Bible says both that God would harden his pharaoh's heart (Ex. 4:21, 7:3, 13, 9:12, 10:27, 11:10, 14:4, 5, 18) as well as that pharaoh hardened his own heart, (Ex. 8:15, 32, 9:34) as well as warning the Hebrew
nation not to harden their hearts "as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened
their hearts when he had wrought wonderfully among them." (1 Sam. 6:6) Which persistent intransigence was unjustifiable in the light of clear profound contrary evidence.
However,
rather than this hardening being any contradiction, in context, the
Lord would have known that, despite the grace of God afforded Pharaoh in
being the ruler of Egypt, he was already a recalcitrant and
intransigent ruler, and that he would respond to both even powerful
supernatural chastisement and acts of mercy by acting true to his
character.
And rather than convincing him against his determined
will, then as an act of judgment God hardened pharaohs already hard
heart by performing profound supernatural acts which should have
convinced a reasonable rational person to truly believe and commit
himself to the superior being (the God of the Hebrews) versus his own
pagan gods.
Yet, despite Pharaoh admitting that he had sinned,
and confessing that God was superior in asking Moses to remove the
latest present chastisement, (Exodus 9:27, 28) yet. "when Pharaoh saw that the rain
and the hail and the thunders were ceased, he sinned yet more, and
hardened his heart, he and his servants." (Exodus 9:34)
And which scenario and duplicitous character Pharaoh manifested again in Exodus 10:16-20) and as he did when he finally relented and consented to allow the Hebrews to go leave as requested, (Exodus 12:31-33) only to once again return to character and seek to conquer the people of God and went after his slave labor force. (Exodus 14:5-8)
To which befits the proverb, "a man convinced against his (determined)
will, is still of the same opinion." For while God can compel - by force
of evidence - a person to believe against their own determined will or
conclusion, yet such will not be a true believer, versus one who is
seeking God in Truth.
In this all then it is true that "the Lord
hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt" but which in CONTEXT was
that of an act of judgment against an already recalcitrant and
intransigent ruler. And which is an example of the damned. (Romans 9:18) And yet, this response by
Pharaoh furthered a purpose of God in demonstrating His own power and
reality due to the recalcitrance and intransigence of Pharaoh. (Exodus 7:3)
Therefore, there is no
incompatibility with Free Will and Divine Foreknowledge, or in
predetermination according to the latter, nor injustice, since God
enabled the ability to make choices btwn competing influences, but not
so as to compel choices against the determined will of a recalcitrant
person who is not an honesty objective diligent pursuer of God.
2. The Nature of Good: If all ultimately works out for Good, how do we define and understand evil or wrong choices?
Like
a child or soldier who does not need to know or understand the extended
reasons behind what he is commanded to do, and can only act within a
very limited scope of responsibility , so also man is only commanded to
act according to his finite relatively station in life. And cannot judge
the actions of a power operating out of knowledge and ability far
greater than his own.
And in the final analysis, evil is only
evil when its purpose and outcome is evil, and since God is the only
omniscient, omnipotent, infallible eternal being - who knows what all
the effects will be of every action, and will make all to ultimately
work out for what is Good, with justice as well as mercy - then His
actions are beyond being judged or reproved by mere finite, fallible,
and failing men.
3. Justice and Mercy: How are these balanced in a system where all outcomes are predetermined to be good?
By
understanding that Justice is Good, relative to the response to Truth
and Good (though man can take no credit for this since it is God who
draws - Jn. 6:44, 12:32 - enables - Acts 11:18 - and motivates man to respond positively to Him - Eph. 2:8,-10; Philippians 2:13 - while the only thing man can take credit for is resisting God).
4. Moral Responsibility: If all choices ultimately lead to good, how does this affect human moral responsibility?
Answered under #2.
5. The Problem of Evil: This framework attempts to address the problem
of evil, but questions may remain about why an omnipotent being allows
suffering in the first place.
