The last response with morally significant freedom to choose and the response to the objection was fantastic. This seems to be the best answer for the problem of heaven. If you don’t believe in free will it’s not going to be convincing but I think that free will debate needs to be had first before we have a problem of heaven discussion
Excellent interview Jordan! I definitely am on board the last response. The Old and especially New Testament are filled with themes of becoming like God. The more we become partakers of the divine image, the less and less we will sin (even though sometimes we feel as if it's more and more due to the Spirit gradually making us aware of all our failures haha). Thanks again for your great content! 👍
I would be curious how critics of the "Problem of Heaven" would weigh these counter-arguments in light of the condemning of most people to Hell? Is the condemnation of most mankind to an eternity in Hell worth the "greatest good" of having the atonement? I don't think so. There also seems to be this issue of constantly changing the definition of God/heaven/free will, so as to avoid any criticism too. I appreciated this discussion because of how little attention this argument gets, but I'm still a unmoved. Great video!
Thanks for watching and I’m glad you enjoyed it. You said that you are unmoved by Dr. Timpe’s responses. You give two reasons for being unmoved. The first was that you don’t think the condemnation of most mankind to an eternity in Hell is worth the “greatest good” of having the atonement. The second was that Dr. Timpe changed the definition of God, Heaven, and free will to avoid criticism. I see how your first reason applies to the O Felix Culpa response. But does it apply to the other responses? And wouldn’t the proponent of annihilationism or universalism still be able to appeal to the O Felix Culpa response since your objection assumes an eternal conscious torment view of hell? Also, can you give an example of how Dr. Timpe changed the definition of God, Heaven, and Free will just to avoid criticism?
That was very helpful. It does seem intuitive on a Biblical perspective that at some point, those who are believers would want to have our wills fully conformed to God's. This seems something that would even differentiate the believer from the one who rejects God. The Christian, in love, would want to be fully conformed to God's image and the one who rejects him would, by the nature of it, never want to give up their own autonomy.
@@nathanfosdahl7525 why is choice so important? After all, God doesn’t seem to care much for choice throughout the OT. After all, he hardens Pharoah’s heart. He doesn’t send a prophet to Canaan to give them a CHOICE to repent before slaughtering them all in the conquest. I’m not sure where Christians get this obsession with choice from. Especially with how God literally predestines things (see Romans 8:29-30, Ephesians 1:4-5, 1:11-14, etc.).
@@Iamwrongbut Wait, that’s totally false. The OT is filled with passages where God insists that people (not just Jews) should make good choices. The Canaanites did know that judgement was coming for them. There was time for repentance.
This was an area I haven't heard many people talk about. I find the Felix compelling & if someone accepted the concept of the Christian God, even just for argument sake, you would have to factor in God's plan of salvation, since it is apparently real under such a construct. God thought important enough to torture himself & be killed over it, that would imply it is one of, if not the, highest good. His nature might compell that. His morals might demand that. In fact, it seems needed if God is to have a meaningful part to play in his own creation. God Loves us so much, that he wanted to join us in communion. That is an emotionally huge hit & you cannot deny emotions value, even while going for a logical conclusion. Your emotions logically should be involved in the best option of possible worlds. I haven't thought this through yet, of course I just heard it. Still, it seems to have such obvious higher level goods, given what we have seen. It is hard to say it isn't effective, even with daily pain being normalized. In fact, it makes this world & the next seem necessarily one after the other. I still feel that you have done as he said in that relationship in Heaven though. You accented to God's will be done. That one choice, should allow God to fully determine Heaven as Good, since you gave that power back. *You returned the ever lasting Gobstopper.* You stop opposing God with your will. Great talk
These responses seem to assume that free choice is better than being a perfectly good person without free will. Why is that assumption true? I would much rather have perfect obedience to a loving God than risk sinning against him.
@@magicker8052 I wouldn’t be mindless, I’d just be a mind that is wholly morally perfect. Otherwise you’d have to call God a mindless zombie because he can’t sin
Well if Satan is far enough away from God then he could fall - Luke 10:18 "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven". Being in the presence of God would prevent sin like metal to magnets.
I think that Satan being a very high Cherub had far more divine revelation than we do. And so his rebellion as a result would be far more irreversible and irredeemable. If you know far more about God intimately then betrayal would be far more egregious. Likewise I believe that this more intimate divine revelation made it that to turn against that would mean that to make such a decision would have no turning back. And those who make that decision would be absolutely unrepentant. Closing a possibility of redemption. Humans by more of a veiling of God's revelation has more excuse and more mercy as in such circumstances its easier to repent.
