famous photo of Vietnamese girl napalmed by
Americans in Vietnam war
This is a continuation of last Wednesday's discussion about Jeff Lowder's argument on natural inequality renders God less probable. "This is one of his F inductive" arguments Because Jeff doesn't have the issue framed in terms of a theodicy argument or in terms of a problem of evil then can't apply so he dismisses my whole approach, My view is that the bottom line is the world does the world seem like the kind of world we would have if there was a God? To be able to answer that we have to know what God is like, That's a matter of special revelation and that means doctrine,
Jeffery Jay Lowder I think it's rather one-sided for you (or any theist) to appeal to God's omnipotence when defending the possibility (or reality) of miracles, but then to downplay or implicitly deny His omnipotence when responding to atheistic arguments. Make no mistake: you just implicitly denied God's omnipotence. Why? Because if God exists, created physical reality, and used evolution to create complex life, then God is responsible for the fact that the distribution of natural endowments is the result of evolution. Your comment implies that God had no choice but to use evolution, which is false. If God exists, He is omnipotent. He can do anything that is logically possible. At the very least, God could have created us the way Ken Ham says he did, i.e., according to a literal interpretation of Genesis. So appealing to "evolutionary dispositions" is both irrelevant and denies God's existence (by denying God's omnipotence).
(1) Omnipotence does not mean God has no balancing act between necessities
I have not stated a position on omnipotence, relative, it'not in the Bible. Maximal power is not necessarily omnipotence. The only term in the Bible translated as "all powerful" or omnipotent is used one time in one place, revelation. The word is "pantocrator" it means not "all powerful"as it can do anything but powerful in all places, or everywhere. In other words God has jurisdiction over everything. He is the proper power the authority.It means as the authority the one with the power but not necessarily power to do logically impossible things. That does not mean he can do logically contradictory things. While evolution is not a matter of logic that must mean necessarily that God has to balance one things against another.
A major example is love and free will. If God wants us to love him he must give us free will. He cannot create us loving him that would not be real love. Real love requires free will. God can't go "I can do anything, I'll make them love." It would not be love to do it that way. Omnipotence does not mean the power to violate logical necessity. Thus there are limitations which means God must work with mitigation.
(2) free will is necessary for moral agency, the point of creation.
Without free will there could be no free oral agency, Thus in order to have free moral agents who willingly seek the good God must have a free will universe., That requires that people seek truth, only seeking allows us to internationalize the values of the good. If nature made everyone equal and nothing ever went wrong it would be pretty obvious the game is fixed. So free will requires a neutral world imn which people must search for truth, Thus the discernible processes of the world must be random,
(2) Evolution is just a mechanism of randomness, It's just a means of allowing the universe to be created impenitently of a micro managing agent. That doesn't mean God is not working at some fundamental sustaining level such as thought of the strong force.
(3) Evolution is logical expression of God's nature
Evolution doesn't have to be the only physical alternative but could nevertheless be God's tool of choice or any number of reasons (an expression of God's nature). The idea that God would not use evolution but would "zap things'" (special creation) is based upon a view that God is a big man, He thinks like a man he approaches creation like a craftsman building a cabinet. If we have a more sophisticated view of God as with process theology evolution would be just a logical expression of God's nature. That would obviously be true for the God of process theology (diapolar between concrete and potential--in the concealment in process with creation).
At this point I invoked a concept "calling" to account for individuals of extraordinary virtue who serve God in powerful ways.
There may be certain people who are given gits because they are give the opportunity to serve God in some great way . Not all people could be the leader of the civil rights movement, Not all people were given the gifts of Martin Luther King., It's not unfair or immoral that God raises up a Martin Luther King, not everyone is willing to make the sacrifices that go with the gifts.This evokes the charge of contradiction from Jeff.
This passage contradicts your first objection. You were just telling us that it isn't God's fault because the distribution of natural endowments is the result of evolutionary dispositions. But now you are claiming that God handed out "gifts" based upon how they would be used. That's a blatant contradiction. But let that pass.
No I t does not. First of all gifts are not deserved they are gratuities, One doesn't give gifts because they are earned or merited, merited giving is reward not gift. God is not giving MLK the chance to die for the civil rights movement because he deserves it, he's given the opportunity to subjugate his life to cause because he chooses to respond to calling. It'snot a reward, Secondly I did not that "God handed out 'gifts' based upon how they would be used." I did not say god raised up MLK because je would use the gift rightly. God created the job and MLK chose to take the job. Of course he didn't know that but being a minister hie understood calling. There were no doubt others similarly endowed who chose not to go down that path, Other did go down it but didn't go as far such Jesse Jacson. There is nothing immoral or wrong in that situation, God uses people who are willing to head the call. Only those with the endowment who are going to fill the slot. Someone without King's qualities wouldn't make it as leader. Maybe God gave kind a boost because he was needed. That is not the same as saying he was rewarded with leadership. He heeded a call.
A more important issue is this. Since natural endowments are mostly determined before birth (many at conception), no one deserves whatever endowments or lack of endowments they get. Martin Luther King, Jr. did nothing to deserve to be born with the endowments he got.
That's right it was not a reward Being marketer for civil rights was not an enjoyment bestowed as a gift, it was a responsibility. King chose to live up the talk, which included his life lie being snuffed out.
But the most important issue is this. You are cherry-picking or, if you prefer, understating the evidence. Yes, MLK had certain natural endowments which enabled him to be the kind of person he was. But there are other people who had similar natural endowments and used them for evil. Think Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin. Not anyone who decides to be evil could accomplish what Hitler and Stalin did; it takes certain natural endowments to be able to pull off their monstrosities. Once the evidence about the usage of natural endowments is fully stated, it seems absurd to think that natural endowments are distributed based on they would be used in life. If what you were saying were actually true, then there never should have been a Hitler or Stalin because God would have said, "Whoa! These guys are going to be evil. I'm not going to given them any gifts. In fact, maybe I will make THEM into microcephalics."