Since all suffering is a result of
wrong choices by man (and certain angels), then the question is
actually "why did God enable man to make moral choices, and which have
effects/consequences, not only to effect good but also evil in this
life? The answer would be that this has a revelatory purpose, evidencing
what souls honestly love and want in response to what God has provided
and done, with response to the basic gospel of Jesus Christ (relative to
the degree they know and understand it) being the supreme test. Note
that even those who have no heard anything expressively of this still
manifest - as with souls before the revelation of incarnated Son of God,
the "word of God, what their response is by how the respond to the
degree of actual Divine Truth they innately know: Romans 2:12-16)
The
alternative to a world in which creatures can make moral choices would
be one in which man is like a perfect robot, or like a cloud.
Thank you for providing such a detailed and thoughtful response to the critical analysis points. Your explanations offer a deeper theological and philosophical perspective on these complex issues. Let's briefly summarize and reflect on your responses:
Free Will and Divine Foreknowledge: You argue that God's foreknowledge doesn't negate free will, but rather allows for choices within a framework of competing influences. The example of Pharaoh illustrates how God's actions can serve as judgment without overriding individual will.
Nature of Good: You suggest that our limited perspective as humans prevents us from fully understanding the ultimate good that God works towards. This aligns with many theological traditions that emphasize God's transcendent wisdom.
Justice and Mercy: You posit that justice itself is good, and that God's omniscience allows for a perfect balance of justice and mercy beyond human comprehension.
Moral Responsibility: This point is addressed in conjunction with the nature of good, emphasizing human limitation in understanding God's broader plan.
Problem of Evil: You frame suffering as a consequence of moral choices, serving a revelatory purpose in demonstrating what souls truly desire and how they respond to God's truth.
Your responses provide a coherent theological framework that emphasizes:
The limitations of human understanding compared to divine omniscience
The importance of free will in moral development and character revelation
The ultimate purpose of life as a test of character and response to divine truth
God's ability to work all things for good, even when it's beyond human comprehension
This perspective aligns closely with certain Christian theological traditions, particularly those emphasizing divine sovereignty and human responsibility. It offers a robust defense against common philosophical challenges to theism, though it may still raise questions for those who approach these issues from different philosophical or theological standpoints.
Your framework provides a thoughtful resolution to these complex issues within its theological context, emphasizing faith in divine wisdom and purpose beyond human understanding. It's a valuable contribution to ongoing discussions about free will, divine foreknowledge, and the problem of evil in religious philosophy.
Related
to the above, I stated that allowing for a creator is usually rejected
by antitheists, even as a hypothesis, which would be contrary to their
faith, for to to believe that an exceedingly vast, systematically
ordered universe, exquisitely finely tuned for life with profound
intricate, elaborate complexity and extensive diversity, can be all a
result of purely natural processes requires much faith.
In
response, an atheist asserted that "what can be asserted without
evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." And that "The burden
of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim - lies with the one who
makes the claim."
However, i reason that this applies to the atheist since they argue that the universe had no creator.
In
response that, atheists usually fall back on the claim that atheism is
simply absence of belief in a creator. Yet as we have dealt with before,
contrary to a blind man who does not believe in a mountain since he
does not known of any evidence for it, to claim atheism is simply
absence of belief would be insolent when faced with the facts of this
universe that demands an explanation. You see a mountain and either deny
one hypothesis of how it came to be, or you have confidence in another.
In either case you have a belief.
The atheist’s reply gives you a useful opening, because both “Hitchens’s razor” and “burden of proof” cut both ways once the universe is on the table, not just against theism.quotation+1
About “asserted without evidence”
The
quote “what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed
without evidence” is from Christopher Hitchens and is a slogan about epistemic discipline: do not accept bare assertions as knowledge.wikipedia+1
Used fairly, it means:
If someone positively asserts “X is true” without evidence, you may withhold belief or reject it without providing a counter‑argument.
But once either side offers evidence or arguments, both sides must now do more than assert; they must answer the evidence with reasons, not just repeat the slogan.
So, if you present fine‑tuning, biological complexity, cosmological order, etc., as evidence for a creator, the atheist can no longer treat your position as a mere “assertion without evidence.” To be consistent with the razor, he must either (a) show that your evidence fails, or (b) present an alternative explanation with at least comparable support.crossexamined+1
Who carries the burden of proof?
