So I'm sure you've all heard the theodicy argument that God can't prevent, say, Ted Bundy from killing all those women because that would have denied good ol' Ted his free willy... err... free will. (The question of whether those women's having a choice to live would have counter-balanced that is usually glossed over.)
(And I'm not particularly interested the invariable "ah, but if you take choices because of reasons, you don't have free will" soapbox that seems to be summoned every time one even mentions free will. While it may be interesting in its own right, it's not particularly relevant for the question I'm about to ask. I'm talking only in the basic sense of whether God prevents it or not.)
And it seems to me like if the operative definition is some form "God isn't stopping you", then the whole theodicy argument becomes circular. Then it's just God doesn't stop a serial killer, because God doesn't stop him.
So essentially, what does that argument even mean then?
(And I'm not particularly interested the invariable "ah, but if you take choices because of reasons, you don't have free will" soapbox that seems to be summoned every time one even mentions free will. While it may be interesting in its own right, it's not particularly relevant for the question I'm about to ask. I'm talking only in the basic sense of whether God prevents it or not.)
And it seems to me like if the operative definition is some form "God isn't stopping you", then the whole theodicy argument becomes circular. Then it's just God doesn't stop a serial killer, because God doesn't stop him.
So essentially, what does that argument even mean then?
via International Skeptics Forum http://bit.ly/2Ijxh6y
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire