God can write straight with crooked lines.

[I Have Questions]

You “need” faith because ultimate commitments (to theism, naturalism, moral realism, etc.) always outrun strictly demonstrative evidence, so trust/faith is unavoidable for everyone, believer or not. Faith is not invented to explain evil away, but is the stance of trusting God’s goodness while freely choosing the good in a world where evil really is possible and often devastating.

If God were to constantly intervene in human affairs and make everything 'right'...then, yes, there would be no need for faith. But what kind of world would that be?

The gaps for trust to extrapolate are, in commitments to theism, naturalism, moral realism, etc., much narrower as they are not as wide as the gaps that religionists claim faith in "God" must fill. Science--i.e., knowledge--has kept shrinking those gaps and will continue to do so. The more ignorant mankind as a whole was, the more gaps that a "God" was needed to help span them in human understanding. As those gaps have been shrinking, "God" has become less and less useful--sort of like the Brittish monarchy.

It strikes me that MG makes an interesting point, albeit unwittingly. God answering prayers, blessing people etc is an erosion of faith. A Mormon appealing to God for intervention in an illness or a bad situation, or in any way whatsoever, shows a lack of faith.

[Limnor]

The gaps for trust to extrapolate are, in commitments to theism, naturalism, moral realism, etc., much narrower as they are not as wide as the gaps that religionists claim faith in "God" must fill. Science--i.e., knowledge--has kept shrinking those gaps and will continue to do so. The more ignorant mankind as a whole was, the more gaps that a "God" was needed to help span them in human understanding. As those gaps have been shrinking, "God" has become less and less useful--sort of like the Brittish monarchy.

It strikes me that MG makes an interesting point, albeit unwittingly. God answering prayers, blessing people etc is an erosion of faith. A Mormon appealing to God for intervention in an illness or a bad situation, or in any way whatsoever, shows a lack of faith.

This might be a Sorites situation. If constant intervention removes the need for faith, then slightly less intervention preserves it, we could suppose. But how much less? If God intervened one time a day, would faith still be necessary? Once a year? Once per century?

At what point does intervention become a heap where faith is no longer necessary?

[Gadianton]

A Mormon appealing to God for intervention in an illness or a bad situation, or in any way whatsoever, shows a lack of faith

How much are you ready to suffer for the glory of God?

There are a ton of problems with the free will defense, but one is that God does intervene. God brought a worldwide flood and killed everyone except eight people because they were partying and not worshiping God, or something. No problem taking away their free will. He sent she bears to kill the kids making fun of Samuel for being bald. He killed the firstborn of Egypt as a sign to let the Hebrews go. Jesus healed the sick. How is a person's will trampled upon less when a fellow human intervenes on behalf of God rather than God intervening directly? Presumably, he could go the "prime directive" route and it's something about humanity as a whole needing to figure it out, or by him acting he takes the freedom away of those expected to act. But, he's acted enough by authority of scripture to give us some hints that it is in fact okay for him to violate free will, presumably it's "for the greater good". That greater good seems to be to instill belief. In the Old Testament, to scare people into submission -- which is playing fast and loose with free will in itself, and in the New Testament, to work positive miracles, as the carrot. To create buzz. Did he violate free will when he multiplied the loaves and fishes? If yes, then how was it justified? If no, then he could be doing a whole lot more of that today.

[huckelberry]

A Mormon appealing to God for intervention in an illness or a bad situation, or in any way whatsoever, shows a lack of faith

How much are you ready to suffer for the glory of God?

There are a ton of problems with the free will defense, but one is that God does intervene. God brought a worldwide flood and killed everyone except eight people because they were partying and not worshiping God, or something. No problem taking away their free will. He sent she bears to kill the kids making fun of Samuel for being bald. He killed the firstborn of Egypt as a sign to let the Hebrews go. Jesus healed the sick. How is a person's will trampled upon less when a fellow human intervenes on behalf of God rather than God intervening directly? Presumably, he could go the "prime directive" route and it's something about humanity as a whole needing to figure it out, or by him acting he takes the freedom away of those expected to act. But, he's acted enough by authority of scripture to give us some hints that it is in fact okay for him to violate free will, presumably it's "for the greater good". That greater good seems to be to instill belief. In the Old Testament, to scare people into submission -- which is playing fast and loose with free will in itself, and in the New Testament, to work positive miracles, as the carrot. To create buzz. Did he violate free will when he multiplied the loaves and fishes? If yes, then how was it justified? If no, then he could be doing a whole lot more of that today.

Gadianton, I do not see how God interviening in a miraculous fashion hurts people's free will at all. People were free to decide what to do or not do with an abundance of loaves and fishes. Perhaps free will is a bit clumsy shorthand for the whole growing process of responsibility and learning. Real danger and real injury have been an important part of that.

I suppose one can wonder( I am sure everybody has from time to time) why could not God have created us both responsible and all knowing to start with. I do not think I have any way to know what God could have done. I find growing in responsibility is essential to what I am. Perhaps it is at that point that free will is necessary.

[malkie]

By the way, I must apologise to MG and IHQ, and possibly to Limnor.

I made a comment several days ago in this topic that each of you replied to, and that I subsequently failed to follow up on, although your comments certainly deserved a reply. At this point, the conversation having moved on, I think it's not too likely that I'll have the energy to go back and read everything from then till now to try to create coherent and relevant responses. I'm suffering a bit from the winter "blahs", or something like that.