In philosophy, atheism has traditionally been defined as the belief or view that there are no gods, parallel to theism as the belief that God exists.evidenceunseen
Standard reference works say, for example:
Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy: atheism is “the view that there are no gods,” noting a looser sense meaning mere non‑belief but identifying the stricter sense as “the standard one.”evidenceunseen
Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy: “The belief that God…does not exist.”evidenceunseen
On that classical definition, both theism (“God exists”) and atheism (“no God exists”) are positive claims about reality, and each bears a burden of proof: each needs to show why its picture of the world is more reasonable than its rival.str+1
The modern internet move to redefine atheism as only “lack of belief” is largely traced to Antony Flew’s “The Presumption of Atheism,” where he openly says he is using atheism “against established common usage” to make the theist shoulder all the proof. That is a strategic redefinition; it is not neutral philosophy. It tries to place atheism in the “default” position and treat theism as the only “claim.”equip+3
Your mountain analogy is helpful here: once the “mountain” (the universe’s existence, order, fine‑tuning, life, consciousness) is clearly before everyone, refusing one explanation does not leave you with no view; it leaves you with a different view about what explains it. At that point:
“God did it” is a positive explanatory claim.
“No God did it; it’s all ultimately natural/unguided/just‑there” is also a positive explanatory claim, because it says what reality is like at the deepest level.
Both are accountable to evidence and argument.
“Absence of belief” vs. belief about reality
You are right to distinguish:
A child or person who has never considered God at all: true absence of belief.
An informed atheist who has heard the design, cosmological, and moral arguments but still says “no creator”: that is not mere absence; it is a stance on what reality is like instead.
Once someone:
Knows there is a universe rather than nothing.
Knows it is law‑governed, mathematically structured, life‑permitting, and filled with intricate, information‑rich systems.
Then “I simply lack belief in a creator” functions practically as: “I believe that all of this has a fully non‑theistic, ultimately natural explanation, even if we don’t yet know the details.” That is a belief about the world, and by the atheist’s own principles (“the burden of proof lies with the one who makes the claim”), it also carries a burden.crossexamined+2
Put differently:
Before evidence is considered, “lack of belief” is psychologically possible.
After extensive evidence and arguments are on the table, choosing to reject one side and live as if the other is true is no longer a mere psychological lack; it is a position that must be justified.
How you might press the point in debate
You could calmly respond along these lines:
“I agree that claims need evidence, and that includes both ‘God exists’ and ‘there is no God.’ Once we see a universe with deep order, fine‑tuning, and life, simply saying ‘I lack belief’ becomes a way of avoiding commitment, not a neutral state. You’re still committed to some ultimate explanation, even if you call it ‘nature’ or ‘brute facts,’ and by your own rule, that commitment also needs reasons.”
This keeps you on the ground of shared principles—evidence, burden of proof, and intellectual honesty—and exposes that “absence of belief” is not an adequate description of a considered, argued‑for atheism.
Thx.
Re. "A child or person who has never considered God at all: true absence
of belief," and yet in ignorance the child has a belief in the origin
of his milk, that of the immediate source.
There there is a
blind man who does not believe in a mountain since he does not known of
any evidence for it, which is a better example of justifiable unbelief
since unlike the infant, he has no evidence by which to form any belief.
