"Case Against Faith" Response, Part I.
Offline Original Article: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_doland/strobel.html
This will probably be among one of my last threads here... I believe that I have found that which I came here to discover-- just have some loose ends to tie up. I appreciate all of you who helped me with my learning, it's definitly been an experience. So, here is my response to the Case Against Faith.
Granted, I am speaking from my own perspective, not from someone else's. I have been, what you might call a 'skeptic' for as long as I can remember, and it is in asking questions that I realized the point of making choices. The objective facts are the same for most everyone, what you choose to do with them.. is a different issue.
A few definitions before I start, feel free to cross reference them with the dictionary. Make sure to cross reference those words within the definition which might be important to understanding the first. So, here we go. I state these, because.. well-- if we all have our own definitions, that might be kind of hard. So I'll be using the language as prescribed by the dictionary. No descriptive linguistics here! (Maybe some).
Reason: 1) Basis for a belief
2) Statement given as justification
3) Sound Judgement; Good sense
Rational: 1) Having or exercising reason, sound judgement, or good sense
Irrational: 1) Not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical
Logic: 1) A particular method of reasoning
2) The system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study
Evidence: 1) Grounds for a belief
2) That which tends to prove or disprove something
Tends: 1) To move or extend in a certain direction
Prove: 1) To establish the truth or genuineness of
Semantics: 1) The study of meaning
Empirical: 1) Derived from or guided by experience or experiment
Necessary: 1) Being essential, indispensable, or requisite
Sufficient: 1) Adequate for the purpose; enough
Assumption: 1) Something taken for granted; a supposition
Assertion: 1) A positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason
Axiom: 1) Self evident truth that requires no proof
2) Logic, Mathematics: a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it
Fallacious: 1) Deceptive; misleading
2) Disappointing; delusive
3) Containing a fallacy
Fallacy: 1) A deceptive, misleading, or false notion
About the Author of "The Case Against Faith"
He seems very logical.
(What, you were expecting more? It was a well structured critique as well as fair in my view.)
He ask questions of the author and his interviewees. These questions appear to be valid for, in one way or another, the interviewee and the author just assume that all reading will accept just because they are given a response. Furthermore, some apparent, common sense, contradictions spawning from the statements that the book makes, are equally challenged. Both these methods of argument I consider valid, so I'm not going to be saying that they are not; I will address to all things I can. So, here I go, I will try to make my answers small, assertions simple, logic clean, and reason clear as I can. (Furthermore.. I will try summarize his arguments his quotes-- therefore I can address what I understand as the spirit of his argument). I do not necessarily write this response to give answers, merely ask more questions, that is.. after all, what I do many times. If you grow tired of not finding a straight answer to the original objection, for instance "Since Evil and Suffering Exist, A Loving God Cannot", then look at the end of each section.. there I will write my understanding of it, but I really feel as if my point by point response will give a more complete picture from which to understand my position. Whether representative of truth or not, this is a map of my reasoning at this point in my life.
Objection 1: Since Evil and Suffering Exist, A Loving God Cannot
(Interview with Dr. Peter John Kreeft, Ph.D.)
In fact, Templeton says that suffering was a major reason why he turned away from the Christian faith, noting a photograph of an African woman holding her dead baby, who had died of starvation due to severe drought, in her arms. God allowed all of this suffering when all that the woman needed was a little rain. How can there be a loving God if He won't even send a little rain? (p. 14).
For one, Kreeft says that finite humans are not capable of understanding the plans and reasoning of an infinite God. Kreeft illustrates his point with an analogy:
Imagine a bear in a trap and a hunter who, out of sympathy, wants to liberate him. He tries to win the bear's confidence, but he can't do it, so he has to shoot the bear full of drugs. The bear, however, thinks this is an attack and the hunter is trying to kill him. He doesn't realize this is being done out of compassion (p. 32).
This accurately sums up the argument of Strobel: God knows better than us, we cannot comprehend why these things happen.
God may well know better than I, and what appears to me to be injustice could all be a part of a greater plan. I am imperfect, and cannot know that which a perfect God may know. However, Kreeft's argument that I cannot know what eventual good may come from some suffering is a fallacious "argument from ignorance."
Agreed. While his answer may be correct, this argument does little to advance the debate since the answer to a valid question is that the answer cannot be comprehended. If this answer were multiplied and given for every question, you might see where this sort of response would lead to.
The bottom line is that if I am like the bear of Kreeft's analogy, unable to see the greater good to come from apparent injustice, then God should not be surprised that I see apparent injustice as genuine injustice.
Granted. He should not be 'surprised'.
For there is no reason to assume that there is a greater good to come from injustice.
Granted as well. While I tread lightly on any assertion that there is "no reason" for any assumption, I will accept this assertion because I can think of no counterexample. If one sees something that seems like "injustice" they will not automatically assume that is, in fact, "justifiable".
It may sound like Strobel, Kreeft, and I are using this woman as a debate tool[...]But these are real issues being raised, and they need to be discussed.
Agreed.
To explain how suffering can lead to a greater good, Kreeft offers the analogy of when his daughter pricked herself and suffered a small amount of pain, but learned from it (p. 41)[...]A valid explanation for a little pain doesn't explain extensive, intense, and apparently gratuitous pain.
This might be where I would lay down my first contention. If I give an example:
A person asks me, "Look at all this death in Iraq. How can the U.S. be justified in such a war?"
I would answer, "The death in Europe during World War II was 100 fold, would you ask this same question of that war?"
What is valid for one instance of pain is not necessarily valid for another, yet, the element of truth (if accepted in the first explanation) can be applied to the second that being:
Pain or suffering, no matter to what extent, is not reason enough to assume that pain and suffering are not without reason or justification; even as the number of death, no matter to what extent, is not reason enough to assume that war is not without reason or justification in a particular case.
Why have I been fortunate, while so many others have not? Arguing that there must be no God because of the suffering in the world is sometimes called an "argument from outrage." But should one not be "outraged" at the injustice of the world?
Indeed.
Yet, even as you pointed out something earlier as fallacious, so this thing would be fallacious if its purpose is to win an argument. It does not make a logical conclusion, merely that makes the assertion that one should be outraged at such injustice. In this I agree, but if the purpose of it was to imply that there cannot be justification for something that "should cause outrage", then for that I cannot agree.
Moreover, the fact that the poorest often suffer the most is, to me, very significant. In a debate with William Lane Craig, Corey Washington develops the point:
Significant?
Relatively speaking, people really didn't suffer.
The disgust I find at one individual dying in a horrible way and another individual dying in a horrible way is not magnified by their socio-economic standing. I realize you may be saying, "as a whole" opposed to individually, and if this is what you meant, I would agree. The fact that their are nations of so much excess that they seem to burst at the seems while there remains nations in our world that are as they are, is a problem that I think needs addressing.
I cannot say I have an answer to correct this state of affairs.. but some day, perhaps I can help in some significant manner.
So you have to think about what Craig is saying. God's going to allow the innocent, the weak, and the poor to suffer, so the rich can show their colors, can be courageous, and develop themselves into moral beings. That sounds kind of sick to me actually. I think this is totally incompatible with Christianity as you read it. Remember the proverb was that, "The meek shall inherit the earth," not that they shall be destroyed by it.[1]
However.. this statement seems to imply something that I don't believe is relevant to the central question. Let me present it you this way:
If God allows a rich, successful man, to suffer at the hands of another man, so that the one man gets his head sawed off as he screams for the other to stop; would that god be more or less loving than one who would allow such a thing to happen to a man of less riches?
If you mean those instances of suffering apart from the direct actions of another individual-- such as famine, natural disaster, or the such-- then I would suggest that if you accept that letting a rich man be harmed by another is not more or less a reflection on ones character than if that character let a poor man be harmed by another, then I would only go to point to my even earlier statement. When it comes to suffering as a result of natural elements, it is only as an indirect result of the order than humans have set up themselves. It is not that there is not enough food or resources to support or move all individuals into certain areas of greater resources, it is that nations keep people in and others out. There is a unequal dispersal of resource and space because that is what people, as a whole, have created. One might counter, "there is no way that industrialized nations can take in all citizens of these other nations"-- and that might be true.. a sudden influx of a group of people skilled in only non-industrialized tasks, would most certainly put a large burden on the receiving nation. Yet.. once again, this system is as it is merely as a result of the man made system itself.
In my view, "Man" is as much responsible for a person who dies from famine as a man is responsible for killing another. Feel free to disagree. I am stating these things to present reasoning, not to give answers.
But God could solve the problem, or at least mitigate it a great deal, by sending more rain. Is this really too much to ask of a compassionate, miracle-working God?
I can only point to my earlier question. Would a god who mitigates pain by 'sending rain' be more or less loving even though, at the same time, he doesn't mitigate the pain of every other individual in a less general sense (murder, rape, torture, etc)? Both would be equally as easy for a God of infinite power? I have not stated my belief on God's personality.. or my understanding of the human condition, merely that these actions that you say increase your un-understanding of the possibility of an infinite are not necessarily the only rational conclusion to reach.
In my opinion it would be as hard to understand a god who 'allows' extreme suffering on the grand scale, then it would be as equally hard to believe in a god who 'allows' extreme suffering on the small scale.
Kreeft says he purposely let his daughter bleed a little, for the learning experience--the greater good to come.
I really do not understand this man if this story is actually true. I would hope that if I was a parent I would not 'let' my kid touch a stove and then follow that up by not tending to his wound just because he will 'learn better'. I would pull his hand away. I would consul him. For he trusts me and would let me tend to his wound.
The fact that a Christian would save the child if he could implies that Christians don't really believe that an apparently needless death serves any greater good.
Not necessarily.. As with the example of the father and their child: if harm is caused, I will tend to the harm for the harm is real and needs tending too. This would not change the fact that my child may have learned from the experience.
Whether or not their is "good that can comes from bad" exists independently (I would contend) from the "whether one should help to mitigate the bad."
Kreeft, of course, claims that injustice not rectified in this life will be rectified in the next. He quotes Mother Teresa, who said, "In light of heaven, the worst suffering on earth, a life full of the most atrocious tortures on earth, will be seen to be no more serious than one night in an inconvenient hotel" (p. 47).
This I think belittles pain.
In other words, in the grand scheme of eternity, the dead baby's needless death is "no biggie."
This I think belittles eternity. For mathematically.. finite life is insignificant next to infinite.
But doesn't that make this life on Earth rather pointless?
I believe even an atheist would agree with this statement: we are living now, in the present, whether or not mathematically the existence of this time is insignificant to the existence of time itself, does not change the fact that life is real, present, and significant in this one.
To defer to a person's unverifiable condition after death in order to find any resulting greater good appears remarkably forced--it is tantamount to admitting that there is no greater good to be found.
I must admit.. I always felt that in a moment of suffering, the statement "it's for the greater good" to be insensitive even as other: "it was there time", "you can't change life". In general, I feel, as though, in a moment of suffering, ones purpose should be to be there.. not to make sense of it.
We can now, living apart from it all, with the clarity of mind to look backwards and forwards with thought and deliberation, look at all things and find 'greater good' if we wish too.
For we have to take it entirely on faith that this otherwise seemingly needless suffering resulted in any greater good at all.
While I have not defined my concept of this 'greater good' yet, I will in time.
A related question concerns the existence of evil. Kreeft says that the complete elimination of evil would eliminate free will and the chance for true love, and claims that some evil and suffering is necessary to make us who we are:
This I think is a odd statement for him to make.
It's like that old Twilight Zone television show, where a gang of bank robbers gets shot and one of them wakes up walking on fluffy clouds at the golden gate of a celestial city. A kindly white-robed man offers him everything he wants. But soon he's bored with the gold since everything is free, and the beautiful girls who only laugh when he tries to hurt them, since he has a sadistic streak. So he summons the St. Peter figure. "There must be some mistake." "No, we make no mistakes here." "Can't you send me back to earth?" "Of course not, you're dead." "Well, then I must belong with my friends in the Other Place. Send me there." "Oh, no, we can't do that. Rules you know." "But I thought I was supposed to like heaven?" "Heaven? Who said anything about heaven. Heaven is the Other Place." The point is that a world without suffering appears more like hell than heaven....
This on the other hand.. is a great analogy but not used in the manner in which he did. I will refer to it later.
But you have to think of the consequences of everything you try to improve.
If God could have 'improved' anything, I think he would have. I think he uses this word rather haphazardly.
Every time you use force to prevent evil, you take away freedom.
This, however, I agree with.
If Kreeft believes that an Earth without pain and suffering would be like Hell, what exactly does Kreeft believe Heaven is like?
Once again. I don't agree with the way he used it... for this very reason. But.. I will refer to it later.
Kreeft also asserts that simply recognizing "evil" as being "evil" in and of itself is a good argument for the existence of God. If there is no God, then there is no absolute definition of what is evil and what is not evil (p. 34).
I think you give a good enough response to this one. "The fact that many concepts don't have an ultimate meaning in a godless universe does not mean that they are without meaning to our biological nature." That is not to say that I don't believe there to be a validity in the concept he touches on, but more on that later.
Why, then, is it necessary for us to lack absolute proof of God's existence? And what about Satan? Satan, when he chose to rebel against God, had absolute proof of God's existence. And yet he was still free to choose not to follow God. Again, why is it necessary for humans to lack absolute proof of God's existence?
More on this in my section response.
God is often called our "Heavenly Father." If somebody's earthly father moved to another country and left no forwarding address, but left a few clues lying around as to where to find him, would we consider this earthly father worthy of seeking?
No. More on this in my section response.
And during this quest, at times beliefs that were held as unquestionable by the majority have been proven false.
Yup.
And Kreeft must, of course, also realize that 90% of all human beings that have ever lived have not believed in his God. Kreeft seems likely to believe that the followers of Buddhism, Hinduism, pagan religions, and so on are completely wrong, but he is happy to accept their members just for the moment to "prove" how "snobbish" atheism is.
In his defense.. I believe it would have been "snobbish" for a person to come along during the time when 90% of the world believed the world was flat and proceeded to tell them it was round, and that they were irrational, and that only those claiming the world was round were rational.
Because.. the concepts necessary for proving the world was round were not understood, therefore not accepted, at that time. To call someone irrational because they don't understand that mathematics posited the world was round before sailing or space travel 'saw' it, does seem terribly 'snobbish'.
I am not saying that Atheist are like this, merely pointing out that if an Atheist proposed to 'prove' to a theist that they are stupid for not understanding, or accepting, theories that have not been 'proven' themselves.. they would be equally as snobbish.
"To be an atheist", however, is no more "snobbish" then "to be a Christian".. one is just "being". So yes, I would agree with you in some respects that Kreeft is a bit "snobbish" himself, because this is the very thing I think he meant for people to accept.
RESPONSE: Theist choose to address this issue in many ways. Each way would seem to contain a bit of ambiguity sown into the fabric of its position. I will try, the best I can, to relate my position. As much as some might say that my positions are inherently contradictory to the writings of the Bible, I do not believe them to be. I believe them to be supported by the Bible, even as others understand their understandings to be. The question might come up, well then how do you know which is right? And truth be told, I do not. I merely have made the choice to live by those things I have chosen to live by through reasoning-- even as you do.
If you would like to argue the points of the Bible, If you feel that they are inherently contradictory, then I will read your contention and respond; however, you must give the one verse you feel to be most clear in its contradiction to the position I state. This is the only way I can see it be done.. otherwise people will just say: "Look at bibleiscontradictory.com." And I will.. but, how could I get around to all of it? I might be able to address all the questions of the site, but to transport those questions here would grow this thread exponentially.. as well as, even then, not satisfy the one who contested first.
Would it not be more efficient to just take one of your choice to present?
SUMMARY (Objection 1: Since Evil and Suffering Exist, A Loving God Cannot): I have accepted the Bible as truth. I have accepted that the God written of in its pages, is a real God. As such, I must address this objection within the context of that God, and not any other.
The words used very frequently to describe the Christian God by Christians are: loving, creator, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent.
I would agree these are our perceptions of him. As a Christian I accept that he is loving, for if he were any other than there would be no reason, that I can think of other than fear, to care for such a God. As a Christian I accept that he created all things, for if he did not then he is not God. As a Christian I accept that he has the capacity to do everything logically possible, for logically impossible things are logically impossible... while one might like to think a "square circle" could be created, it cannot logically be so since both the square and the circle are words designating concepts solely in the human mind. As a function of omnipotence, I, as a Christian, accept that he has the capacity to know all things, for omnipotence designates capacity for anything. As a Christian, I accept that existence, in all forms, is only sustained by his presence, and therefore, he is present (in some sense) in all things existent.
These are things I have chosen to believe in. So how do I make such concepts agree with the existence of suffering and evil in our world?
Here is my reasoning:
I believe the biggest problem within this debate is that both sides seem to automatically assume, or concede, the proposition that evil is a direct result from God, or in some way related to his wanting for it to go on longer, I do not believe this to be the case. I do believe it to be a reasonable argument to say that 'love' could not have existed without 'choice'. God, being a loving God, wanted that which he created to have to ability to love him back. Thus, freewill was placed into that which he created.
I further believe it to be a reasonable argument that, as a function of freewill, as a function of our heightened stated of consciousness, we are curious beings. We are. I do not believe history would give an example of a "non curious" being, for curiosity is the means by which we live.. it is the reason we attempt to crawl, taste food, walk, and so many other things. I am not discounting the possibility that these could be things as instinctual as a reflex.. yet I believe them both to be equally improvable or untestable theories. Furthermore, I am not saying that free will is curiosity, just that it is a necessary result of freewill. We wish to experience what we have not experienced.
And here is where I move to analogy to present my position:
If a father watches over his son, giving him all those things which are good for him, does this mean that the son will not wants those things which the father cannot give? Of course not. One asks the question.. one wants an answer. Yet, even as a parent cannot explain the experience of being burned by fire, so God could not explain the experience of being apart from him; for the very words used in the descriptions of burning and apartness, would require experience to understand. Or is one born with the innate ability to understand the concept of 'hot', 'burn', 'sting'.
The concept of sin is not one that brings about punishment from God but of de facto separation. Even as one must leave a house to try and live life on his own, so one must leave god to try and live on his. This is how I interpret the seemingly decreasing, direct interaction, interaction that God did with regards from the beginning of the Bible, where it was God having a direct conversation to Cain or the fire cloud above the Hebrews, and the end, where God had to become man to interact.
While many would like to think that we are more civilized now than thousands of years ago, it does not change the fact that we are perhaps even more barbarous now than then. Is killing someone because they are of a different race more or less barbarous than killing indiscriminately?
As a whole, humanity has long since continued on its journey to explore the experience of life as is. I know this might sound like I'm saying, "If only we would all serve God perfectly, then everything would be fine", I do not believe so. It is possible that I could be wrong however, I believe that it is so far removed from where we are that it does not seem a realistic goal. You, even I, explore those things we should not, and do those things we don't feel as if we should do. "I do what I do not want to do.." as Paul once wrote. All evil in the world is a direct result of our actions (as a whole), not of God's. God means only to sustain us until our curiosity runs out and our final choices are made.
Who knows when that might be. When it does come, and the story has been told, one will have made the choice, explicitly or implicitly through their life, which thing he cherishes more. If it his independence, then so be it, God will grant them their independence. If it be dependence, then so be it, God will bring them home. The desire to experience life away from God will no longer be existent, even as a child who has burnt himself enough will not longer wish to explore the curiosity of touching fire.