Sorry

[MG 2.0]

I suppose one can wonder( I am sure everybody has from time to time) why could not God have created us both responsible and all knowing to start with. I do not think I have any way to know what God could have done. I find growing in responsibility is essential to what I am. Perhaps it is at that point that free will is necessary.

I think you've hit at the root of things. Omnipotence does not include doing what is logically impossible. Right?

Thus, the need to have some way of straightening things out as agency/choice is used and/or abused. God writing straight using crooked lines. It's not a bug, it's a feature.

Of course, if I'm wrong, and God can dance on the head of a pin, then I guess I'll have to eat my hat.

By the way, you say, "essential to what I am". Another way of saying God can't create square circles. A circle is a circle. God's omnipotence not withstanding.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

By the way, I must apologise to MG and IHQ, and possibly to Limnor.

I made a comment several days ago in this topic that each of you replied to, and that I subsequently failed to follow up on, although your comments certainly deserved a reply. At this point, the conversation having moved on, I think it's not too likely that I'll have the energy to go back and read everything from then till now to try to create coherent and relevant responses. I'm suffering a bit from the winter "blahs", or something like that.

Sorry

I've been through a bad cold and sore throat and stomach flu in the last two weeks. I think I know what you mean by the "blahs". No worries, I don't respond to all the posts that are thrown my way any more. Too time consuming. Better for mental health.

Taking breathers and ignoring posts now and then is not a sin. Although it may be a transgression.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

It strikes me that MG makes an interesting point, albeit unwittingly. God answering prayers, blessing people etc is an erosion of faith. A Mormon appealing to God for intervention in an illness or a bad situation, or in any way whatsoever, shows a lack of faith.

This might be a Sorites situation. If constant intervention removes the need for faith, then slightly less intervention preserves it, we could suppose. But how much less? If God intervened one time a day, would faith still be necessary? Once a year? Once per century?

At what point does intervention become a heap where faith is no longer necessary?

There may be a conceptual threshold where God's intervention would so dominate the environment and/or world we live in that faith would no longer be possible. There would be no possibility of trust amidst ambiguity and freedom. That threshold may not be defined by the count of interventions, per se, but by whether the 'growth through risk' structure is preserved. I would imagine God could figure out what that threshold is from one place to another and one time to another and from one person to another.

That is a BIG God.

And we want things so black and white and tidy. If it's not, then...what?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

A Mormon appealing to God for intervention in an illness or a bad situation, or in any way whatsoever, shows a lack of faith

How much are you ready to suffer for the glory of God?

There are a ton of problems with the free will defense, but one is that God does intervene. God brought a worldwide flood and killed everyone except eight people because they were partying and not worshiping God, or something. No problem taking away their free will. He sent she bears to kill the kids making fun of Samuel for being bald. He killed the firstborn of Egypt as a sign to let the Hebrews go. Jesus healed the sick. How is a person's will trampled upon less when a fellow human intervenes on behalf of God rather than God intervening directly? Presumably, he could go the "prime directive" route and it's something about humanity as a whole needing to figure it out, or by him acting he takes the freedom away of those expected to act. But, he's acted enough by authority of scripture to give us some hints that it is in fact okay for him to violate free will, presumably it's "for the greater good". That greater good seems to be to instill belief. In the Old Testament, to scare people into submission -- which is playing fast and loose with free will in itself, and in the New Testament, to work positive miracles, as the carrot. To create buzz. Did he violate free will when he multiplied the loaves and fishes? If yes, then how was it justified? If no, then he could be doing a whole lot more of that today.

None of the examples you list show God reaching inside someone’s mind and coercing their choice. They do show God altering circumstances or imposing consequences within a story where people (free agents) had already chosen.

Violence, oppression, mockery, idolatry, etc.

As per my last few posts, may I suggest that it is unreasonable, on its face, to expect God to have 'moment by moment' control (across the whole world, mind you) over what people do or don't do?

It's not black and white, as I've said recently and at other times in other conversations.

Regards,
MG

[Everybody Wang Chung]

A Mormon appealing to God for intervention in an illness or a bad situation, or in any way whatsoever, shows a lack of faith

How much are you ready to suffer for the glory of God?

There are a ton of problems with the free will defense, but one is that God does intervene. God brought a worldwide flood and killed everyone except eight people because they were partying and not worshiping God, or something. No problem taking away their free will. He sent she bears to kill the kids making fun of Samuel for being bald. He killed the firstborn of Egypt as a sign to let the Hebrews go. Jesus healed the sick. How is a person's will trampled upon less when a fellow human intervenes on behalf of God rather than God intervening directly? Presumably, he could go the "prime directive" route and it's something about humanity as a whole needing to figure it out, or by him acting he takes the freedom away of those expected to act. But, he's acted enough by authority of scripture to give us some hints that it is in fact okay for him to violate free will, presumably it's "for the greater good". That greater good seems to be to instill belief. In the Old Testament, to scare people into submission -- which is playing fast and loose with free will in itself, and in the New Testament, to work positive miracles, as the carrot. To create buzz. Did he violate free will when he multiplied the loaves and fishes? If yes, then how was it justified? If no, then he could be doing a whole lot more of that today.

And let’s not forget God hardening Pharaoh’s heart. In Exodus 9:12 and 10:1, the text states that the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart so that he would not let the Israelites go. Dan McClellan has an interesting video about this incident and compares it to God using Pharaoh as his personal string puppet, after stripping the Pharaoh of his free will.