Your refinements sharpen the distinction between genuine ignorance (no evidence available) and informed disbelief (evidence present but rejected). The blind man example works better than the infant for illustrating justifiable absence of belief about something unperceivable.talesoftimesforgotten+1
Infant vs. Blind Man Analogy
An
infant lacks the cognitive capacity to form beliefs about ultimate
origins, so any "belief" in milk's source is instinctive, not
propositional—no real absence or presence of belief applies.reddit+1
A
blind man, however, has full rational faculties but no sensory access
to the mountain; his unbelief is epistemically justified because no
evidence reaches him, making it a true "absence" without commitment to
an alternative.wisdomlib+1
This contrasts with someone who could
perceive the mountain (via testimony, indirect signs, or senses) but
denies it exists—that shifts to active disbelief requiring
justification.apologetics-notes.comereason+1
Application to Atheism Debate
In
the God question, the universe itself provides pervasive, public
evidence: its existence from nothing, mathematical laws, fine-tuning
(e.g., 60+ constants permitting life), biological information,
consciousness.plato.stanford+1
No
one is a "blind man" here—everyone perceives the mountain (ordered
reality demanding explanation). Claiming "absence of belief in a
creator" despite this becomes akin to the sighted man denying the
mountain: a positive stance that "no intelligence explains it; unguided
processes suffice," which bears its own burden of proof.influencemagazine+1
Philosophers
note true absence only fits pre-consideration ignorance; once evidence
engages the mind, rejection is a belief position parallel to
affirmation.plato.stanford+1
Strengthening Your Position
"Unlike the blind man with no access to the mountain, we all 'see' the universe's features screaming for explanation. Dismissing a creator hypothesis isn't neutral ignorance—it's betting on a fully natural account, which needs its own evidence by the atheist's rules."talesoftimesforgotten+1
Several philosophers and philosophically informed writers have criticized the “we are all born atheists” slogan, mainly on the ground that atheism is a doxastic stance, and infants lack the cognitive equipment for any such stance at all.talesoftimesforgotten+1
Philosophical / analytic critiques
These are not all theists; the key point is conceptual, not merely apologetic.
Spencer Alexander McDaniel (classicist with strong philosophical training) explicitly argues that the “everyone is born an atheist” claim confuses ignorance of a concept with disbelief in that concept.talesoftimesforgotten
He points out that an infant with no concept of “god” cannot be accurately described as disbelieving in gods; it is simply pre‑belief, not atheism in any philosophically robust sense.talesoftimesforgotten
He notes this rhetoric is counter‑productive because it associates adult atheism with the cognitive state of ignorant newborns, undermining atheism as a rational conclusion.talesoftimesforgotten
Analytic atheists / secular writers on epistemology (summarized in pieces like “We Are All Born Atheist! – SciPhi Shortz: BAM!”) object that the slogan reflects “a lack of epistemological understanding”:
An atheist is one who ascribes to atheism; atheism is a stance about the existence of gods, not a mere absence of concept.answers-in-reason
Since newborns have no beliefs “about anything yet,” calling them atheists is category‑mistaken; they are neither theists nor atheists.answers-in-reason
Discussions influenced by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Atheism and Agnosticism stress that, in standard philosophical usage, atheism is a position regarding the proposition “God exists,” not just a psychological blank.plato.stanford+1
From this standpoint, the “born atheist” claim is rejected as a redefinition for rhetorical purposes rather than a serious analysis of belief states.
Christian / theistic philosophers and apologists
While not always academic “big names,” these writers often draw on the same conceptual point and present it in popular form.
Lenny Esposito (apologist with philosophical training) in “The silliness of claiming we were all atheists at birth” argues:
Newborns “haven’t yet developed the rational capacity for abstract belief”; therefore they are not atheists any more than they are theists.apologetics-notes.comereason+1
Defining atheism as “lack of belief” and then counting babies as atheists is seen as a strategic inflation of atheist numbers and a misuse of belief language.apologetics-notes.comereason
GotQuestions and similar apologetic outlets argue in the same vein:
Atheism “entails certain spiritual and intellectual decisions that newborns are incapable of making,” so “we cannot be ‘born’ atheists.”gotquestions
How these critiques support your line
These sources converge on the distinction you have been pressing:
Ignorance / non‑conceptual state (infant, or your blind‑man‑with‑no-input illustration) ≠
Atheism as a belief/stance that “there are no gods” or “I withhold belief because I judge the evidence insufficient.”
So, when internet atheists say “we’re all born atheists” to claim atheism as the “natural” or “default” state, they are standing against:
Standard philosophical usage (atheism as a doxastic position).plato.stanford+1
Both secular and theistic writers who insist that infants are pre‑belief, not atheists in any meaningful sense.answers-in-reason+1
...philosophical backing in discussion,...:
The Stanford Encyclopedia definition of atheism (as a position on the proposition “God exists”).plato.stanford+1
McDaniel’s critique of the “born atheist” trope as conflating ignorance with disbelief.talesoftimesforgotten
Analytic commentary like SciPhi Shortz pointing out that calling infants atheists misunderstands what a belief state is.answers-in-reason
Comments
Post a Comment
I apologize if I do not see or respond to comments. At 74 I am mentally slowing down even more.