Hell.. you might say, is an apparent, common sense, contradiction to the concept of a loving God. I would probably agree with you on this point. I cannot imagine that if Man, to live, needs God to sustain him, how God, who is all-loving, can sustain an individual for the purpose of eternal torment/torture.
Yet, the belief in hell (of this sense) is not necessitated by scripture. Yes, there is a concept of "hell"-- but not necessarily one of eternal torment/torture. Feel free to disagree with me, and point out the particular part of scripture you feel to be most obvious on your point.
As I have stated before, when the time comes that our curiosity has been fulfilled, our choices will have been made, the story complete, we will live forever or die forever, wiped from existent by "eternal fire".
These are my thoughts. Part II will come, in time.
- Login to post comments
Offline Well, who DECIDES what is impossible in the first place in your theology?
This is the question you must answer.
Is it 'god'? If so, then your 'god' is the one responsile for the limit being as it is, in the first place! So to speak of limits is preposterous.
If it is not 'god', then whoever created these limits IS god.
If nothing created them, if they are eternal, then there's no need for a god.
No theist answers because to answer is to be refuted.
Though I've heard you use essentially this argument before, I can't remember it being put so succinctly. Well played, my friend.
EDIT: Though, I have heard some theists try to argue that there is another option, though it isn't really. They will try to say that whatever "limits" God has, are inherent in his nature; and God cannot change his own nature. But that of course really isn't any different than your last option, that there is then no need for a God. But, they'll somehow try to argue that there has to be this God to exist so that these "limits" can be connected to something. Of course that's nonsense, but, they'll try to argue it.
- Login to post comments
Offline I am going to try and make an all encompassing thread. First, I will state why I feel uncomfortable with how this thread is developing. Second, I will respond to your responses.
Checkmate. Nicely played, Case.
Well played, my friend.
If you think of this thread as a game to be won or loss-- then I will much rather not have it. I'm not saying you are.. just saying, IF you are, let me know.
I'm doing this for the sake of knowledge.. whether I "win" or "lose" is of little importance to me.
The fact of the matter is, if you don't know, you can't use the fact that there are some cases where ignorance is overcome as a reason why you should still hold to your position!
Sounds ridiculous, but a theist must answer "YES, I WOULD!" if he wishes to be consistent, for this is precisely what he believes his 'ever flowing fountain of moral goodness' does to some of his beloved creation.
The outcome for the theist is that he can no longer decide what is really good or what is really bad!
So you're argument fails.
So the free will defense doesn't even work, provided the theist could argue for free will in a divine system. And he can't do this anyway.
In any case, you still can't deal with the problem that it is implausible for a perfect being to need "temporary" imperfections in order to bring about a future perfection!
But that is demonstrably false.
Your argument is simply and flatly demonstrably false.
If a theist starts with first principles: omnipotence and omniscience, he must end in a world of magic, where there are no problems of evil, etc. However, this would force the theist to admit that his religious claim is false.
Stop stating that the end is necessary a necessary end. If I accept these assertions as fact, then I have no reason to debate; if you accept these assertions as fact, then you have no reason to debate.
Unless your purpose in this conversation is to show me that these are necessary ends. In which case.. you must argue so, not prematurely state them as fact.
So.. with that stated (do not respond to this part, I was just meaning to share my perception of these. You are within your right to do so, of course, I just do not agree with these instances of your conversation) I will continue.
People would still die in natural disasters.
I could simple contend that all people could be concentrated into areas where such sorts of natural disasters do not occur.
And your posulation of people being concentrated in areas without natural disasters, despite the fact that there is no such place on earth, nor could we all fit if there were, is an "ad hoc" argument without merit.
www.worldbank.org/ieg/naturaldisasters/maps/
The majority of this planet does not have natural disasters.
These things are not "bad" in and of themselves.. neither do people need to die as a direct result from them.
Give me a plausible scenerio where everybody on earth could be protected from natural disasters.
Move everyone into areas not directly affected.
And, as Todangst pointed out, even if you could, it would be like putting a toddler in a room with a snake and a stick and saying, "I gave the kid a chance".
No. I would contend its more like bringing two people into my home, a warm fire burning.. and one decides to push the other into the fire, or sits in the fire on his own.
Here.. they are called disasters because people die and billions of dollars of damage are created. I would imagine.. in some other place.. they would just be called.. "really big storm".. "twirling black cloud".. "giant wave".
For one, I always thought that heaven was a spiritual realm where there was no physical air to make physical storms.
That's nice that you thought that. I never contended I did. Feel free to use the bible to argue your point of view. Then I will merely relate my understanding, or concede.
What possible difference could it make if they exist or not?
Ask a scientist. This would seem to be a theological question as well as a scientific one. If storms serve no purpose, why do they still exist? If you say "everything that exists is not necessarily necessary for the functioning of our planet as is (meaning, it as a habitable planet)", then that will be fine. IF you say this, I will do some research of my own and come back to you with an answer. I will wait until you actually say this.
One can easily alleviate the affects of "bad" now and still assume that there will be "good", experentially, latter. Why can I not tend to my sons burn, yet still be able to say, "Well, now you've learned."
What you are saying is, that there is no "good" to come from more "bad" after some point.
Yes.
That the burn the child got was sufficient lesson in itself, and therefore continued "bad", continuing to let the child suffer, has no value.
"Burn" = "Sufficient (experience)"
Agreed.
"Continuing to let the child suffer, has no value."
If by this you mean:
"Continuing to let suffering continue after sufficient experience has come has no value."
Then agreed.
But then you are implicitly admitting that not all bad results in eventual better good.
Of course. I never said the opposite.
By the way, this is essentially how Mother Teressa thought, the fucking bitch. If you think she helped aleviate sufferring, you've been lied to.
Can't say I've studied Mother Teressa much.
But, see, if God really does reward sufferring, then she was right.
I do not believe that God rewards suffering. I just to be clear, I never stated that I did.
I made it very clear these years, the 60 or more years I live, are insignificant when placed next to cosmic eternity itself.. that does not mean that it is not significant to me, now.
But it really shouldn't be! If you have Bill Gate's money, a few million missing somehow won't hurt him in the least. If you have an infinite lifetime, why should these "60 or more years" mean a fucking thing to you?
Relating life to money seems awfully shallow in my opinion. Money is worthless, it only has value because we give it value. Life, on the other hand, has some inherent value. All things being equal, I would give all of Bill Gates Money to live an extra day.. heck, an extra minute.
Every minute is significant to me in that minute.. whether I live forever, or I live only for that minute.
I know that might seem cold, comparing people to an arm, but analogies are all the same in that they are ambiguous.
For a doctor might have to sacrifice an arm for he isn't perfect and can't avoid loosing something in order to save something more valued.
Not quite. There is nothing in this statement which requires the doctor to be imperfect.. only that the patient has imperfections. You might contend that "imperfections created by God".. and perhaps this is where the analogy breaks down. For I did not specify that the harm this patient suffers was caused by himself.
Why was he given such an ability? (In the case of the analogy, by the doctor) to both will and act upon said will. Because to limit ones will, or action upon himself, would be logically contradictory to our concept of freewill.
But God, by being perfect, doesn't have the limitation of imperfection, requiring him to have to accept some bad to get good.
He, himself, is perfect and not limited in his ability to do anything. Yes, he has chosen a particular system, one which allows for freewill and therefore the existence of "imperfect choices". God is not working on himself, he is working on us, freewill-ing individuals that harm ourselves.
So, the instant you bring up a limited human analogy, you have lost the point.
Granted. .if I am saying using an analogy that presents a limited man as God-- then my analogy would not be fully valid.
And if by "spiritual essense" or "soul" as in.. something that can exist apart from the brain-- no, I do not believe so.
I'm confused here. How can you have life after death, if you concede that there is no non-physical soul?
I think your assuming that I hold an idea true.. that when you die.. you go straight to heaven, some "essence" goes to heaven-- so that you are consciously there even though you have no body.
I do not believe so. I believe that in order to be conscious.. you must have a body. "After-life"? No.. I do not believe in an "after-life". Merely "life".
"After-life" refers to implies for some unnatural concept. "Eternal life" does not necessarily do so-- for it does not necessarily require some sort of "unnatural" concept... merely the belief the things that allow to be conscious now, can be held so, indefinitely.
And if you say that "eternal life" is somehow an "unnatural" concept.. then either you are distinguishing yourself from the basic things that allow you to be (matter/energy) or you are discounting the possibility that the basic things that allow you to be (matter/energy) have not 'indefinitely' existed.
Okay, so what is "consciousness"? I've asked whether it is physical or nonphysical, and you seemed to accept it being physical. Which is quite strange for a theist, I've never heard a theist to hold such a position, and seems to eliminate life-after death.
"After-life" yes.. "eternal life" no. What I mean by this is that.. any life after death.. will be within the same construct that life and consciousness exist now.
So.. while you may die.. then be resurrected.. you 'life' after you die will be of the same physical nature as it is now. "After-life" seems to imply something different.
But, my main question is, how does "consciousness" operate?
Don't know.
What rules makes "consciousness" choose one option over another?
Don't know the rules. Just know that I am "conscious" (conscious being a human concept), and that I am under the illusion that I can choose one option over the other.
And where did the design of this operation come from? It came from God, right?
Design of the operation? Yes. I would have to agree with this.
Your actions are limited by what is physically possible.. your "will" is not. I can "will to fly by flapping my wings".. does this mean I can fly by flapping my wings? No.. merely that I "will" it.
Well, first, if this was an accurate statement, why not have more limits on physicality? Why not prevent me from killing you and taking away your free will, if I could still "will" for you to die?
I made a clear distinction between those things that limit you physically and those other type of limitation. "Physical limitation" are those limitations that are generally applicable, for instance:
I can't fly by flapping my wings. But neither can you.
I can not mind meld my hand to the size of a wrecking ball, and neither can you.
There are generally applicable physical limitations.
For God to do this to and individual he would have to limit "movement".
Generally applicability does not allow for one to say "You may control you hand and make a fist, you may swing the fist harshly, you may swing it as many times as you want; UNLESS, your intent is to do harm."
This is not, I beileve, "generally applicable" as defined by the legal community.
It would be as if a law were created that:
"You may worship on any day you wish in any manner that you wish; UNLESS, your intent is to worship Jesus."
There is no "exclusion" to physical laws. There are "exclusions" to these.
So therefore God could: 1.) Limit all movements that might cause harm even though their purpose is not to cause harm. or 2.) Make an exclusionary rule. Which would not limit "freewill" but would limit our ability to act upon "freewill" even though the "action" is physically possible.
Granted. We would not know it is physically possible (if it were created as such).. yet you might see the conflict this would create in the mind to know you have will, and that you can do it, but not in certain situations.
It would be as if you could fly by flying your wings.. except when you want to.
..weird.
But, secondly, its not an entirely accurate statement. For we can only imagine to a certain extent beyond our experience. We can imagine flapping our arms and flying to Pluto, because we have the knowledge that flying, to some degree, is possible. And we have the knowledge that Pluto exists. Granted, different people have a stronger imagination than others. But, nobody a 200 years ago couldn't have possibly imagined, "gee, it'd really be cool if somebody would invent the computer so I can surf the web and play World of Warcraft!" These concepts were so far removed from the experience of people 200 years ago, that they couldn't really even "will" to surf the web or "will" to play World of Warcraft.
This is my concept exactly about freewill. Perhaps I may use your wording in the future. At the beginning one could not imagine "Hey, I wonder what life would be like if I did thing other then what I was told was good for me" and so this, our world now, would be the product of that exploration even as the "computer" is the product of the exploration into electricity, and.. well.. to be honest, I don't really know what sort of explorations led to a computer.
This statement could be taken further.. even if you were not participant in the original exploration, does not mean you do not willing use its products.
Yes.. I arose myself.
Are you joking, or is this a serious assertion?
Heh.. I was joking. Sorry.
END PART I.
BEGIN PART II.
Ability is not limits, as I contested to tod, it is merely ability.
I.e. the abiliyt to do something, or not do something
So it speaks to limits
It can be used to speak to limits. And IF (!) I had used the word in such a way that implied limits, then this would be contrary to the concept of "omnipotent".
I did not! Please.. show me where I have, perhaps I am wrong.
And if you cannot find such a place THEN do not keep stating contentions as if I did I made such a statement in the first place.
I said, over and over again, God has the ability to do everything.
How is this phrasing speaking towards a particular limit?
Here's the problem: if your 'god' follows physical laws, then he no longer is god. Whatever determined the laws is god.
If nothing determined them, then there is no need for a god in the first place.
So it's kind of important.
Once again.. ability and limit.
Once again, a distinction without a difference. To be able or unable speaks to our limits.
And none of this is really the key point here.
Why, oh why, do you keep saying this.
Perhaps I just have a hard headed.
BUT if god has the ability to do everything, yet choose not to do something, this is not the same as saying he is limited in the first place.
EVEN AS, I have the ability to kill a fly and I choose not to does not mean that I do not have the ability to kill the fly.
Here is the actual issue before you.
You say that omnipotence is limited in that it can't do the impossible.
Well, who DECIDES what is impossible in the first place in your theology?
"Impossible" is a human concept. We say things are "impossible" because we are limited.
FURTHERMORE!, for the the ungth-teenth-time, I did not say that "omnipotence is limited in that it can't do the impossible".
Perhaps! I said that God cannot do what is "logically impossible", because "logic" is merely a human concept, based of assertions, assumptions, deductions, that God doesn't necessarily need to accept.
You say. "God. Create three sided square"
He says. "Huh?"
Please tell me you see the foolishness in this command.
Is it 'god'?
God decides what is impossible for you.
If so, then your 'god' is the one responsile for the limit being as it is, in the first place! So to speak of limits is preposterous.
To speak of limits of God, yes. To speak of limits for you and me, no.
If it is not 'god', then whoever created these limits IS god.
If nothing created them, if they are eternal, then there's no need for a god.
No theist answers because to answer is to be refuted.
God has no limits. You DO. (Former based off of Christian theology, the latter is based of scientific evidence.)
"No theist answers because to answer is to be refuted."
Indeed.. because it is "Begging the question." If I answer the question as you wish me to, I will need to concede that which is one of the points of the conversation in the first place!
That is why I'm challenging your haphazard use of words and concepts. (In my opinion)
And here is another point that theists simply refuse to even acknowledge, let alone respond to:
I thank you for predicting what I will and will not do before I do anything.Give me some credit.
I've made these arguments hundreds of times, no theist even attempts to respond to the argument.
It's still ALL, seeing as you haven't responded to it either! All you are doing is talking about my prediction, and not the argument itself.
You say all of this even though you *know* that I gave a response.. for you responded to my response. Whether you thought the response was valid or not.. does not discount the fact that I find these statements neither joking in manner (as I originally was) or honest.
Now to move on.
The theist claims that the reason we have free will is because god wanted us to 'choose' him freely. If this is the reason for free will, given that free will already has limits, there is no reason why people ought to have the freedom to commit any evil action, such as rape or murder, that has nothing to do with the free choice to follow or not follow 'god'.
I addressed this somewhat with COF. "Freewill" is the ability to choose a "will".
Ergo, one limit is your ability to choose from only the options that exist before you, only options that you know about, etc.
...
Are you trying to insinuate that because you can only "will" based on things you aware of is a limit on "will" itself?
That is reaching... that is really reaching. I don't say that often.
Thats like saying a hammer is limited because I cannot use it hammer on something that doesn't exist yet.
This is not the manner in which limited is should be used, for it is not a limit on the hammer (the tool), but a physical limit of the thing you wish to use it on not existing yet.
Freewill (a tool) is not limited by its inability to be used on something that is not known or believed or considered.
And so on.
Next, your will is limited by physical law.
Once again. As I stated to above.. the exact thing that I stated. EXACTLY:
"Freewill" is the ability to choose a "will".
Your will is not limited by physical laws.. your actions are.
And if you ask, as COF did, why didn't God put more limits on actions-- then I refer you back to COF.. I made the whole argument back there about generally applicable laws, physical laws, and the conflict that would arise in allowing "will" and restricting it with "non generally applicable laws".
Of course our wills have limits. There are things we can't think, things we can't consider, and things we can't do.
Name one thing that you can't think of.
Name one thing that you can't consider.
As for "things we can't do".. I already stated.. "will" is something apart from "do". "Do" is action.. "will" is mental.
Physical law is a limit on our will.
Stop making me repeat myself on things I already stated as haphazardly, either purposefully or not, constructed assertions.
Physical law does not limit "will".. it limits "action".
So you have not dealt with the argument before you. You are merely denying that our wills have limits, when they clearly have limits.
Are you using my definition of will? The one which I have explicitly STATED, or are you using your own?
Because if you continue to use your own.. I will stop addressing your contentions because it will merely be a:
"Freewill" means this.
No it doesn't, it means this, and therefore its contradictory.
It's not contradictory because "Freewill" means this.
No it doesn't, it means this, and therefore its contradictory.
And forever and ever.
I will have to keep on contending your use of the word-- because you are "begging the question".
Point of issue: Is freewill limited?
Assertion: Freewill is the ability to "will" anything.
Your Contention: Freewill is limited by physical laws.
My Contention: Freewill is not limited by physical laws for my ability to "will" is not dependent on whether the "will" can be actualized in the real world.
Your Contention: Freewill is limited by physical laws.
My Contention: You are merely reasserting your contention using some 'unstated' definition of "Freewill".
Or perhaps this is called a strawman argument... I don't know. I sense something afoot!
A limit is a boundry condition, something we cannot surpass. Our sum total of limits can be used to define what we are.
To be a human means that you can't glide on the air. It means that there are a host of things you cannot do.
Physical limitation. Agreed.
And our will, our sense of autonomy, itself has limits. We can't desire what we don't know about.
Agreed. This is not a limit on freewill. Freewill is a concept, it is a tool. Much like science, it is nothing unless applied to something. Is science limited because it doesn't consider things not considered?
This is a logical axiom.. for by definition we cannot think on something that we don't consider. For the moment you think on it, you consider it.
This is not to say that freewill (concept/tool) is limited.
We can't avoid making mistakes, or poor decisions.
You cannot "avoid" making a mistake.. because a "mistake" is something for which you did not avoid.
You cannot "avoid" poor decisions because "poor decisions" are ones that would have to be made in order to define as poor in the first place.
Now.. if by this you mean I can't avoid killing myself, which would be a mistake and a poor decision, then.. I think thats rather odd assertion.
We can't do things that violate our physical limits nor can we do what violates physics itself.
Once again.. not a limit on "freewill"-- it is a limit on "actions".
These are limits on our will.
No they are not.. they are a limits on the actualizing of your will.
I "will" to drink this water.. before I actualize the "will" and drink it.
I cannot steal the moon, or steal an idea from your brain. These are potential 'sins' that could exist, given an omnipotent, omniscient creator.
You can "will" to steal the moon. You can "will" to steal an idea from my brain.
These are things that could bring about potential harm if God wanted to make them possible.. but in order to do so.. he would have to have made changes to the "generally applicable laws" which limit your ability to steal the moon or steal my ideas.
Can you think of just a few of those generally applicable laws that would need to be done away with?
Yet they do not. Ergo there are possible 'sins' that do no exist.
I have no doubt that there are 'sins' that have not been experienced. I made sure to define this in my FIRST post.. in that 'sin' is 'any action or thought' which is a function of your 'will' to be independent from God.
Ergo, since no sin is necessary (i.e. all potential sins are conteingent upon an omnipotent creator) then every 'sin' that is not 'required' as per your theology, points to a serious problem in your theology.
No sin is necessary within existence. Every sin that I would accept as 'necessary' to existence itself would seem to contradict the theological principal of coming 'sinless' world as well as the concept of an omnipotent God.
I do not contend thats any sin is necessary or unnecessary.. merely that sin exists now. Then, I try to think of a way in which there could have been a place where there was 'no sin' and 'no possibility for sin' yet still those things I cherish, such as freewill, ability to move.
If I could think of a way.. then I would be smarter than God.. and therefore God could not be an omniscient, omnipotent God.
Yet.. I have to think of a way. Neither have you shown a system in which it could have been.
It's easy to say. "Look.. here are the concepts of omnipotent and omniscience. God could have found a way!"
Response: "What way can you think of?"
Response2: "I don't know. But he could of!"
This is an argument of ignorance. And.. if you say:
"I have shown you way, you just haven't accepted!"
And you don't back that up with the specific points that I left uncontested.. then thats seemingly dishonest. (in my opinion).
So, seeing as you hold that the reason for free will it to 'choose god', you must explain why rape and murder exist, WITHOUT appealing to free will, as this argument fails for 2 reasons.
1) the free will argument fails because an omnipotent, omniscient creator must be perfectly responsible for every element that would be involved in making a 'choice' in the first place. This obviates free will, unless you concede that 'god' can 'do the impossible'
2) Neither rape or murder are necessary in order for there to be a free choice to 'follow god' or not.
No.. I hold the reason for "freewill" is so that one may "freely will". ONE of the benefits of being able to "freely will" is love. Love for God... love for a wife.. love for anything.
1) Once again.. I gotta contest a lot of you uses of words. First.. "impossible" is a man made concept. We say its "impossible" to fly with your hands.. because.. well.. we deem that its impossible to fly with your hands. Is this to say that God cannot? No.. because as I asserted before (and continue to do) God can do what is "humanly impossible". To say that there is such a thing as "Godly impossible" for an omnipotent God.. would be counter intuitive.
If you are asking me if I think God can do what is "humanly impossible" then yes, I do believe so.
I do believe him to be omnipotent and omniscient. I do believe that he is responsible for every element of the system from which you practice "freewill".
Mainly.. brain mechanics, genetic structure, water bonds... etc. These are general, systematic, concepts.. I believe that he knew where they would lead.. and knew the choices you would make based on the system.
2.) Like I said.. BEFORE.. with COF.. and-- also refered you to this point BEFORE.. if you can imagine a way in which rape and murder are limited by generally applicable "physical laws", in the same manner that you stealing the moon or flying is limited by generally applicable "physical laws", yet, at the same time, not creating more a logical downside (such as the limitation of movement or the limitation of freewill).. then so be it.
I will admit you are smarter than God, and therefore God cannot exist as I think of him.
DO NOT, make an argument of ignorance and say "He is omniscient, I am not, surely he could have done something!"
I'm asking you to make a logical argument.
I "will" to fly. I cannot. This is not a limit on my "will".. this is a limit on my capabilities as a human in a natural world.
You're subtly moving away from the actual argument before you. However, let me say that even this is wrong, you can't will for things you don't know about, etc., as I covered above.
No I am not.. the definition of "Freewill" is at the center of this argument. And if you feel that I have no always stated this to be.. then say so-- and I will copy and past all places in which I did. And you will paste all the places where I did the opposite and defined it as something else.
Once again.. you bring up the "can't will for things you don't know about" which I addressed earlier. This is a logical axiom. I cannot consider what I do not consider. It is not a limit.
But more importantly, by trying to run down this side avenue, you're not dealing with the argument before you.
Beh. Look above.
It has to do with acts like rape and murder, and why we have the free will to CHOOSE these options, ie., why do these options even exist, when we already do NOT have the choice to do other possible things, like steal ideas from people's heads.
Once again. I made a proposition earlier.. addressings this option. Using my defition (and I believe a definition most scholars of 'freewill' would agree with, make a logical argument in which these things did not have to exist yet freewill and the only limits on the actualization of free will are generally applicable laws; furthermore, that the downside does not supercede the upside.
Granted.. perhaps god could have "limited" the capabilities, and parameters, of a human in a natural word. But.. for instance.. to limit such things as "rape" and "murder".. would require (from my understanding of logic) a natural law that would not allow sex and would not allow movement..
Two problems.
1) You're placing a limit on omnipotence. Tsk tsk.
2) I can imagine ways to prevent rape and murder without eliminating sex or movement myself, so why couldn't a god?
You excluded the support of that assertion within that post.
1.) I am not limiting God, merely saying that with the change of parameters would come the logical (which is a man made concept) change to other things.. or perhaps the elimination of all things. I clearly stated that God could have made rape and murder not exist.. but would the logical consequence of a world that started off like that.. be better or worse then what is possible now.
Once again.. this point here.. is not for contention.. it is just a restating of my earlier response.
2.) Alright. God for it. And when you do. I will state the consequences (logically) of your decisions.
Valid answer is not: "Rape and murder do not exist. There... its done."
That is not a logical answer. Either you will restrict movement.. or you will restrict the necessity of generally applicable laws as the only limitation to the actualization of freewill.
Go for it.
So.. god limits functions.. but not will.
This is wrong in two senses.
First, in the sense that the actual argument uses the concept: our ability to make selections only from options that your 'creator' created.
No.. our ability to make selections is limited to those things which our 'creator' has not generally restricted.
If you see these two statements as the same, fine, they are in some sense, I am just clarifying the meaning so as to pull from it later in some manner I have not agreed to.
And even in your second, topic changing sense, of simply considering sheer desire, devoid of action. Even in this sense, you are limited in what you can imagine. Again, this limit would be created by your 'god'
Name one thing you cannot imagine.
Once again.. a logical axiom. For once you state it.. you have imagined it. This is not a limit.. this is a self-evident piece of circular logic which does nothing to progress your argument.
So leaving aside that your second sense of the term has no relation to the actual argument (the existence of possible options to choose from) it still is invalid.
It does.. once again.. I state that the term "freewill" is at the center of this conversation.
I do hope that you now move from using this defense and return to dealing with the argument before you.
I hope you stop using certain, important, words with your own definition even though I have explicitly stated the definition I am using, and you have not done the same.
If I say freewill is the ability to "will freely". Great.
If you say freewill is the ability to "will and actualize will freely". Great.
But then.. we can't continue the conversation anymore.. because since this word is of such central important-- there would be no point in continuing unless one of us conceeded a definition.
Kudos to you for at least copying the argument and responding... but I need you to now get the actual point of the argument and try and respond to that.
I need you to get the point that you Begging the Question and making a Strawman argument.
Which is why I keep contesting your use of words when I have explicitly stated one way.. and you have not.
Which is why I seem to be going off track.. because for every strawman argument contains concepts which I have not agreed to.. which you are trying to make me concede in order that you may tear it down.
I think you might be trying to back me into a corner where I will admit that God could have created "freewill" only within the realm of choosing or not choosing him.. and not for anything else such as "who else you love... who you would like to have a relationship with.. etc etc etc" and that this would be the "better" of the two options.
Back you into a corner? Yes! That is the point! Kudos to you, at least you got the argument. That's rare.
That is why I'm saying it is a strawman argument.. you are trying to have me accept a certain type of reasoning (that you believe is necessary based on your definition of key terms).. so that you can close the clamp down.
I have not accepted your definition of key terms.. I have explicitly stated otherwise numerous times as well as explicitely stated my definition of the key terms (way back in the first post).. and have kept consistent with my usage.. even though you keep on falling back onto some unstated definition of these key terms, mainly: freewill.
What I am doing is forcing you to follow the necessary logical ramifications of your own claims. If free will exists to justify X, and not Y, then how can you justify Y if Y exists?
If free will exist to justify X, and not Y, then how can you justifiy Y if Y exists.
Seems like a bit of simple logic. But you misstating what I've said consistently.. and I will now state again.
Here.. let me integrate it.
You are trying to get me to say that I believe this.
Freewill exists to justify X, and not Y, and therefore I cannot justify Y because Y exists. Therefore.. Faith!
What I have stated.. over and over.. and over.. again ad naseum, is this.
Freewill exists to justify (allow) X (X=a choice of will)
Physical law exists as the only limitation the actualization of X.
I do not need to justify Y.. because Y is merely the actualization of (X) not limited by physical law.
Once again.. I challenge you to think of a scenario which allows freewill.. as well as only limit it within the construct of physical laws (and yes.. you can choose whatever you want to be those physical laws.. (meaning.. generally applicable))
Make sure you first read my contention with COF.. that a generally applicable law cannot state (by definition) that a certain action is allowed in all cases but one where intent is not Y.
Doesn't matter what Y is in this case.
Once again.. you are omnipotent.. so you can do away with the need of generally applicable physical laws and just make laws that must (as in there is no choice) be obeyed.
However.. as I stated before in my contention with COF. If you leave freewill within this construct.. then you have the problem of:
"I can fly.. but not when I want to."
Type of scenario.
Which is fine.. if you want to make that so-- you are God afterall. But.. it seems like it would be an obvious, explicit, limitation on the actualization of *any* will contrary to the *law* of God.
And in your theology, free will exists for 'choice' of 'god'... and not for rape or murder.
Freewill exists for the ability to 'choose' in general. I've already addressed this.. in detail.. many times.
I don't think you can.
Actually, I think I have.
Heh.
Ah, and here I thought you were getting my point.
I get your point. I get your argument. I get where your argument leads. I get that your argument is based of ones accepting of a particular type of reasoning. I get all these things.
If free will exists so that 'man can choose god'
No
... leaving aside that this is impossible (i.e. since omnipotence leads to perfect responsibilty for whatever it is in you that choose anyway!) then the free will argument for theodicy fails, because there is NO purpose to murder in this system.
Once again.. I have not accepted your system.
Furthermore.. the concept, which you touch upon, which is that of God knowing what you will choose before you choose it-- I have conceded. But as I stated back then.. this is a heavy philosphical question.
To draw it down to a narrow spectrum.
If I know someone will choose a particular course of action, I absolutely, 100% know, does that mean I have taken his choice?
God created a system.. in which people can choose certain course of action... he knew that this system would lead to all sorts of choices as to courses of action.. does that mean that the person never had the choice?
This would seem counterintuitive.. but once again.. a deep philosphical question. We can continue if you like.
All murder can do is wreak havoc on the ability of others to enact their own free will!
This I will address in final.
Quote:
Even worse (and notice how every theist argument ends in an "and even worse"an action like murder deprives the free will choices of another.
Quote:
I haven't ended any of my arguments with "and even worse"
I'm constantly amazed at how often I am misread. I am saying that every theist argument, when deconstructed, leads to even bigger problems when you review the original problems with it.
Then show so.
"Free will" does not deprive another of "free will".
Yes it does. If you have the free will to murder, and you murder a person, how does that person have free will anymnore
First off.. I said "free will" does not deprive another of "freewill".. I never said "the actualization of freewill" cannot depreive another person of "the actualization of freewill".
"Freewill" is a concept, a tool, it cannot be deleted since you merely use the concept.. it is not solely yours.
"Freewill" to me, would seem as the concept of freedom. I have freedom. If I'm killed at the hands of another.. it does not take away from the fact that I have freedom
Yes, it does. You're dead. No more abilty to choose anything.
A bit of clarification.. "have freedom".. it should be "freedom still exists". Obviously I can't "have" anything.. since I am dead.
If you were going to choose to follow god tomorrow, and someone murdered you today, you'd lose your freedom to choose god.
Please, think this one over. If we can't agree even here, I see no reason to continue.
Once again.. I will agree.. again.
If you take away the means by which I actualize freewill (life) today I will be unable to actualize freewill tomorrow.
This seems like another one of those axioms.. a self evident piece of circular logic.
So, there is no reason for murder in this theological system.... free will does not require it, and it actually serves to lessen the opportunity for others to actualize their free will!
It doesn't "lessen" it "removes" the ability to actualize their free will.
That is what I mean. It lessens the opportunity for others, in that it shortens their life spans, reducing the number of opportunities to 'follow god'
Once again.. "reducing the number of opportunities" one has to "actualize freewill" is not "lessing freewill".
This is an incorrect connection.
It is as if I would say.. "reducing the number of opportunities" one has to "use a hammer" is "lessing the hammer".
I said it "removes freewill" because it does.. that person no longer has freewill.. since he is dead.. even as a person cannot "have" a hammer.. for he is dead.. he has no possesions.
(ancient civilizations might disagree with me since they believe that within the concept of an afterlife one still cares about material things from the "before life"
.
Because.. well. they're dead.
And therefore, deprived of the opportunitey to enact their free will.
Look above for clarification on the distinction I am making.
The opposite of "freewill" is not "no freewill" but "some freewill".
No, the opposite is 'no free' will. THat's that opposites mean.
Not sure how you can have 'some free will' unless by that you mean compatibalism vs libertarian free will.
No.. that is not what opposite means. Opposite refers to contradiction.
I further limited to Logic.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_of_opposition
The opposite of all is not "none" but "not all". (or some)
The opposite of "freewill" is not "no freewill" but "not freewill".
This is a basic structure of logic. Which allows you to make a simple conclusion.
So once again I state. The (logical) opposite of "freewill" is not "no freewill" but "some freewill".
Albeit my first statement is still true (arguably), I don't think the statement is as relevant to the argument as I wanted it to be.
So I end with this bit of clarification.
You may be dead.. this does not effect "freewill".. "freewill" still exists.. your ability to use it does not.
(COF Just made an edit.. so quickly. God has no limits.)
- Login to post comments
Offline Rhad, you're missing the point on every argument I've made.
If you think of this thread as a game to be won or loss-- then I will much rather not have it.
That's not what is going on.
What is going on is that you are forcing us to endless repeat the same points, and this frustrates those who have to endlessly repeat the same points in new ways. We thank each other when one of us find a way to make the points even more succintly.
That's all.
Ability is not limits, as I contested to tod, it is merely ability.
I.e. the ability to do something, or not do something
So it speaks to limits
It can be used to speak to limits.
Ability speaks to limits. Period. What are you able to do, what are you not able to do. Can we please drop this now, as it has no real significance anyway?
Once again, a distinction without a difference. To be able or unable speaks to our limits.
And none of this is really the key point here.
Why, oh why, do you keep saying this.
Because you're not dealing with the key point here. The key point is below.
Here is the actual issue before you.
You say that omnipotence is limited in that it can't do the impossible.
Well, who DECIDES what is impossible in the first place in your theology?
"Impossible" is a human concept. We say things are "impossible" because we are limited.
You're not answering the question: who decides what is impossible in the first place in your theology? That's the question. Who creates the limits?
FURTHERMORE!, for the the ungth-teenth-time, I did not say that "omnipotence is limited in that it can't do the impossible".
Perhaps! I said that God cannot do what is "logically impossible",
I hope you realize that that is precisely the same as saying 'omnipotence is limited..." so I will credit you with conceding the point here. Let's move on then.
because "logic" is merely a human concept, based of assertions, assumptions, deductions, that God doesn't necessarily need to accept.
Well then, if that is the case, then you have conceded that 'god' is beyond logic. Ergo, you must concede that your 'god' is incomprehensible - beyond logic.
Thank you.
If so, then your 'god' is the one responsile for the limit being as it is, in the first place! So to speak of limits is preposterous.
To speak of limits of God, yes.
I agree.
If it is not 'god', then whoever created these limits IS god.
If nothing created them, if they are eternal, then there's no need for a god.
No theist answers because to answer is to be refuted.
God has no limits. You DO.
Ok then, you've conceded that your god is incoherent and incomprehensible.
Here's why:
to exist is to exist as something, to have identity. We call this a set of limits. These limits give an entity its identity, its character, its nature.
If something is defined as beyond limits, beyond 'logic', then it follows that it has no identity.
It cannot be referenced as an existent at all. It is beyond human comprehension.
If 'god' is defined this way, then it follows that the theist must concede that he is without any rational basis for his belief.
Adieu.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Offline I no longer give you the benefit of the doubt. I no longer believe you to be a person searching of intellectual sincerity within the context of this conversation.
I believe that you are retarded by your want to win this argument and your want to exercise certain argumentative strategies.
This want, I believe, is outweighing your ability to see the purpose of this conversation as an exploration into reason.. as opposed to merely, 'I'm gonna win, this is how I'm gonna do it.'
I could state the evidence for my belief within the context of this conversation but I do not wish to do so, nor would it do any good. The important thing, to me, is that I believe so.
Ergo, I will no longer converse with you. For you are neither my friend nor someone I wish to rationalize with-- ergo, there is no reason to continue speaking.
If this was a formal debate, perhaps there would be some reason to believe that winning is more important then correctness. This however, is not a formal debate.
Take this any way you feel you must.
- Login to post comments
Offline
On the ontological status of free will.
(or why free will is limited)
To exist is to exist as something, to have a nature.
We call this the axiom of identity. A=A
To exist, therefore, it to exist as something and not something else.
A does not equal NOTA
This means that to exist is to have limits.
By definition, anything that exists has limits.
'Free will' exists, ergo, it has limits, a nature. It is what it is, it is not what it is not.
This is a limit.
Your argument that 'free will is not limited, because we can wish for anything", therefore misses two points.
1) Free will, as an existent, has limits.
2) But this is UTTERLY MOOT for the conversation we are having!
The ACTUAL argument is that our pool of possible options to actually choose from is limited. This is what is meant by saying that our 'free will' is limited.
Please just reword it this way: the number of possible real options we can choose is limited.
So let's deal with that, and just delete everything that is off topic.
The theist claims that the reason we have free will is because god wanted us to 'choose' him freely. If this is the reason for free will, given that free will already has limits, there is no reason why people ought to have the freedom to commit any evil action, such as rape or murder, that has nothing to do with the free choice to follow or not follow 'god'.
Ergo, one limit is your ability to choose from only the options that exist before you, only options that you know about, etc.
...
Are you trying to insinuate that because you can only "will" based on things you aware of is a limit on "will" itself?
That is reaching...
The actual argument before you is that our 'will' is limited in that we can only choose from a limited set of options. So, if our free will already has constraints in the sense that we cannot choose options that do not exist, the next question is: Who decides this in your 'theology'? Your god.
So your 'god' already limits what you can choose... so the next question is: why not limit rape or murder, and still grant us free will to do anything else?
See?
Now look: You write this:
I have no doubt that there are 'sins' that have not been experienced.
You are able to follow the actual point before you.
Let's stick to it.
Ergo, since no sin is necessary (i.e. all potential sins are contingent upon an omnipotent creator) then every 'sin' that is not 'required' as per your theology, points to a serious problem in your theology.
No sin is necessary within existence.
We are talking about sin as at the conceptual level, as a potential.
Every sin that I would accept as 'necessary' to existence itself would seem to contradict the theological principal of coming 'sinless' world as well as the concept of an omnipotent God.
Then why would your god create a universe where they could potentially occur?
I do not contend thats any sin is necessary or unnecessary.. merely that sin exists now. Then, I try to think of a way in which there could have been a place where there was 'no sin' and 'no possibility for sin' yet still those things I cherish, such as freewill, ability to move.
You're contradicting yourself... you've held that 'god' can do anything, and now you are saying that god cannot do X, because there would be no Y.
If I could think of a way.. then I would be smarter than God..
You don't need to come up with a way, merely accept that there must be a way, by definition, if
there is an omnipotent god
It's easy to say. "Look.. here are the concepts of omnipotent and omniscience. God could have found a way!"
Response: "What way can you think of?"
Response2: "I don't know. But he could of!"
Sane Response 2: I don't have to think of a way. It follows, necessarily, given the definition of omnipotence and omniscience.
"god" can do anything at all
X is a thing to do
ergo
god can do X
QED.
This is an argument of ignorance.
No, it is not. Responder 2 isn't saying "I don't know, ergo X" He's saying "it follows, necessarily, from Omnipotence and omniscience that god can do anything, even the logically impossible, because these are limits only for us, not 'god'
So, seeing as you hold that the reason for free will it to 'choose god', you must explain why rape and murder exist, WITHOUT appealing to free will, as this argument fails for 2 reasons.
1) the free will argument fails because an omnipotent, omniscient creator must be perfectly responsible for every element that would be involved in making a 'choice' in the first place. This obviates free will, unless you concede that 'god' can 'do the impossible'
2) Neither rape or murder are necessary in order for there to be a free choice to 'follow god' or not.
No.. I hold the reason for "freewill" is so that one may "freely will".
But according to your own argument, free will is not limited by the fact that you can't do what you will, ergo you've refuted yourself here... there's no need for an actual rape or murder! You can just 'will it', freely, without doing it.
So you've refuted yourself anyway.
See?
1) Once again.. I gotta contest a lot of you uses of words. First.. "impossible" is a man made concept. We say its "impossible" to fly with your hands.. because.. well.. we deem that its impossible to fly with your hands. Is this to say that God cannot? No..
I agree with you. NO 'limits' on god.
because as I asserted before (and continue to do) God can do what is "humanly impossible". To say that there is such a thing as "Godly impossible" for an omnipotent God.. would be counter intuitive.
Agreed, agreed, agreed, agreed! AGREED!
And again, by accepting this, you must concede that your 'god' concept is incoherent.
2.) Like I said.. BEFORE.. with COF.. and-- also refered you to this point BEFORE.. if you can imagine a way in which rape and murder are limited by generally applicable "physical laws", in the same manner that you stealing the moon or flying is limited by generally applicable "physical laws", yet, at the same time, not creating more a logical downside (such as the limitation of movement or the limitation of freewill).. then so be it.
I don't have to imagine it. It's utterly unnecessary.
All I have to do is show that a ramification of your own god claims is that 'god' can do anything at all....
And you've stated that.
Ergo, rape and murder make no sense at all, and refute the existence of such a god.
All the rest is moot... if you want me to deal with anything you think I've missed, please repost that, briefly.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Offline I no longer give you the benefit of the doubt. I no longer believe you to be a person searching of intellectual sincerity within the context of this conversation.
And I believe that you are throwing tantrums. Grow up.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Offline One reason then, for why I no longer deem it fruitful to converse with you.
We call this the axiom of identity. A=A
To exist, therefore, it to exist as something and not something else.
A does not equal NOTA
This means that to exist is to have limits.
By definition, anything that exists has limits.
If by limits you mean, definitive limits, yes.
A cannot be "not A"
God cannot be "not God"
These are the only "limitations" required by your axiom.
And yet you go off and apply it the concept of "He must have limits" or "He's incoherent".
So.. if I "limit" him by using the word "God". Then so be it. I do not think this was your point you had hoped to make. For if it was then that my sentence above would have sufficed, yet, you continued, and in continuing haphazardly used concepts and language.
(In my opinion of course. Other people may judge however they wish.)
- Login to post comments
Offline One reason then, for why I no longer deem it fruitful to converse with you.
Oh stop it already. You're bigger than this.
We call this the axiom of identity. A=A
To exist, therefore, it to exist as something and not something else.
A does not equal NOTA
This means that to exist is to have limits.
By definition, anything that exists has limits.
If by limits you mean, definitive limits, yes.
That is what I mean. To be an existent is to be something. This means 'limits'. To define something as 'beyond limits' is to say that we cannot identify it, we cannot speak of it.
This is basic ontology. The part of metaphysics that speaks to the nature of things.
A cannot be "not A"
God cannot be "not God"
These are the only "limitations" required by your axiom.
And yet you go off and apply it the concept of "He must have limits" or "He's incoherent".
It's not 'going off'.
First, you can't refer to 'god' as "A" in the first place if 'god' is beyond limits. He cannot be any "A". He can only be a "Not A"
If you don't believe me, perhaps you'll believe this little known christian theologian.... Saint Augustine:
St. Augustine wrote:
What then, brethren, shall we say of God? For if thou hast been able to understand what thou wouldest say, it is not God. If thou hast been able to comprehend it, thou hast comprehended something else instead of God. If thou hast been able to comprehend him as thou thinkest, by so thinking thou hast deceived thyself. This then is not God, if thou hast comprehended it; but if this be God, thou has not comprehended it.
So it's not my idea... it goes back to Saint Augustine.
So.. if I "limit" him by using the word "God".
You do limit him by doing that, but as a human you have no choice, because you cannot refer to things without limit.
Then so be it. I do not think this was your point you had hoped to make.
I don't think you've actually got the point yet, but you will.
For if it was then that my sentence above would have sufficed, yet, you continued, and in continuing haphazardly used concepts and language.
I have not choice but to accept your terms, in order to show how they contradict. Employing them does not grant them ontological status. Please see Augustine's points.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Offline Oh how, oh how, am I being pulled back into this thing.
One reason then, for why I no longer deem it fruitful to converse with you.
Oh stop it already. You're bigger than this.
This seems like a compliment. I'm baffled. Fine, I will return one. I think you to be very intelligent. What that might mean coming from a 23 year old film/law student.. who knows.
We call this the axiom of identity. A=A
To exist, therefore, it to exist as something and not something else.
A does not equal NOTA
This means that to exist is to have limits.
By definition, anything that exists has limits.
If by limits you mean, definitive limits, yes.
That is what I mean. To be an existent is to be something. This means 'limits'. To define something as 'beyond limits' is to say that we cannot identify it, we cannot speak of it.
This is basic ontology. The part of metaphysics that speaks to the nature of things.
I never said he was "beyond limits" I said he had "no limits". I did not expect for you to use the fact that I use a word to define him with (God), that you would hold that as a "limit" in the sense I believed we were using it.
For if thats the case.. I lose the moment I say omnipotent God. Or furthermore.. if I say omnipotent anything. For nothing can be "omnipotent" for the moment you define a particular thing as omnipotent it would be "limited" by this axiom. A "limit" equivalent in relevance to a "limit on power".
A cannot be "not A"
God cannot be "not God"
These are the only "limitations" required by your axiom.
And yet you go off and apply it the concept of "He must have limits" or "He's incoherent".
It's not 'going off'.
First, you can't refer to 'god' as "A" in the first place if 'god' is beyond limits. He cannot be any "A". He can only be a "Not A"
If you don't believe me, perhaps you'll believe this little known christian theologian.... Saint Augustine:
From the book I am in the midst of reading, I gain the impression that Saint Augustine is intelligent.. this is not to say that I will accept all he says. But I will read.
St. Augustine wrote:
What then, brethren, shall we say of God? For if thou hast been able to understand what thou wouldest say, it is not God. If thou hast been able to comprehend it, thou hast comprehended something else instead of God. If thou hast been able to comprehend him as thou thinkest, by so thinking thou hast deceived thyself. This then is not God, if thou hast comprehended it; but if this be God, thou has not comprehended it.
So it's not my idea... it goes back to Saint Augustine.
To say that I cannot comprehend and to say that I cannot "fully" or "completely comprehend" are two very different things. You are stating the former, I would agree with the later. If I were to say I can "fully comprehend God" then, as St. Augustine rightly implies, this would be to say that an finite mind can fully comprehend infinite thing.
But even as one makes use of a concept, a symbol in the case of mathematics and infinite, so one can use a imperfect comprehension to further the equation.
A concept of God can be "coherent" even if it is not a full representation of truth.. even as a scientific theory can be "coherent" even if it is not a full representation of truth.
So.. if I "limit" him by using the word "God".
You do limit him by doing that, but as a human you have no choice, because you cannot refer to things without limit.
Like I said before. I assumed these two limits would not be held as equal.. but once again.. I am perceiving that you are using them as such.
A 'definitive limit of concept' and a 'limit within that concept'.
A cannot be "not A"
This is a definitive limit of concept. A logical axiom, necessary to have any coherent conversation.
On the other hand. Our conversation was of limits within the concept.. not of the word itself.
I said God is omnipotent. If we say that definitive limits (in accordance with the equivalency of words) is on par with all other limits.. then I cannot say that he is omnipotent.
And if THIS was the point you were trying to make, and you will not concede that there is a difference, then I will once again take my leave-- for we cannot have a conversation when our thinking on this particular issue (of the limits of language and the limits within a particular concept) is so at odds with the eachother, and neither of us is willing to concede.
But if this becomes the case.. in which both state our opinions and our unwillingness to concede a particular point for the debate. (I cannot do it.. for I do not believe it to be so) then at least it is an end of debate.
Unlike my former debate is that debate "would go nowhere", this would be "an end".
Two very different things.
I'd much rather you agree (or concede).. and then we can get back to the point of issue.
But if there other route. So be it... it is definitely better than "would go nowhere".
Then so be it. I do not think this was your point you had hoped to make.
I don't think you've actually got the point yet, but you will.
Once again.. a compliment. I'm baffled. I will return in kind. Your avatar is nice.
For if it was then that my sentence above would have sufficed, yet, you continued, and in continuing haphazardly used concepts and language.
I have no choice but to accept your terms, in order to show how they contradict. Employing them does not grant them ontological status. Please see Augustine's points.
I have read them. and written my opinions on aforementioned points.
- Login to post comments
Offline
Quote:Oh stop it already. You're bigger than this.
This seems like a compliment. I'm baffled.
Why are you baffled? I've complimented you previously. And I don't recall insulting you at all.
Fine, I will return one. I think you to be very intelligent.
Thank you. We both are smart. So's CAF.
To be an existent is to be something. This means 'limits'. To define something as 'beyond limits' is to say that we cannot identify it, we cannot speak of it. This is basic ontology. The part of metaphysics that speaks to the nature of things.
I never said he was "beyond limits" I said he had "no limits".
But they are functionally the same. To have no limits is to be beyond any limit. If you prefer, I will say "no limits".
For if thats the case.. I lose the moment I say omnipotent God.
Well, can you show how 'beyond limits' differs from "no limits"?
No, I don't think you can, because they are functionally the same.
But does this mean that you 'lose'?
Well then St. Augustine loses too.
Anyway, you've said that this is not about winning or losing. So let's just say that we are pursuing knowledge here. What we've learned is that one cannot hold that god is 'without limits' and be a positive theologian at the same time. In other words, you can't define 'god' as without limits, and hold that 'god' is comprehendable.
So you must rely on negative theology.
Don't know what that is? Ask. I'll tell. I can talk about it.
Or furthermore.. if I say omnipotent anything. For nothing can be "omnipotent" for the moment you define a particular thing as omnipotent it would be "limited" by this axiom.
To define something as beyond limits merely means that it is beyond human comprehension. That means that you cannot refer to'' it', or make arguments for 'it' or even call it 'it' which is why I keep putting 'god' in quotes, as you must have noticed.
But can you have faith in 'it'? Sure. That's what negative theologians do. They hold that their claims are based in faith.
After all, who in the history of the world makes more claims for god than... St. Augustine!
quote=Tod] .
First, you can't refer to 'god' as "A" in the first place if 'god' is beyond limits. He cannot be any "A". He can only be a "Not A"
If you don't believe me, perhaps you'll believe this little known christian theologian.... Saint Augustine:
From the book I am in the midst of reading, I gain the impression that Saint Augustine is intelligent.. this is not to say that I will accept all he says. But I will read.
Good, because I'm using his argument and last I checked, he believed in 'god'
St. Augustine wrote:
What then, brethren, shall we say of God? For if thou hast been able to understand what thou wouldest say, it is not God. If thou hast been able to comprehend it, thou hast comprehended something else instead of God. If thou hast been able to comprehend him as thou thinkest, by so thinking thou hast deceived thyself. This then is not God, if thou hast comprehended it; but if this be God, thou has not comprehended it.
So it's not my idea... it goes back to Saint Augustine.
To say that I cannot comprehend and to say that I cannot "fully" or "completely comprehend" are two very different things. You are stating the former, I would agree with the later.
To be able to partially comprehend requires that it be an existent, have an identity and be part of nature. All three are interconnected. So it can't be that 'god' is 'partly comprehendible' because that would necessitate that 'god is comprehendible"
So, again, to exist is to exist as some 'thing'. To be, is to be something. To have an identity, a character, a nature.
A=A.... A does not equal NOTA. We call this the 'limit' for A. Whatever this may be. For example, you are person, ergo, you have a nature, an identity.. limits.... by limits I don't mean 'things you can't do" I mean.... properties, attributes... what I mean is that you are made of flesh, not stone or stucco or tree bark. You are X, not Y. You are person, not a tree, or a star.
Do you and trees and stars share some elements? YES. So it's not mutually exclusive, of course. Every existent likely shares some elements of existence.
(I bet you never thought the identity property you learned in math would ever be of importance again, right?!)
********************
To speak of something is to speak of its limits, its attributes... to comprehend what you are I must be able to delineate you from other things that you are not.
This all goes back to Kant and Hegel - to say that X is something, is to also say that X is not everything else that it is not.
So, if we define "X" as 'beyond everything" or "not everything else" then we are left with "X" as a cipher... something undefinable.
You wouldn't want to say that "X" = nothing. So you're left with saying that "X" is undefinable.
If I were to say I can "fully comprehend God" then, as St. Augustine rightly implies, this would be to say that an finite mind can fully comprehend infinite thing.
The problem is that you can't comprehend it at all, because there is no commonality between you and "it"... everything in the universe is ruled out... there is no identity, no limits, no nature for you to comprehend.
But even as one makes use of a concept, a symbol in the case of mathematics and infinite, so one can use a imperfect comprehension to further the equation.
The problem is that a mathematical infinite actually has a limit! It has a nature, we can even define it in a finite formula. It refers to s a series of numbers, etc.
So the analogy to infinities in mathematics will not work, because it refers to something with identity - math.
A concept of God can be "coherent" even if it is not a full representation of truth.. even as a scientific theory can be "coherent" even if it is not a full representation of truth.
No, because the concept of 'god' is not even potentially comprehendible...
These are the most basic axioms of the universe: the axioms of existence and the axiom of identity. They are necessarily true, and they are defended through the strongest possible defense there can be: through retortion.
From these necessary axioms it follows that to exist is to have limits. To be something: A=A.
To define something contra-limits or 'without limits' is to say that you cannot refer to it at all meaningfully.... you can only define it negatively, devoid of any universe of discourse.....
If you want a further explication on that, just ask.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Prove me wrong and I will give you credit.
I've made these arguments hundreds of times, no theist even attempts to respond to the argument.
It's still ALL, seeing as you haven't responded to it either! All you are doing is talking about my prediction, and not the argument itself.
Ergo, one limit is your ability to choose from only the options that exist before you, only options that you know about, etc.
And so on.
Next, your will is limited by physical law.
Of course our wills have limits. There are things we can't think, hings we can't consider, and things we can't do.
Physical law is a limit on our will.
So you have not dealt with the argument before you. You are merely denying that our wills have limits, when they clearly have limits.
A limit is a boundry condition, something we cannot surpass. Our sum total of limits can be used to define what we are.
To be a human means that you can't glide on the air. It means that there are a host of things you cannot do.
And our will, our sense of autonomy, itself has limits. We can't desire what we don't know about. We can't avoid making mistakes, or poor decisions. We can't do things that violate our physical limits nor can we do what violates physics itself.
These are limits on our will.
I cannot steal the moon, or steal an idea from your brain. These are potential 'sins' that could exist, given an omnipotent, omniscient creator. Yet they do not. Ergo there are possible 'sins' that do no exist.
Ergo, since no sin is necessary (i.e. all potential sins are conteingent upon an omnipotent creator) then every 'sin' that is not 'required' as per your theology, points to a serious problem in your theology.
So, seeing as you hold that the reason for free will it to 'choose god', you must explain why rape and murder exist, WITHOUT appealing to free will, as this argument fails for 2 reasons.
1) the free will argument fails because an omnipotent, omniscient creator must be perfectly responsible for every element that would be involved in making a 'choice' in the first place. This obviates free will, unless you concede that 'god' can 'do the impossible'
2) Neither rape or murder are necessary in order for there to be a free choice to 'follow god' or not.
You're subtly moving away from the actual argument before you. However, let me say that even this is wrong, you can't will for things you don't know about, etc., as I covered above.
But more importantly, by trying to run down this side avenue, you're not dealing with the argument before you. It has to do with acts like rape and murder, and why we have the free will to CHOOSE these options, ie., why do these options even exist, when we already do NOT have the choice to do other possible things, like steal ideas from people's heads.
Two problems.
1) You're placing a limit on omnipotence. Tsk tsk.
2) I can imagine ways to prevent rape and murder without eliminating sex or movement myself, so why couldn't a god?
This is wrong in two senses.
First, in the sense that the actual argument uses the concept: our ability to make selections only from options that your 'creator' created.
And even in your second, topic changing sense, of simply considering sheer desire, devoid of action. Even in this sense, you are limited in what you can imagine. Again, this limit would be created by your 'god'
So leaving aside that your second sense of the term has no relation to the actual argument (the existence of possible options to choose from) it still is invalid.
I do hope that you now move from using this defense and return to dealing with the argument before you.
Kudos to you for at least copying the argument and responding... but I need you to now get the actual point of the argument and try and respond to that.
That is where you will have difficulties, I'm afraid.
Back you into a corner? Yes! That is the point! Kudos to you, at least you got the argument. That's rare.
What I am doing is forcing you to follow the necessary logical ramifications of your own claims. If free will exists to justify X, and not Y, then how can you justify Y if Y exists?
And in your theology, free will exists for 'choice' of 'god'... and not for rape or murder.
Actually, I think I have.
Ah, and here I thought you were getting my point.
If free will exists so that 'man can choose god', leaving aside that this is impossible (i.e. since omnipotence leads to perfect responsibilty for whatever it is in you that choose anyway!) then the free will argument for theodicy fails, because there is NO purpose to murder in this system.
All murder can do is wreak havoc on the ability of others to enact their own free will!
I'm constantly amazed at how often I am misread. I am saying that every theist argument, when deconstructed, leads to even bigger problems when you review the original problems with it.
Yes it does. If you have the free will to murder, and you murder a person, how does that person have free will anymnore
[quote ]"Freewill" to me, would seem as the concept of freedom. I have freedom. If I'm killed at the hands of another.. it does not take away from the fact that I have freedom
Yes, it does. You're dead. No more abilty to choose anything.
If you were going to choose to follow god tomorrow, and someone murdered you today, you'd lose your freedom to choose god.
Please, think this one over. If we can't agree even here, I see no reason to continue.
That is what I mean. It lessens the opportunity for others, in that it shortens their life spans, reducing the number of opportunities to 'follow god'
And therefore, deprived of the opportunitey to enact their free will.
No, the opposite is 'no free' will. THat's that opposites mean.
Not sure how you can have 'some free will' unless by that you mean compatibalism vs libertarian free will.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'