Quote:
Originally posted by Mantus
So gods has freedom but god?s will is supremely strong. Very enlightening, thank you smooth.
Though this brings up a question. Is supreme free will determined by the lack of all outside as well as internal influence or just outside influence? Certainly if one has an inclination, that inclination cannot be the result of oneself.
If god is supremely good from the start then he is controlled by an inclination. On the other hand if god?s goodness were a choice, then god would not be supremely good by nature. This brings us to the question of omnipotence. If god gives himself a command to be supremely good, can he break it? Why would he break it? Well since there is no natural inclination to be good, god can just as well be evil, as a being without any inclination is simply neutral.
Could not agree more filtherton and certainly one could not exist without the other. That doest mean I cannot use the common theoretical descriptions of a theoretical being to come up with theoretical arguments 
|
Ooh, I hope I don't get too metaphysical for my own good
Good question.
I should have defined a free will as one which is uninfluenced by any forces outside the will itself.
I define sin or evilness as a contradiction of that will--nothing more. I don't define it in terms of the subjective judgements of the consequences of the act.
Therefore, I claim that a free will can not (or maybe will not by its own accord) go against itself (i.e., sin).
There is no natural inclination to be good or evil. Those are our subjective interpretations. In fact, the christian and Jewish Scriptures plainly state that their deity created both the "good" and the "evil" to effect the deity's will.
The only natural inclination, as I understand it, is to follow one's will if one is free to do so. No command to be "good" exists to be given and, as such, no command could or would be broken.
EDIT: I'm not being facetious but I am not willing to cede the point that one's inclination can not be the result of one's nature (which is how I would understand the phrase, "the result of oneself"). If you have a logical proof of that, I would like to see it. I'm not sure where you would derive it from, however, because I think the Western ethicists would claim that inclinations do come from a thing's nature.