@@johnrockwell5834 I don't think you understand how huge this problem truly is for Christians. for example: Apologists often answer the problem of divine hiddenness with concept of, if god wasn't hidden wouldn't have freewill. Which to be honest i think is completely asinine. But all you have to do is point to Satan and the host of others that defied God. They clearly still had free will. Another problem is the the freewill/can you sin in heaven issue. Apologists will often say you can't sin in heaven, which brings up huge problems for freewill. But if you can't sin in heaven explain Satan and the host of others that clearly did. These are just a few examples, there are more surrounding Satan. Like god creating him in the first place or god allowing him to influence man or god not just ending Satan all together. Christian theology has more plot holes in it than the Avenger movies!
@@jacoblee5796 There’s pretty good literature written on this topic. Good responses have been offered (I’m still learning too) to all of those concerns you are raising. See “Why does God allow evil?” by Clay Jones (very good book). You can also check authors like Timothy Pawl and Kevin Timpe. They together have written on this subject (though I haven’t fully checked their response).
My main problem with ur argument here is I think it does not work well with the thought of kids and the unborn going to heaven, not having to deal with temptations fully yet...
@@TheAnalyticChristian ok thanks! I’m brand new to this. I’m trying to find out how to save the video after I have finished recording it in order to publish it to TH-cam. Any tips? Thanks for your time!
yes. my first response would be to ask you why you think free will is contingent upon knowledge of any kind. i can't see any reason to think that you can only have free will if you have a certain amount or kind of knowledge. my second response would be to say that free will, in laymen's terms, is the ability to make your own decisions. to decide which desires you will act upon and which you will not. as such, your knowledge of good and evil is irrelevant to whether or not you have free will. take children for example. young children do not have the ability to comprehend good and evil, but they aren't robots. they have free will just like any other human being. you don't gain fee will the moment you reach the age of reason, when you are capable of understanding concepts like good and evil.
@@jackplumbridge2704 How exactly can you freely choose between doing good and evil if you don't have knowledge of Good and Evil? If a child had no knowledge of Good and Evil, and did an action that you thought was evil, would you blame the child? Would you say the child was evil? Would you say the child intentionally did an evil action? Or, think about it like this.. How can you intentionally do an evil action if you have no knowledge of Good and Evil? I would hope you would agree that there is no such thing as an accidental evil action, and that in order for someone to commit an evil action they must have evil intent. So, basically I wonder how someone can have evil intent without having knowledge of good and evil in the first place?
@@drewdrake9130 "How exactly can you freely choose between doing good and evil if you don't have knowledge of Good and Evil?" - your choices wouldn't be made based on your knowledge of good and evil, they would be based on other desires. "If a child had no knowledge of Good and Evil, and did an action that you thought was evil, would you blame the child?" - no. this is precisely why we don't put young children in prison. children are not held to the same standards as adults because they cannot operate on the same level as adults. "Would you say the child was evil?" - a child doing something bad without knowledge that it is bad is not made evil by their actions, no. "Would you say the child intentionally did an evil action?" - yes, but since they are not capable of understanding what they are doing they are innocent of any guilt. "How can you intentionally do an evil action if you have no knowledge of Good and Evil?" - you do the action because of other reasons. if a child goes into a sweet shop and starts eating the sweets off the shelves, they are technically stealing, but since they have no understanding that stealing is wrong and that they need to pay, they are not guilty. their action was an immoral actions, but they are not guilty, since guilt requires a knowledge of evil. "I would hope you would agree that there is no such thing as an accidental evil action, and that in order for someone to commit an evil action they must evil intent." - this depends how you define "an evil action". a person can do evil things without having evil intentions, like the example i laid out above. a person cannot be guilty without having a knowledge of evil. "So, basically I wonder how someone can have evil intent without having knowledge of good and evil in the first place?" - this is a completely different question to your original question. you originally asked "Can someone have free will if they don't have knowledge of Good and Evil?" - and now you have changed it to: "So, basically I wonder how someone can have evil intent without having knowledge of good and evil in the first place?". a person can't have evil intent without a knowledge of evil. a person can have free will without a knowledge of evil.
@@jackplumbridge2704 Telling me that my choices would be based upon other desires, doesn't explain how someone can freely choose between doing good and evil, if they don't have knowledge of Good and Evil. ( are you essentially saying they could not? ) Also, when I mention Freewill, I'm talking about freely choosing what to do in moral situations. Hope that helps If someone cannot have evil intent without having knowledge of Good and Evil, then how exactly could someone sin without having knowledge of Good and Evil?
@@drewdrake9130 "Telling me that my choices would be based upon other desires, doesn't explain how someone can freely choose between doing good and evil, if they don't have knowledge of Good and Evil." - maybe because i wasn't answering that question, as you only raised it AFTER i showed you that you don't need knowledge of good and evil in order to have free will. i answered your original question. you created a second question. now you are complaining that i didn't answer your second question, because i was answering your first. you need to keep track of what i am responding to. "Also, when I mention Freewill, I'm talking about freely choosing what to do in moral situations. Hope that helps" - then you are only talking about a part of free will, not free will as a whole. a person can't choose between and good and evil if they have no knowledge of good and evil. but a person can make free choices in general without knowledge of good and evil. "If someone cannot have evil intent without having knowledge of Good and Evil, then how exactly could someone sin without having knowledge of Good and Evil?" - im assuming you are talking about genesis, when it talks about the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and how Adam and Eve were told not to eat of it, and when they did they were cast out of Eden. the word being used as "knowledge" in this verse has numerous meanings in Hebrew. usually, in English, when we use the word knowledge we simply mean an intellectual awareness of something. but the word in Hebrew has a bunch of different meanings and is used hundreds of times throughout the bible, meaning different things in different circumstances. to take the word to mean something like "an intellectual awareness of" would conflict with what other parts of the same chapter say. for example, Adam is made in the image of God, and part of that entails the ability to act morally, which entails moral knowledge. and also, God specifically tells Adam that he must not eat from the tree otherwise he will surely die. this implies that Adam was aware of the good state of things in the present, but also that his actions would deviate from the current good standard and cause evil things to occur. the most accurate use of the word being used would be an experiential knowledge of good and evil. in the chapter, before Adam and Eve ate the fruit, all they had experienced were good things. everything God made was called "good" or "very good". they had no experiential knowledge of evil. but after they ate the fruit they experienced evil. they experienced guilt. hence God saying "The man has now become like one of Us, knowing good and evil.". the only way that you can maintain the belief that Genesis is talking about an intellectual awareness of good and evil is to do 2 things. 1) claim there is only one way in which the Hebrew word "yada" is used, which is demonstrably false. 2) ignore the parts of the chapter that refute the idea that Adam and Eve had no intellectual awareness of good and evil. namely, them being made in the image of God and being commanded not to eat from the tree lest they die.
If some of the greatest goods that exist in Heaven are contingent on evils that exist on Earth(e.g. theosis, defeat of evil), then this whole argument falls apart.
What of the idea that determinism is true in heaven? On evangelicalism, humans are saved by grace through faith quite in disagreement to a Catholic view of soteriology. A soul building theodicy sounds like a decent explanation to this question, but can it be squared with evangelical soteriology? Now the idea of sanctification being a good that does not obtain in the instance of initial heavenly state sounds like an option. Molinism makes sense to me although it's hard to pin down how it is God has this knowledge.
Yeah this isn’t a very good argument from Oppy. Heaven isn’t a state of affairs divorced from “this world”. It grows out of this world like a tree from a seed-hence the union of heaven and earth as the goal of history. Hence one could always say that heaven is an event in this world’s history that obtains for people by their choices
The same reason God couldn't just forgive us for a sin, that he made up, that supposedly happened 7 thousand years before any of us were born, that had absolutely NOTHING to do with us whatsoever. The same reason that if God has every day of our life planned out before we are ever born, like the Bible says, the that means God decides who will be raped, and which children will starve to death, and then let's it happen. Because God didn't make humans in the image of himself. Humans made God in their image when they made him up.
Seems to me heaven needs to be more carefully defined. Do you mean the heavenly realm? Evil sprang up there long ago because it seems God gave heavenly beings freedom as well and some abused it. Do you mean the intermediate state? Or are you talking about the new earth of the next age?
Heaven is not freedom. In Heaven there will be no tears. There will be no more death' or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." Revelation 21:4
The question "Why didnt God create us in heaven?" is an easy one: HE DID CREATE US IN HEAVEN. It was called Eden and it was heaven on earth. Perfect in all possible ways. Remember, they didnt even need clothing in eden. All things were made into a perfect place for humans.
@@Iamwrongbut by my reckoning, no. The scriptures tell us (2peter 3:10) that this universe is basically going to suffer a nuclear implosion and melt. So, by my reckoning it will all be new AND ETERNAL. So in a new heaven and earth, one inhabited by the souls of people WHO HAVE MEMORIES OF PHYSICAL LIVES, falling away wont be happening. Unlike Adam and Eve, the other souls in heaven will KNOW WITH CERTAINTY the reality of the entirety of God, His will, His plan, and everything so tricking them with an apple will be tough.
@@Iamwrongbut I was just thinking about NT Wright. I think this only talks about heaven as the disembodied state between this life and the Resurrected life. I feel like this may miss the point that God wanted to create embodied being that would Image him in the physical world, thus us being created in "heaven" is kind of absurd. Some other things to look too is also Paul visiting the "7th heavens" so perhaps there are layers of the heavenly realm where we are farther from God's emminent presence. Also, the fall of angelic beings who were created in "heaven" but still rebelled. Im sure there are other interesting avenues to go down with.
@@zahzuhzay6533 well I was thinking more about how the new heavens and new earth are described at the end of revelation, not a spiritual-only existence that most Christians mean by heaven. I just don’t understand why God would risk people going to hell just by creating Eden when he could have went straight to the new Heavens and Earth of Revelation 21-22.
Great interview! I also like Joshua Rasmussen's point that, if God created us with fully-formed characters, we couldn't have a genuinely loving relationship with him. It would be like making someone drink a love potion that causes them to love you.
It wouldn’t be analogous because there would be no will existing beforehand to consent or not. There really is no analogy for such a counter-intuitive circumstance. It really depends on your pre-held ethical commitments. For me it is clear that there are plenty of examples of times where it is ethical to deny an agent free choice such as any good parent in a 1000 different ways with their children. In such cases it would be UNethical to give them a free choice.
@@blamtasticful However without free choice. How can you truly relate? If you made a robot that simulates good works and love for you are they really loving you back or are they just acting according to their programming?
@@johnrockwell5834 are we not robots in some ways, according to Genesis 6:5? We may not be good robots, but our hearts are bent toward evil in such a way that we cannot help but sin unless we are born again. How is this a better circumstance than being born completely good with no ability to be evil? See Genesis 8:21 for more evidence of this.
@@johnrockwell5834 How would that relate to a God who cannot do evil? Surely that is a good aspect of his nature. However, if we were to grant that he could then why shouldn’t we just say that such a being Isn’t instantiating a higher order good? Is it really a good thing to relate to the ability to choose to do evil? It seems like there’s reason to say no.
@@blamtasticful How can that which is infinite perfection cease to be infinite perfection? Yet in order to relate to beings outside himself He must create Being that is Finite in a Finite Materiality and in Finite Immateriality. Yet in creating Finite beings with Agency in "Time and Dimensions" that is capable of life requires them to be able to change. And that must be necessity result in the capacity to choose and cause timelines to occur. God doesn't need to change because his very Being has already done everything necessary in every possible timelines kept within the parameters of his will. His infinity has already encompassed all actions taken according to his perfections. Because GOD IS. His actions have already happened because he is outside of Time. Because GOD IS. HE IS ALWAYS HIMSELF. God has said of himself: "I AM THAT I AM" or "I AM HE WHO IS"
Kevin Timpe is 🔥
The last response with morally significant freedom to choose and the response to the objection was fantastic. This seems to be the best answer for the problem of heaven. If you don’t believe in free will it’s not going to be convincing but I think that free will debate needs to be had first before we have a problem of heaven discussion
Just discovered this channel, I am a huge fan already.
Excellent interview Jordan! I definitely am on board the last response. The Old and especially New Testament are filled with themes of becoming like God. The more we become partakers of the divine image, the less and less we will sin (even though sometimes we feel as if it's more and more due to the Spirit gradually making us aware of all our failures haha). Thanks again for your great content! 👍
Thank you for your work
So helpful and great thoughts...
I like the new name!
I would be curious how critics of the "Problem of Heaven" would weigh these counter-arguments in light of the condemning of most people to Hell? Is the condemnation of most mankind to an eternity in Hell worth the "greatest good" of having the atonement? I don't think so. There also seems to be this issue of constantly changing the definition of God/heaven/free will, so as to avoid any criticism too. I appreciated this discussion because of how little attention this argument gets, but I'm still a unmoved. Great video!
Thanks for watching and I’m glad you enjoyed it. You said that you are unmoved by Dr. Timpe’s responses. You give two reasons for being unmoved. The first was that you don’t think the condemnation of most mankind to an eternity in Hell is worth the “greatest good” of having the atonement. The second was that Dr. Timpe changed the definition of God, Heaven, and free will to avoid criticism.
I see how your first reason applies to the O Felix Culpa response. But does it apply to the other responses? And wouldn’t the proponent of annihilationism or universalism still be able to appeal to the O Felix Culpa response since your objection assumes an eternal conscious torment view of hell?
Also, can you give an example of how Dr. Timpe changed the definition of God, Heaven, and Free will just to avoid criticism?
That was very helpful.
It does seem intuitive on a Biblical perspective that at some point, those who are believers would want to have our wills fully conformed to God's. This seems something that would even differentiate the believer from the one who rejects God. The Christian, in love, would want to be fully conformed to God's image and the one who rejects him would, by the nature of it, never want to give up their own autonomy.
If that is the goal, then why not conform our will perfectly to God’s from birth? What is the necessity of sin/evil before that?
@@Iamwrongbut The difference is in choice. If I am conformed in will from birth, I have no choice in being conformed, a choice which seems paramount.
if god wanted a bunch of dumb sycophantic nutters in heaven he would have just made it this way
@@nathanfosdahl7525 why is choice so important? After all, God doesn’t seem to care much for choice throughout the OT. After all, he hardens Pharoah’s heart. He doesn’t send a prophet to Canaan to give them a CHOICE to repent before slaughtering them all in the conquest.
I’m not sure where Christians get this obsession with choice from. Especially with how God literally predestines things (see Romans 8:29-30, Ephesians 1:4-5, 1:11-14, etc.).
@@Iamwrongbut Wait, that’s totally false. The OT is filled with passages where God insists that people (not just Jews) should make good choices.
The Canaanites did know that judgement was coming for them. There was time for repentance.
Man I'm new to your channel. Your guests are splendid and of high intellectual value. Thank you for this interview.
This was an area I haven't heard many people talk about. I find the Felix compelling & if someone accepted the concept of the Christian God, even just for argument sake, you would have to factor in God's plan of salvation, since it is apparently real under such a construct. God thought important enough to torture himself & be killed over it, that would imply it is one of, if not the, highest good. His nature might compell that. His morals might demand that. In fact, it seems needed if God is to have a meaningful part to play in his own creation. God Loves us so much, that he wanted to join us in communion. That is an emotionally huge hit & you cannot deny emotions value, even while going for a logical conclusion. Your emotions logically should be involved in the best option of possible worlds.
I haven't thought this through yet, of course I just heard it. Still, it seems to have such obvious higher level goods, given what we have seen. It is hard to say it isn't effective, even with daily pain being normalized. In fact, it makes this world & the next seem necessarily one after the other.
I still feel that you have done as he said in that relationship in Heaven though. You accented to God's will be done. That one choice, should allow God to fully determine Heaven as Good, since you gave that power back. *You returned the ever lasting Gobstopper.* You stop opposing God with your will.
Great talk
These responses seem to assume that free choice is better than being a perfectly good person without free will. Why is that assumption true? I would much rather have perfect obedience to a loving God than risk sinning against him.
the "you" wont be "you" just some kind of mindless zombie
@@magicker8052 I wouldn’t be mindless, I’d just be a mind that is wholly morally perfect. Otherwise you’d have to call God a mindless zombie because he can’t sin
@@Iamwrongbut Sounds like a nightmare. Like being trapped on the operating table paralysed and the anaesthetic has not worked.
@@magicker8052 so God is strapped to an operating table!?
@@magicker8052 if our purpose is to be like God, it sounds more to like being empowered fully by the spirit to live out my purpose.
Well if Satan is far enough away from God then he could fall - Luke 10:18 "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven". Being in the presence of God would prevent sin like metal to magnets.
I think that Satan being a very high Cherub had far more divine revelation than we do. And so his rebellion as a result would be far more irreversible and irredeemable. If you know far more about God intimately then betrayal would be far more egregious.
Likewise I believe that this more intimate divine revelation made it that to turn against that would mean that to make such a decision would have no turning back. And those who make that decision would be absolutely unrepentant. Closing a possibility of redemption.
Humans by more of a veiling of God's revelation has more excuse and more mercy as in such circumstances its easier to repent.
@@johnrockwell5834 I don't think you understand how huge this problem truly is for Christians. for example:
Apologists often answer the problem of divine hiddenness with concept of, if god wasn't hidden wouldn't have freewill. Which to be honest i think is completely asinine. But all you have to do is point to Satan and the host of others that defied God. They clearly still had free will.
Another problem is the the freewill/can you sin in heaven issue. Apologists will often say you can't sin in heaven, which brings up huge problems for freewill. But if you can't sin in heaven explain Satan and the host of others that clearly did.
These are just a few examples, there are more surrounding Satan. Like god creating him in the first place or god allowing him to influence man or god not just ending Satan all together. Christian theology has more plot holes in it than the Avenger movies!
@@jacoblee5796 There’s pretty good literature written on this topic. Good responses have been offered (I’m still learning too) to all of those concerns you are raising. See “Why does God allow evil?” by Clay Jones (very good book). You can also check authors like Timothy Pawl and Kevin Timpe. They together have written on this subject (though I haven’t fully checked their response).
Awesome!
My main problem with ur argument here is I think it does not work well with the thought of kids and the unborn going to heaven, not having to deal with temptations fully yet...
kevintimpe.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/26/2018/12/Limbo.pdf
Hey man! Just curious, what platform do you use to record videos? Stream yard, Skype?
Streamyard
@@TheAnalyticChristian Do you have to pay for it? It is taking me to this thing called "melon" which to record the stream it says I have to pay.
@@consciousphilosophy-ericva5564 no, it should be free
@@TheAnalyticChristian ok thanks! I’m brand new to this. I’m trying to find out how to save the video after I have finished recording it in order to publish it to TH-cam. Any tips? Thanks for your time!
@@consciousphilosophy-ericva5564 streamyard automatically saves your video. If your video is live then it automatically put it’s on TH-cam for you
Can someone have free will if they don't have knowledge of Good and Evil?
If so, please explain how
yes.
my first response would be to ask you why you think free will is contingent upon knowledge of any kind. i can't see any reason to think that you can only have free will if you have a certain amount or kind of knowledge.
my second response would be to say that free will, in laymen's terms, is the ability to make your own decisions. to decide which desires you will act upon and which you will not. as such, your knowledge of good and evil is irrelevant to whether or not you have free will.
take children for example. young children do not have the ability to comprehend good and evil, but they aren't robots. they have free will just like any other human being. you don't gain fee will the moment you reach the age of reason, when you are capable of understanding concepts like good and evil.
@@jackplumbridge2704
How exactly can you freely choose between doing good and evil if you don't have knowledge of Good and Evil?
If a child had no knowledge of Good and Evil, and did an action that you thought was evil, would you blame the child?
Would you say the child was evil?
Would you say the child intentionally did an evil action?
Or, think about it like this..
How can you intentionally do an evil action if you have no knowledge of Good and Evil?
I would hope you would agree that there is no such thing as an accidental evil action, and that in order for someone to commit an evil action they must have evil intent.
So, basically I wonder how someone can have evil intent without having knowledge of good and evil in the first place?
@@drewdrake9130 "How exactly can you freely choose between doing good and evil if you don't have knowledge of Good and Evil?" - your choices wouldn't be made based on your knowledge of good and evil, they would be based on other desires.
"If a child had no knowledge of Good and Evil, and did an action that you thought was evil, would you blame the child?" - no. this is precisely why we don't put young children in prison. children are not held to the same standards as adults because they cannot operate on the same level as adults.
"Would you say the child was evil?" - a child doing something bad without knowledge that it is bad is not made evil by their actions, no.
"Would you say the child intentionally did an evil action?" - yes, but since they are not capable of understanding what they are doing they are innocent of any guilt.
"How can you intentionally do an evil action if you have no knowledge of Good and Evil?" - you do the action because of other reasons. if a child goes into a sweet shop and starts eating the sweets off the shelves, they are technically stealing, but since they have no understanding that stealing is wrong and that they need to pay, they are not guilty. their action was an immoral actions, but they are not guilty, since guilt requires a knowledge of evil.
"I would hope you would agree that there is no such thing as an accidental evil action, and that in order for someone to commit an evil action they must evil intent." - this depends how you define "an evil action". a person can do evil things without having evil intentions, like the example i laid out above. a person cannot be guilty without having a knowledge of evil.
"So, basically I wonder how someone can have evil intent without having knowledge of good and evil in the first place?" - this is a completely different question to your original question.
you originally asked "Can someone have free will if they don't have knowledge of Good and Evil?" - and now you have changed it to:
"So, basically I wonder how someone can have evil intent without having knowledge of good and evil in the first place?".
a person can't have evil intent without a knowledge of evil.
a person can have free will without a knowledge of evil.
@@jackplumbridge2704
Telling me that my choices would be based upon other desires, doesn't explain how someone can freely choose between doing good and evil, if they don't have knowledge of Good and Evil.
( are you essentially saying they could not? )
Also, when I mention Freewill, I'm talking about freely choosing what to do in moral situations.
Hope that helps
If someone cannot have evil intent without having knowledge of Good and Evil, then how exactly could someone sin without having knowledge of Good and Evil?
@@drewdrake9130 "Telling me that my choices would be based upon other desires, doesn't explain how someone can freely choose between doing good and evil, if they don't have knowledge of Good and Evil." - maybe because i wasn't answering that question, as you only raised it AFTER i showed you that you don't need knowledge of good and evil in order to have free will.
i answered your original question.
you created a second question.
now you are complaining that i didn't answer your second question, because i was answering your first.
you need to keep track of what i am responding to.
"Also, when I mention Freewill, I'm talking about freely choosing what to do in moral situations.
Hope that helps" - then you are only talking about a part of free will, not free will as a whole.
a person can't choose between and good and evil if they have no knowledge of good and evil.
but a person can make free choices in general without knowledge of good and evil.
"If someone cannot have evil intent without having knowledge of Good and Evil, then how exactly could someone sin without having knowledge of Good and Evil?" - im assuming you are talking about genesis, when it talks about the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and how Adam and Eve were told not to eat of it, and when they did they were cast out of Eden.
the word being used as "knowledge" in this verse has numerous meanings in Hebrew. usually, in English, when we use the word knowledge we simply mean an intellectual awareness of something. but the word in Hebrew has a bunch of different meanings and is used hundreds of times throughout the bible, meaning different things in different circumstances.
to take the word to mean something like "an intellectual awareness of" would conflict with what other parts of the same chapter say.
for example, Adam is made in the image of God, and part of that entails the ability to act morally, which entails moral knowledge.
and also, God specifically tells Adam that he must not eat from the tree otherwise he will surely die. this implies that Adam was aware of the good state of things in the present, but also that his actions would deviate from the current good standard and cause evil things to occur.
the most accurate use of the word being used would be an experiential knowledge of good and evil. in the chapter, before Adam and Eve ate the fruit, all they had experienced were good things. everything God made was called "good" or "very good". they had no experiential knowledge of evil.
but after they ate the fruit they experienced evil. they experienced guilt.
hence God saying "The man has now become like one of Us, knowing good and evil.".
the only way that you can maintain the belief that Genesis is talking about an intellectual awareness of good and evil is to do 2 things.
1) claim there is only one way in which the Hebrew word "yada" is used, which is demonstrably false.
2) ignore the parts of the chapter that refute the idea that Adam and Eve had no intellectual awareness of good and evil. namely, them being made in the image of God and being commanded not to eat from the tree lest they die.
If some of the greatest goods that exist in Heaven are contingent on evils that exist on Earth(e.g. theosis, defeat of evil), then this whole argument falls apart.
What of the idea that determinism is true in heaven? On evangelicalism, humans are saved by grace through faith quite in disagreement to a Catholic view of soteriology. A soul building theodicy sounds like a decent explanation to this question, but can it be squared with evangelical soteriology? Now the idea of sanctification being a good that does not obtain in the instance of initial heavenly state sounds like an option. Molinism makes sense to me although it's hard to pin down how it is God has this knowledge.
In the book of Job we are told the deceiver is before God speaking against Job. Doesn't that show that heaven can contain 'evil'?
Does anyone else think that Dr. Timpe looks at least bit like CM Punk?
Next: The 4 responses to the meandering definition of sin.
I am not familiar with that.
@@asmrreviewer8696 A good topic to address on a future encounter.
Yeah this isn’t a very good argument from Oppy. Heaven isn’t a state of affairs divorced from “this world”. It grows out of this world like a tree from a seed-hence the union of heaven and earth as the goal of history. Hence one could always say that heaven is an event in this world’s history that obtains for people by their choices
Yeah, I think engaging this topic with the theology of NT Wright and others would help clear some misconception about Heaven.
The same reason God couldn't just forgive us for a sin, that he made up, that supposedly happened 7 thousand years before any of us were born, that had absolutely NOTHING to do with us whatsoever. The same reason that if God has every day of our life planned out before we are ever born, like the Bible says, the that means God decides who will be raped, and which children will starve to death, and then let's it happen. Because God didn't make humans in the image of himself. Humans made God in their image when they made him up.
Seems to me heaven needs to be more carefully defined. Do you mean the heavenly realm? Evil sprang up there long ago because it seems God gave heavenly beings freedom as well and some abused it. Do you mean the intermediate state? Or are you talking about the new earth of the next age?
Heaven is not freedom. In Heaven there will be no tears. There will be no more death' or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." Revelation 21:4
If you notice the text of that verse that, occurs in earth not heaven.
I hate coffee too. I was told that teaching would change my mind, but no such luck so far.
Did God make himself?
In short, no.
HE WHO IS. ALWAYS IS.
A God himself revealed of himself: "I AM THAT I AM" or "I AM HE WHO IS".
No theist of any kind has suggested God made Himself.
Either God exists or He doesn't, but no one thinks He made Himself IF He exists.
No.. that would be God's God.
@@magicker8052 Are you an atheist?
The question "Why didnt God create us in heaven?" is an easy one:
HE DID CREATE US IN HEAVEN. It was called Eden and it was heaven on earth. Perfect in all possible ways. Remember, they didnt even need clothing in eden. All things were made into a perfect place for humans.
Do you think the new heavens and the new earth will be like Eden then? Meaning, do you think we can be tempted and fall away there as well?
@@Iamwrongbut by my reckoning, no. The scriptures tell us (2peter 3:10) that this universe is basically going to suffer a nuclear implosion and melt. So, by my reckoning it will all be new AND ETERNAL.
So in a new heaven and earth, one inhabited by the souls of people WHO HAVE MEMORIES OF PHYSICAL LIVES, falling away wont be happening. Unlike Adam and Eve, the other souls in heaven will KNOW WITH CERTAINTY the reality of the entirety of God, His will, His plan, and everything so tricking them with an apple will be tough.
@@thetroof5525 you should read surprised by Hope by NT Wright.
@@Iamwrongbut I was just thinking about NT Wright. I think this only talks about heaven as the disembodied state between this life and the Resurrected life. I feel like this may miss the point that God wanted to create embodied being that would Image him in the physical world, thus us being created in "heaven" is kind of absurd. Some other things to look too is also Paul visiting the "7th heavens" so perhaps there are layers of the heavenly realm where we are farther from God's emminent presence. Also, the fall of angelic beings who were created in "heaven" but still rebelled. Im sure there are other interesting avenues to go down with.
@@zahzuhzay6533 well I was thinking more about how the new heavens and new earth are described at the end of revelation, not a spiritual-only existence that most Christians mean by heaven. I just don’t understand why God would risk people going to hell just by creating Eden when he could have went straight to the new Heavens and Earth of Revelation 21-22.
Great interview! I also like Joshua Rasmussen's point that, if God created us with fully-formed characters, we couldn't have a genuinely loving relationship with him. It would be like making someone drink a love potion that causes them to love you.
It wouldn’t be analogous because there would be no will existing beforehand to consent or not. There really is no analogy for such a counter-intuitive circumstance. It really depends on your pre-held ethical commitments. For me it is clear that there are plenty of examples of times where it is ethical to deny an agent free choice such as any good parent in a 1000 different ways with their children. In such cases it would be UNethical to give them a free choice.
@@blamtasticful
However without free choice. How can you truly relate?
If you made a robot that simulates good works and love for you are they really loving you back or are they just acting according to their programming?
@@johnrockwell5834 are we not robots in some ways, according to Genesis 6:5? We may not be good robots, but our hearts are bent toward evil in such a way that we cannot help but sin unless we are born again. How is this a better circumstance than being born completely good with no ability to be evil?
See Genesis 8:21 for more evidence of this.
@@johnrockwell5834 How would that relate to a God who cannot do evil? Surely that is a good aspect of his nature. However, if we were to grant that he could then why shouldn’t we just say that such a being Isn’t instantiating a higher order good? Is it really a good thing to relate to the ability to choose to do evil? It seems like there’s reason to say no.
@@blamtasticful
How can that which is infinite perfection cease to be infinite perfection?
Yet in order to relate to beings outside himself He must create Being that is Finite in a Finite Materiality and in Finite Immateriality.
Yet in creating Finite beings with Agency in "Time and Dimensions" that is capable of life requires them to be able to change. And that must be necessity result in the capacity to choose and cause timelines to occur.
God doesn't need to change because his very Being has already done everything necessary in every possible timelines kept within the parameters of his will. His infinity has already encompassed all actions taken according to his perfections.
Because GOD IS. His actions have already happened because he is outside of Time. Because GOD IS. HE IS ALWAYS HIMSELF.
God has said of himself: "I AM THAT I AM" or "I AM HE WHO IS"
Just amazing how grown men can waste so much time talking nonsense. There is no heaven, get over it