Sin before sin?

Two_Sandals
Posts: 8
Joined: 2008-03-28
User is offlineOffline
Sin before sin?

Now the entire concept of christianity is based on the how god needed a blood sacrifice of his son in order to subside his wrath against us for eating the forbidden fruit. By sinning and disobeying him, god caused sin to enter the world, as to say the world was without sin prior to that event. How could adam and eve sin, if sin was not yet in the world? This can't be said to be a metaphor, because as i stated christianity is based on this concept.

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed with no evidence." Christopher Hitchens


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Actually in the time travel

Actually in the time travel case your coming and saying that could change the future. I'd probably think you were crazy for saying that and wouldn't want you to be correct (maybe even subconsciously) and would eat an orange or bananna instead. Even if you didn't tell me, subtle changes in the way you act or even things you don't think of could have an effect. Actually, time travel is almost certainly impossible - more likely you travelled to a paralell timelime - maybe one so close you could see no difference - but maybe in that timeline apples happened to be on sale at the store so I bought a bunch, while in this one peaches were so I bought them. Don't bring up shit like that to an avid science fiction reader.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
 I don't know how many

 I don't know how many times I have to have this discussion...

 

Quote:
However, if I have "perfect" knowledge of every movie you will see for the rest of your life...do you really have a choice about what movies you will see

Yes.

 

Capacity is Capacity is Capacity.

 

The statement "I know what you will choose" ergo "you don't have choice" is self-contradictory.

 

There is either a presumption that we have free will or we don't.  If you presume we do, the fact that God is omniscient doesn't change that.  If you presume we don't, the fact that God is omniscient doesn't change that either.

 

But to do the whole argument in reverse is ridiculous.

 

If God is omniscient then we don't have free will.  If God is not omniscient then we do have freewill.

 

Is it possible that free will is illusionary? Yes. But once again, is that in any way related to a determination of whether God is omniscient? No.

 

Quote:
If you agree that nothing can gainsay god's perfect knowledge of every choice you will ever make, then you are forced to accept that your "free will" is an illusion; god is (at best) setting up circumstances in which you seem to have a choice, but is really pulling your strings to make you make the decisions he knew you would make before you were born.

You presume in this fact that God can set up circumstances.

 

I already stated that a presumption that God has "power to set up circumstances" along with "perfect knowledge" is a pointless conversation.

 

Can a human ever go against perfect knowledge? NO! Knowledge is the acquaintance with fact, truths, or principles. 

 

Perfect knowledge would be the perfect acquaintance with fact, truths, or principles.

 

Nowhere in this definition is there an necessary conflict with "free will."  I can have perfect acquaintance with the truth that you will choose X instead of Y.  Infused into the sentence is a presumption of choice.

 

I can have perfect acquaintance with the truth that you will do X and is all that you can do, i.e., there is no "instead." Infused into this sentence is presumption of no choice. 

 

Neither sentence is self-contradictory because "knowledge" has no affect on "what you have knowledge of."


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote: I don't

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

 I don't know how many times I have to have this discussion...

 

Quote:
However, if I have "perfect" knowledge of every movie you will see for the rest of your life...do you really have a choice about what movies you will see

Yes.

 

Capacity is Capacity is Capacity.

 

The statement "I know what you will choose" ergo "you don't have choice" is self-contradictory.

 

There is either a presumption that we have free will or we don't.  If you presume we do, the fact that God is omniscient doesn't change that.  If you presume we don't, the fact that God is omniscient doesn't change that either.

 

But to do the whole argument in reverse is ridiculous.

 

If God is omniscient then we don't have free will.  If God is not omniscient then we do have freewill.

 

Is it possible that free will is illusionary? Yes. But once again, is that in any way related to a determination of whether God is omniscient? No.

 

Quote:
If you agree that nothing can gainsay god's perfect knowledge of every choice you will ever make, then you are forced to accept that your "free will" is an illusion; god is (at best) setting up circumstances in which you seem to have a choice, but is really pulling your strings to make you make the decisions he knew you would make before you were born.

You presume in this fact that God can set up circumstances.

 

I already stated that a presumption that God has "power to set up circumstances" along with "perfect knowledge" is a pointless conversation.

 

Can a human ever go against perfect knowledge? NO! Knowledge is the acquaintance with fact, truths, or principles. 

 

Perfect knowledge would be the perfect acquaintance with fact, truths, or principles.

 

Nowhere in this definition is there an necessary conflict with "free will."  I can have perfect acquaintance with the truth that you will choose X instead of Y.  Infused into the sentence is a presumption of choice.

 

I can have perfect acquaintance with the truth that you will do X and is all that you can do, i.e., there is no "instead." Infused into this sentence is presumption of no choice. 

 

Neither sentence is self-contradictory because "knowledge" has no affect on "what you have knowledge of."

It seems like you and the one you're defending are operating on different definitions of free will. the one you defend claims that God knows everything you do because he's seen you do it.

Or is it omniscience that you've redefined here?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Theia
Theia's picture
Posts: 207
Joined: 2008-04-13
User is offlineOffline
j_day* wrote:There's a

j_day* wrote:

There's a difference between knowing what someone's going to choose and making them choose it. God knows what I'm going to choose, that doesn't mean He makes me choose it. It's not "God knows I'm going to eat pizza tomorrow, so I have to eat pizza tomorrow" it's "I'm going to eat pizza tomorrow, and God knows that's what I'm going to eat."

If God knows you're going to eat pizza tomorrow then how can you choose to eat a hot dog instead at the last minute? That would have made God wrong the day before, in which case he doesn't know everything ahead of time and is not omniscient. The only way he can know for sure that you're going to eat pizza tomorrow is if you are unable to change your mind tomorrow, which would mean you do not have free will after all. You can argue that he knows you're most likely to eat pizza tomorrow but may eat a hot dog. But then he doesn't absolutely know what you're going to eat. He's just making an educated guess based on knowing your preferences. To absolutely know what you're going to eat tomorrow it would have to be impossible for you to change your mind and not eat pizza and then free will could not exist. Free will and an omniscient god are incompatible.

"The Bible looks like it started out as a game of Mad Libs" - Bill Maher


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:It seems like you

 

Quote:
It seems like you and the one you're defending are operating on different definitions of free will. the one you defend claims that God knows everything you do because he's seen you do it.

Or is it omniscience that you've redefined here?

I don't think I've done either.

I'm merely trying to address what I feel to be a rather common sense conceptual separation between the "knowledge" and "free will."

 


Theia
Theia's picture
Posts: 207
Joined: 2008-04-13
User is offlineOffline
It seems to me the evil

It seems to me the evil question has still not been answered.

Why does evil need to exist in order to have free will? Why can't free will simply mean a choice between two or more non-evil things? Why would a choice including evil be necessary rather than just having a choice between "good" and "better" or between "neutral" and "good"? I was trying to decide this afternoon whether to take the dog to the park or go to Home Depot and work on the house. Neither choice is evil so obviously evil was not necessary for me to exercise my free will and choose one action over the other.

"The Bible looks like it started out as a game of Mad Libs" - Bill Maher


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:It seems to me the

 

Quote:
It seems to me the evil question has still not been answered.

Why does evil need to exist in order to have free will? Why can't free will simply mean a choice between two or more non-evil things? Why would a choice including evil be necessary rather than just having a choice between "good" and "better" or between "neutral" and "good"? I was trying to decide this afternoon whether to take the dog to the park or go to Home Depot and work on the house. Neither choice is evil so obviously evil was not necessary for me to exercise my free will and choose one action over the other.

Logical argument:

IF A, then there must be [not a].

IF Good, then there must be [not good].

Definition of evil = [not good].

So.. the existence of "good" requires the existence of [not good].  Although they must not both be manifested in action.. the must both exist.  

Whether or freewill could be restricted and still be called freewill.. well.. that is often an argument.. I'm of the opinion no.

 


Theia
Theia's picture
Posts: 207
Joined: 2008-04-13
User is offlineOffline
  RhadTheGizmo

 

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

 Logical argument:

 IF A, then there must be [not a].

IF Good, then there must be [not good].

Definition of evil = [not good].

So.. the existence of "good" requires the existence of [not good].  Although they must not both be manifested in action.. the must both exist.  

Whether or freewill could be restricted and still be called freewill.. well.. that is often an argument.. I'm of the opinion no.

 

The definition of "not good" is not necessarily "evil". Just because something has an opposite doesn't mean it has to extend to evil. The opposite of "good" could mean simply "not good" without being bad, such as something that is neutral. If I wanted to get a lot of things done today but instead sat on my butt and watched TV all day that is "not good" but I don't think most people would call that "evil", so "not A" does not have to equal "evil". There's a whole range of "not good" that is not evil. Good and evil aren't distinct opposites like black or white anyway. "Good" is just part of a range of degrees of good. God could have made the range shorter, from "good" to "no-so-good" but he didn't have to extend it to the degree of evil that exists.  

And the idea that free will can't be restricted and still be free will has already been shown to be invalid with the example of flying. I can't flap my arms and fly. I can't breathe water like a fish. I can't climb a wall like a spider. There are thousands of things that restrict my choices every day. If I want to get from here to Australia my choices are pretty much limited to flying in a plane or taking a boat. I don't have the choice of not using a boat and just swimming or driving across the ocean. I don't think any choices you make don't have at least some restrictions. For any decision you make I'm sure you can think of unrealistic and impossible options, such driving your car from the US to Autralia, that show your choices are not infinite. All choices are limited and therefore restricted.

 

  

"The Bible looks like it started out as a game of Mad Libs" - Bill Maher


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:The definition of

 

Quote:
The definition of "not good" is not necessarily "evil".

e·vil    Audio Help   [ee-vuhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective

1.

morally wrong or bad; immoral

 

wrong    Audio Help   [rawng, rong] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective

1.

not in accordance with what is morally right or good: a wrong deed.

 

evil -> morally wrong

wrong -> not good

evil -> morally not good

 

Quote:
Just because something has an opposite doesn't mean it has to extend to evil. The opposite of "good" could mean simply "not good" without being bad, such as something that is neutral. If I wanted to get a lot of things done today but instead sat on my butt and watched TV all day that is "not good" but I don't think most people would call that "evil", so "not A" does not have to equal "evil". There's a whole range of "not good" that is not evil. Good and evil aren't distinct opposites like black or white anyway. "Good" is just part of a range of degrees of good. God could have made the range shorter, from "good" to "no-so-good" but he didn't have to extend it to the degree of evil that exists.  

I'm just afraid I'm gonna have to disagree.  Good and Evil are black and white--by definition I would have to contend this.  Merely because I cannot distinguish all acts that are good and/or all acts that are evil, does not mean they are not either one or the other.

 

Quote:
And the idea that free will can't be restricted and still be free will has already been shown to be invalid with the example of flying.

Free will pertains to will, not action.

 

You can freely will to fly.  You can freely will anything--doesn't mean you can actualize your will.

 

"Sin" is not necessarily an action, it is a thought, that may manifest itself in actions.  I believe the NT addresses this point.

 

Quote:
I don't think any choices you make don't have at least some restrictions.

Choices are not limited.  The actualization of such choices may be.

 

 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
You like using the sophist

You like using the sophist method of picking and choosing dictionary definitions to fit your point don't you? Ever hear of equivocation?

 You know, left is the opposite of right so I guess that means left handed people are evil?

That man is 7' tall so he is very tall. That building isn't tall - it's only 2 stories. So since that man is tall and the building isn't - the man is taller than the building.

It's very far to drive from New York to LA. In interstellar space, it's not that far from Earth to Alpha Centarui. Therefore Earth is closer to Alpha Centauri than New York is to LA.

 

The sumo champion is very heavy. That airliner was built using the latest technology and is very light. Therefore the sumo champion weighs more than that airliner. 

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
  You very good at being

  You very good at being sarcastic Matt.

But beyond that talent of yours, do you actually have an instance in mind where I have equivocated? Or do you just like to claim that I did?

I'd like to believe I have been rather consistent in my use of the words.  

As for "picking and choosing dictionary definitions to fit my point"--I'd like to think that this is pretty much common sense.  Words have many words, it's nice to be able to draw from a nice, static, definition from the dictionary in order to establish what definition I am using.

As long as I remain consistent to that definition within the thread/discussion.. I'm not sure exactly what your problem with that practice would be.

 


Theia
Theia's picture
Posts: 207
Joined: 2008-04-13
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote:  evil

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

 

 

evil -> morally wrong

wrong -> not good

evil -> morally not good

  

By that logic then watching TV all day is "evil" since it was a "not good" way to spend the day. You must think nearly everything that in't considered good then is evil right down to little things like forgetting to brush your teeth before bed. Brushing Teeth=Good, therefore Not Brushing Teeth=Evil.

That's a pretty harsh way of viewing life.

Seriously, just because A means B it does not necessarily follow that B also means A.

For example, the fact that yellow is a bright color does not mean that all bright colors are yellow.

Just as yellow is a subset of the group called of bright colors, evil things are a subset of the group of things "not good". But there are more things in the group of "not good" than only the subset of "evil".  Not all things "not good" are "evil" just as not all bright colors are yellow.

 

"The Bible looks like it started out as a game of Mad Libs" - Bill Maher


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:By that logic then

 

Quote:
By that logic then watching TV all day is "evil" since it was a "not good" way to spend the day

Like I said in that same post.. it is difficult to tell sometimes.  I don't know why it can't be said that watching TV all day is "good" way to spend the day.

 

Who knows what your motivation was.

 

Quote:
You must think nearly everything that in't considered good then is evil right down to little things like forgetting to brush your teeth before bed. Brushing Teeth=Good, therefore Not Brushing Teeth=Evil.

Like I said, it is difficult for me to determine a distinction, but it is entirely possible that both those actions can be good.

 

Just because evil = not good does not meant that X action = good therefore not X action = not good.

 

That's just not the way it works.

 

As I said before, it is difficult in mind to categorize certain actions as "evil" or "good" but, at the heart of them, I think they either are one or the other.

 

You don't "watch tv all day," but your watch tv all day with a particular motivation, with certain value judgments of x over y, with certain habits being affirmed or regressed..

 

The amount of variables that go into every particular action make it so that I will rarely ever call a particular action evil or another particular action good (as an absolute matter).  Still.. the fact that I may, as a practical matter, not make value judgments does not mean that as a technical matter, there is a clear binary system.

 

Quote:
Just as yellow is a subset of the group called of bright colors, evil things are a subset of the group of things "not good". But there are more things in the group of "not good" than only the subset of "evil".  Not all things "not good" are "evil" just as not all bright colors are yellow.

I realize that you believe that.  From a purely linguistical standpoint, however, we can both be right.

 

Language is an interesting thing like that.

 

If not good, then evil.

 

If not yellow, then other color.

 

You seem to think that I am defining evil as "black" or "green."  But I'm not.  In stead, I am using evil to define that span of action that goes form the "really evil" to the "slightly evil"-- yet, nevertheless, there is no neutral in this binary system.

 

That is not to say that you can't be right either.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote:   As I

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

 

 

As I said before, it is difficult in mind to categorize certain actions as "evil" or "good" but, at the heart of them, I think they either are one or the other.

Part of your problem is good/evil is also subjective. You are evil in your actions in the eyes of a devout Muslim. You are also evil in the eyes of a Jew when you have a BLT. The Muslim is evil in your eyes when he claims Jesus is but a prophet. You are also evil as you worship a false god called Jesus in the eyes of a Orthodox Jew. If you are a Protestant a Catholic is evil when they ask saints or Mary to intercede for them in their prayers. Atheists are therefore inherrently evil in your eyes as we deny God exists. I may think you as a Christian are evil for imposing myths as real in society.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Part of your problem

 

Quote:
Part of your problem is good/evil is also subjective. You are evil in your actions in the eyes of a devout Muslim. You are also evil in the eyes of a Jew when you have a BLT. The Muslim is evil in your eyes when he claims Jesus is but a prophet. You are also evil as you worship a false god called Jesus in the eyes of a Orthodox Jew. If you are a Protestant a Catholic is evil when they ask saints or Mary to intercede for them in their prayers. Atheists are therefore inherrently evil in your eyes as we deny God exists. I may think you as a Christian are evil for imposing myths as real in society.

Definitely.

Although.. heh, maybe a bit of an oversimplification.

As a practical matter, me personally, I would have trouble making an "absolute" value judgment.  Does that mean as a strict definitive matter, one concept does not require the other? Whether or not we agree on how they apply. (That was directly generally.. not necessarily to you).

 


j_day* (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
shikko wrote:shikko

shikko wrote:

shikko wrote:

Yes, it does.  Since you neatly avoided answering the question I asked, I'll ask it again: is it even possible for god's knowledge of the choices you have yet to make to be wrong?  If not, you have no free will because that foreknowledge cannot be contravened; your actions are dictated by god's knowledge of the future.  If so, god is not omniscient.

So, no dodging: which is it?  Yes or no?

I wanted to draw attention to this question again, which you still haven't answered directly.  Can god's knowledge of your future choices ever be wrong?

j_day* wrote:

Peter denied Jesus three times because he was scared. God knew He was going to do that three times because He had already seen Him do it. When God tells the future, He's telling what's going to happen. It's going to happen that way no matter what. But why it happened that way was a series of events of people using free will.

So if "it's going to happen that way no matter what", no one could have possibly chosen to do anything differently, right?  So that's not really free any more, is it?

Quote:

Imagine that time travel is possible. If I went into the future and watched you stand at the refrigerator to pick something to eat and you chose an apple. Then I came back and said, "tomorrow you will eat an apple" that doesn't mean you are "forced" to eat an apple. I had foreknowledge of the choice you made. At the time of the choice, you had free will.

You are making my point for me.  Seeing the future requires that the series of events leading up to the future is immutable, and impossible to derail.  This implies that the outcome of all choices are determined before they are made; after all, if they weren't someone might make a different choice that would affect the future you saw.  Ergo, you have illusory choices to make, and no free will.

God's knowledge of future choices can never be wrong. It's because He has already seen it play out. Let me give a different example. Imagine you are watching a basketball game. The Lakers are down by 2 with only 10 seconds left. Kobe Bryant is at the top of the key with the ball and he has two choices: take a 2 pointer that would tie the game and take the chance in overtime, or take the 3 pointer to win the game right there. He decides to shoot the 3. Now let's say you recorded the game. Next time you watch it, you know what's going to happen. Does that mean that Kobe taking the 3 pointer over the 2 pointer was a result of you knowing? Kobe didn't have to take the 3 because you knew it. You knew it because you already saw his choice. Every time you watch the video, Kobe will always do what you know he was going to do. But also, from Kobe's point of view, free will existed throughout all his choices.

God says "you will eat pizza tomorrow". That is predetermined. But not by God, by me. It's not like when He says "you will eat pizza tomorrow" that I'm like "but I don't want pizza". He's not making me do something. I already made the choice, He's just telling you the choice you already made.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote:.  Does

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

.  Does that mean as a strict definitive matter, one concept does not require the other? Whether or not we agree on how they apply. (That was directly generally.. not necessarily to you). 

 I'd rather that one concept didn't require the other but it does with the condition it is subject to the morals of the individual. First consideration again is good or evil according to whom. As you agree evil/good is subjective to the beliefs and morals of each individual great difficulty may be encountered in determining if an action is per se evil or good. Most will consider a murder to be evil. Though it may be seen as an honor killing in some societies. Generally atheists and Christians would see this as wrong but is it evil. In most cases when a Christian uses the word evil he means in the eyes of God. But how can you know what that reclusive deity actually thinks of the action. Yes I know he has left his messages for you to read and understand. But he killed in the book many times. So killing is justified and not evil in some cases if God does it or orders it done. So how can you know if the writing wasn't done to justify murder and the God claim for justification was just fiction by the protagonist or the author. Consider Saul and his orders to kill all of the Amalekites that came from Samuel. Did Samuel actually get this from God or did he just make it up to justify taking the land? Who can say.

Evil is based on morals as your dictionary definition showed. Therefore if the morals determine if an action be good or evil how can for a world society encompassing many beliefs a single answer be given. Clearly not.

If you take an extremist view then the opposite of good is always evil. There are however less good choices that are not per se evil, at least according to my view. These choices may only be benign, a concept you have not provided in your hard definition. If you see evil as going against God then all such actions are per se evil. Even watching TV if you were failing to be productive if such were in your own best interest would be evil.

However, though I consider the imposition of myths as real on society to be wrong I don't consider it to be evil unless it's done with malicious intent to harm others. So to me an action is generally evil if it involves malicious intent to harm others. That however is not what evil is in Christian belief, evil is going against God. I don't consider swearing in your God's name to be evil for example, just stupid. Actions Christians of some sect  consider evil though they harm no one may not be evil to me. Maybe not to you either.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
 Very well put.. I enjoy

 Very well put.. I enjoy reading your posts.

 

I'll give it some thought.. i'm pretty tired at the moment.. about to get on a plane in 3 hours.. haven't finished packing.

 

Gday.


Theia
Theia's picture
Posts: 207
Joined: 2008-04-13
User is offlineOffline
I don't think it really

I don't think it really matters who decides what is good or bad about a lot of issues. There are some things I think we all agree are bad. My point is we do not need the degree of evil that exists in order to have free will and learn right from wrong. I think almost all people, whatever race, religion, etc, would agree that a 5 year old child being sexually molested, then having her fingers and toes cut off one by one, then being covered with gasoline and burned alive is a horrible evil. There is no reason for this level of evil to exist. Just seeing a child being slapped hard enough to be knocked on her face would have been more than enough to shock most people into recognizing the difference between "good" and "not good" without going to the extreme of making a young innocent child suffer such a horrible atrocity as being raped, tortured, and burned alive. A loving, merciful god would have no need to take things to that level in order to teach us right from wrong. A simple slap in the face would have been enough to make us realize there is something opposite of "good".

"The Bible looks like it started out as a game of Mad Libs" - Bill Maher


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
 I don't agree with you

 I don't agree with you presumption that god "takes" things to that level.

As I have stated.  If the possibility of not good is a logical consequent of having a possibility of good, (whether in thought or action), then so be it.

All the things you listed off as part of the horrible act are movements/actions benign in itself.  I happen to believe that God could not (or for some reason did not) create a world in which you had total free will and yet your actions were restricted based upon the "evilness" of your intent.

Instead, "God" restricted man to certain generally applicable rules of physicality, e.g., I can move my hand this way and that, and it is merely a product of my "free will" that I can use that generally applicable to effectuate some ill intent, e.g., I move my hand this way in order to slap someone.

 

You say it is not necessary, I say that it is.  Until such a time that "man" can freely choose good, there will always be actions of "not good" that he chooses in stead to do.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

 

Quote:
By that logic then watching TV all day is "evil" since it was a "not good" way to spend the day

Like I said in that same post.. it is difficult to tell sometimes.  I don't know why it can't be said that watching TV all day is "good" way to spend the day.

 

Who knows what your motivation was.

 

Quote:
You must think nearly everything that in't considered good then is evil right down to little things like forgetting to brush your teeth before bed. Brushing Teeth=Good, therefore Not Brushing Teeth=Evil.

Like I said, it is difficult for me to determine a distinction, but it is entirely possible that both those actions can be good.

 

Just because evil = not good does not meant that X action = good therefore not X action = not good.

 

That's just not the way it works.

 

As I said before, it is difficult in mind to categorize certain actions as "evil" or "good" but, at the heart of them, I think they either are one or the other.

 

You don't "watch tv all day," but your watch tv all day with a particular motivation, with certain value judgments of x over y, with certain habits being affirmed or regressed..

 

The amount of variables that go into every particular action make it so that I will rarely ever call a particular action evil or another particular action good (as an absolute matter).  Still.. the fact that I may, as a practical matter, not make value judgments does not mean that as a technical matter, there is a clear binary system.

 

Quote:
Just as yellow is a subset of the group called of bright colors, evil things are a subset of the group of things "not good". But there are more things in the group of "not good" than only the subset of "evil".  Not all things "not good" are "evil" just as not all bright colors are yellow.

I realize that you believe that.  From a purely linguistical standpoint, however, we can both be right.

 

Language is an interesting thing like that.

 

If not good, then evil.

 

If not yellow, then other color.

 

You seem to think that I am defining evil as "black" or "green."  But I'm not.  In stead, I am using evil to define that span of action that goes form the "really evil" to the "slightly evil"-- yet, nevertheless, there is no neutral in this binary system.

 

That is not to say that you can't be right either.

You still need a "neutral" category. There are actions that are neither good nor evil

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

 

Quote:
It seems to me the evil question has still not been answered.

Why does evil need to exist in order to have free will? Why can't free will simply mean a choice between two or more non-evil things? Why would a choice including evil be necessary rather than just having a choice between "good" and "better" or between "neutral" and "good"? I was trying to decide this afternoon whether to take the dog to the park or go to Home Depot and work on the house. Neither choice is evil so obviously evil was not necessary for me to exercise my free will and choose one action over the other.

Logical argument:

IF A, then there must be [not a].

IF Good, then there must be [not good].

Definition of evil = [not good].

So.. the existence of "good" requires the existence of [not good].  Although they must not both be manifested in action.. the must both exist.  

Whether or freewill could be restricted and still be called freewill.. well.. that is often an argument.. I'm of the opinion no.

This is inconsistent; your second like does not follow from the first.  Also, your definition of evil leads to some strange conclusions; namely anything not good is evil, such as mountains, gravity and comedy.

The existence of A does not necessarily entail the existence of its opposite, call it anti-A.  The lack of A-ness is not equal to the opposite of A-ness; the lack of the colour blue doesn't mean something is orange (its opposite); it just means it's not blue.

Good/evil is not a binary system.  Neutrality is the middle ground inhabited by everything for which the concept of good/evil make no sense.  Blue is not good does not imply that blue is evil.

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:You still need a

 

Quote:
You still need a "neutral" category. There are actions that are neither good nor evil

What? Excuse me?

From whence does this assumption come from? Certainly not self-evident.

Perhaps when it comes to practical application it might be true.. for instance, there is up, there is down, then there is a 0 point, which, although infinitely small, still exists.

But for conceptual analysis.. I need not assume that there is a neutral category.

There is 0, there is 1.  Certain things may be more 0 and more 1, but the things the define "more" does not reflect a quantitative measure, but a qualitative one. 

.99999999999999 is not "less 1"-- it is a completely different number, and for the sake of the binary system evil/good construct CAN BE understood.. 0 and 1 are all that are important.

 


carx
carx's picture
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
j_day* wrote:Imagine that

j_day* wrote:
Imagine that time travel is possible. If I went into the future and watched you stand at the refrigerator to pick something to eat and you chose an apple. Then I came back and said, "tomorrow you will eat an apple"

Bravo You are a determinist Laughing out loud you understand determinism however
”free will” is nothing else then a illusion peace learn to replace this nonsensical word with calculation or reactions.

j_day* wrote:
that doesn't mean you are "forced" to eat an apple.

NO this is fatalism a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatalism its nonsensical and you have denied it congratulations , you are a determinist acept it.

j_day* wrote:
I had foreknowledge of the choice you made. At the time of the choice, you had free will.

replace this nonsensical word with calculation or reactions.

Maybe you are a closet determinist (get out of the closet Laughing out loud ) however you nead to understand why determinism makes god (of the bible ) nonsensical lets demonstrate this.

CARX puppet theater with association of the internet presents “Why determinism makes god idiotic ? ”

>Lets make a creature and name it god .

god> O hi I’m god .

>Lets give this creature the will to create every thing

god> O I wont to create the universe now however I don’t have the power to do it.

>Lets make god all powerful.

god > O I’m all powerful now I’m going to create the sun , humans , the snacke and place tha forbidden tree in the middle of the garden and stuff however I have no idea what will happen.

>Lets make god all knowing so he can know/see the future

god> O I’m all knowing now HMM let me use this power to see what will happen after I create every thing ? O ON the humans will eat the apples ? Maybe I don’t create the tree or build a barrier around it or don’t create the snake ?

End of story if god is all knowing and he created the universe he set up the circumstances for this future so this world is exactly like he wonted it to be and all of us are blameless. The funny part it that the foreknowledge of the future is possible for a ultra computer that simulates his surroundings or a machine that can send drons in the future and see how things are going to end up. This my friend makes god the concept of evil , good nonsensical since wee all are a perfect firework made exactly like god wonted it too.

Have you enough balls to answer me or are you going to run like the coward you are ?

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

 

Quote:
You still need a "neutral" category. There are actions that are neither good nor evil

What? Excuse me?

From whence does this assumption come from? Certainly not self-evident.

Perhaps when it comes to practical application it might be true.. for instance, there is up, there is down, then there is a 0 point, which, although infinitely small, still exists.

But for conceptual analysis.. I need not assume that there is a neutral category.

There is 0, there is 1.  Certain things may be more 0 and more 1, but the things the define "more" does not reflect a quantitative measure, but a qualitative one. 

.99999999999999 is not "less 1"-- it is a completely different number, and for the sake of the binary system evil/good construct CAN BE understood.. 0 and 1 are all that are important.

 

Ah. In other words, you're not doing any analysis at all. You're just saying "what" is not good is evil"  because it fits your conditioning. 

I love theistic thinking - the more tenuous the connection to reality, the better they like it.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:namely anything not

 

Quote:
namely anything not good is evil, such as mountains, gravity and comedy.

Who says that mountains, gravity, and comedy, aren't good? I would certainly argue that they are--I certainly don't think that they are "not good."

 

Anything which cannot be "morally not good" is good.  Mountains, gravity, and all such things that you might consider "inherently neutral" I would consider good.

 

Quote:
The existence of A does not necessarily entail the existence of its opposite, call it anti-A.  The lack of A-ness is not equal to the opposite of A-ness; the lack of the colour blue doesn't mean something is orange (its opposite); it just means it's not blue.

I know.. your equating "not good" meaning = opposite.  That's not the proposition I am making.   You use particular colors as if it is an appropriate analogy, but in the construct I am proposing, it is not.

 

If you want to use colors, fine.

 

The existence of orange necessitates that there is a concept of "not orange."  "Not orange" would entail all those things of which do not fall under what would be defined as orange.  This would include blue, black, birds, babies, the internet.

 

None of these things are necessarily "the opposite."

 

"Evil" is not necessarily "the opposite" of good. 

 

I think this is the sticking point that we are disagreeing on.

 


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Have you enough

 

Quote:
Have you enough balls to answer me or are you going to run like the coward you are ?

Why are you still arguing from the premise that God is all powerful? Did the other guy propose this?

As already stated.. if you presume God is all power, then "God did it, because he could, whether or not it is inconsistent with logic--he can both know what you will choose, create the construct in which your choose, and still make it so that you have free will. Illogical? Doesnt matter! He's all powerful."

 


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Ah. In other words,

 

Quote:
Ah. In other words, you're not doing any analysis at all. You're just saying "what" is not good is evil"  because it fits your conditioning. 

Heh.. now your just being snide.

 

Yes.  That is exactly what I am doing.  I am making a semantical argument, using definitive descriptions and prescriptive language to suggest that could be used to understood the story of "sin" and "the fall of man."

 

You say "analysis" as if it requires "practical application."

 

As someone else already pointed out.. any practical application of "good and evil" necessarily entails loaded terms upon which we can all disagree.  You might like to say that X is evil, certainly doesn't mean in another time and place another person wouldn't.

 

And what exactly is the standard by which you judge what is right and wrong?

 

Common consensus? Ridiculous.

 

Consequentialism? Ridiculous.

 

If you want to have a discussion about how to apply "good and evil" to actual actions.. that's fine and dandy.. but a waste of time in my opinion.  It would take to long, have to many tangents, and in the end, will just come down to personal preference.  Some a priori assumption your make about what constitutes good and what constitutes bad.

 

This would be, exactly, what I am doing.  Except, instead of actually applying my standard of good and evil to actions, I am merely presenting its technical underpinnings.

 

If you agree with the technical underpinnings (which it seems some people do not) then great... if not, then we discuss why.  But seeing as my exposition of the concept was merely to explain one possible understanding of the "sin before sin"-- I don't really see why it is important to discuss "why" you disagree that the particular construct is the right one.  It might be important to discuss "why" it is internally inconsistent (as shik tries to do).. but that is a completely different issue then what you are suggesting.

 

The same as if you had said "what is good is what I feel is good, and what is evil is what I feel is evil."

 

I can argue why this shouldn't be the standard, but I will not argue that it is someone internally inconsistent.

 

Quote:
I love theistic thinking - the more tenuous the connection to reality, the better they like it.

I love atheistic thinking--the more they lack the ability to understand complexity, the more childish they become.

 

Now that we are done making unjustified, brash, generalizations meant to poke fun at... perhaps we can move on.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
What's wrong with

What's wrong with consequentialism?


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:What's wrong with

 

Quote:
What's wrong with consequentialism?

I punch someone -> his nose breaks -> he misses his appointment -> boss gets home early -> spends time with family -> that day influences child -> child grows up and saves a million lives

Now.. if we judge the morality of an action based upon its objective consequence.. then, how is the original punch judged? at what point do the consequences stop have relevance on the morality of the punch?

If we judge morality based upon the perceived consequences of the person at the time he punched? then this just makes morality a completely subjective matter again.

When I said "ridiculous" is was not meaning to say that people may not judge morality based upon perceived consequence.. only that such a standard is nor more helpful at creating an "objective standard of good and evil," that can be practically applied to an action, then any of the other standards.

 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I would go with judging by

I would go with judging by the likely consequences of someone's actions. Obviously good things can come from what most people would agree are evil actions - if a child molester had taken and killed Adolph Hitler as a child, that was still a "bad" act even though in that particular case it (maybe - messing with the timestream can have unexpected results - maybe without WWII the Soviet Union ends up conquering the world) did good. Almost every single time molesting and killing a child is going to have bad results, as is punching someone for no reason. Just like saving someone from choking to death is a good action even though there is a very small chance that person could be a serial killer. Picking an action to be good or evil based on "it makes the invisible man who lives in the sky described in this ridiculous book happy/angry" is likely the worst way to decide morality.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


carx
carx's picture
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

 

Quote:
Have you enough balls to answer me or are you going to run like the coward you are ?

Why are you still arguing from the premise that God is all powerful? Did the other guy propose this?

As already stated.. if you presume God is all power, then "God did it, because he could, whether or not it is inconsistent with logic--he can both know what you will choose, create the construct in which your choose, and still make it so that you have free will. Illogical? Doesnt matter! He's all powerful."

 

If this “god” is not the standard god of theologians a all powerful , all loving ,all knowing being why then name him god or worship him ? Is your version of “god” just a all knowing and loving psychics with no powers ? O and the insult its well J_day inset responding I you don’t kick him in the balls.

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:I would go with

 

Quote:
I would go with judging by the likelyconsequences of someone's actions. Obviously good things can come from what most people would agree are evil actions - if a child molester had taken and killed Adolph Hitler as a child, that was still a "bad" act even though in that particular case it (maybe - messing with the timestream can have unexpected results - maybe without WWII the Soviet Union ends up conquering the world) did good. Almost every single time molesting and killing a child is going to have bad results, as is punching someone for no reason. Just like saving someone from choking to death is a good action even though there is a very small chance that person could be a serial killer. Picking an action to be good or evil based on "it makes the invisible man who lives in the sky described in this ridiculous book happy/angry" is likely the worst way to decide morality.

Okay.  And yes, picking to do an action based upon what you said.. is likely as ridiculous as the other ones.

 


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:If this

 

Quote:
If this “god” is not the standard god of theologians a all powerful , all loving ,all knowing being why then name him god or worship him ?

Standard theologians have no control on what I believe.  They may have introduced a concept.. but once it is there.. I can change it so that it agrees with who I am.  It's not their faith anymore, it's mine.

That's how I think it should be as well.

And.. I didn't say God wasn't all-powerful, I said if he was then all our conversations about the matter would be pointless.  "Godidit" is the logical answer for all of it.

So.. therefore, I argue from the premise that God is not all powerful, just for the sake of argument.

Quote:
Is your version of “god” just a all knowing and loving psychics with no powers ?

No.... perhaps he a lot of power. Smiling

Quote:
O and the insult its well J_day inset responding I you don’t kick him in the balls.

Okay.. I see.. I think.

 


carx
carx's picture
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

 

Quote:
If this “god” is not the standard god of theologians a all powerful , all loving ,all knowing being why then name him god or worship him ?

Standard theologians have no control on what I believe.  They may have introduced a concept.. but once it is there.. I can change it so that it agrees with who I am.  It's not their faith anymore, it's mine.

That's how I think it should be as well.

And.. I didn't say God wasn't all-powerful, I said if he was then all our conversations about the matter would be pointless.  "Godidit" is the logical answer for all of it.

So.. therefore, I argue from the premise that God is not all powerful, just for the sake of argument.

Quote:
Is your version of “god” just a all knowing and loving psychics with no powers ?

No.... perhaps he a lot of power. Smiling

Quote:
O and the insult its well J_day inset responding I you don’t kick him in the balls.

Okay.. I see.. I think.

 

You see I don’t understand now are you playing the debate game ? Are you playing devils advocate ?

I agree that all powerful combined with the rest of the “all” attributes makes every body blames and doing exactly gods will. And no body can have sin or free will.

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Malicious Intent & Free Will

I consider evil to be malicious intent to cause harm to others. I would think most people would find agreement in this statement. Christians consider actions people do against their perceived commands of God to be evil as well therefore it must be concluded these actions must in some way harm God. The harm to God in this context is actually disrespecting him and his perceived commands. That this may be imaginary or not part of reality doesn't change that in the perception of the believer evil has been done. This is in a large part thanks to John Calvin and Martin Luther as well as St. Augustine. This is part of what I previously mentioned in that good/evil are based on the morals and beliefs of the person in question. As an atheist I will not agree with certain actions being evil when the person harmed is in my view an imaginary construct. This is where theists especially Christians and atheists part in discussing evil versus good. If we simply consider evil is malicious intent to cause harm to another we can end the discussion on good/evil. Good or neutral actions do not harm another. Harm to others that is not intended may be tragic but it is not per se evil.

Free will clearly exists in my atheistic view of life. As I don't consider your imaginary construct to have relevance I see no point in arguing over the details. Humans are free to do any action at all without constraint or foreknowledge of any entity. To argue that an entity has such knowledge perverts time/space as we know it. For an omniscient entity to exist proof of time/space incontinuance would be required meaning the ability to move through time and observe future actions. As I have not seen evidence of such a possibility at his time, I will maintain that no such entity exists that can transcend time and either alter or know my choices or decisions.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


carx
carx's picture
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Free will clearly exists in my atheistic view of life. As I don't consider your imaginary construct to have relevance I see no point in arguing over the details. Humans are free to do any action at all without constraint or foreknowledge of any entity. To argue that an entity has such knowledge perverts time/space as we know it. For an omniscient entity to exist proof of time/space incontinuance would be required meaning the ability to move through time and observe future actions. As I have not seen evidence of such a possibility at his time, I will maintain that no such entity exists that can transcend time and either alter or know my choices or decisions.

 

 


Consider a machine able to calculate every atom in your body and simulate a small aria therefore south hyper computer is able to know in advance your decisions. Let me demonstrate human brains have evolved so we can performer such calculations to a limited degree “rounding up” our calculations. To deny determinism is for me like denying the sky is blue you have given me some information’s and in my human brain I have already constructed a simulation of you , you have stated that you are a atheist therefore I can fill the gapes with similar predictions for your mindset ad get a acuter result.

For instance I predict that for the you will answer to the following questions 1)NO 2)NO 3)NO 4)YES(in 65%)

1) Will you accept a god for no apparent reason ?
2) Will you start to play for no apparent reason ?
3) Will you give money to help replace the US constitution with the 10 commandments ?
4) Do you think marketing works ?

Like I have demonstrated from this simple information I have predicted your future answers without ever asking you for them are my calculations true ?

Here is the question what is the test to determine the existence of free will ? If free will would infect exist our world would look completely deferent for instance marketing would
not work.

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:You see I

 

Quote:
You see I don’t understand now are you playing the debate game ? Are you playing devils advocate ?

I agree that all powerful combined with the rest of the “all” attributes makes every body blames and doing exactly gods will. And no body can have sin or free will.

I am saying that, if I claim God is an omnimax god AND is still all-loving, then the belief is one necessarily based upon nothing but itself.  It is possible, because being "omnipotent" makes anything possible (even making the world as is and still be all loving), but there is no argument that can be made for or against it farther than what I have just stated (IMO).

Some might call this "faith."

Now.. I am proposing a God who is not all powerful, he is limited by what can be done "logically."  This allows me to discuss things about the idea, and for understanding to progress.

For instance, If HELL, then God not all loving.  

This is something I feel to be a self evident presumption.  And therefore, I can either give up one or the other.  Or, in the alternative, discuss the applicability of the premise to begin with.

However, if we said God is omnipotent, then the discussion would be this.

A: That premise isn't correct!

B: Of course it is.

A: No it's not.

B: Explain to me how those two things can be consistently held?

A: God made that way, he's omnipotent (aka. "he can do anything&quotEye-wink.

The belief in God doesn't necessarily entail the belief that God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc., etc.

 

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
carx wrote: Consider a

carx wrote:
Consider a machine able to calculate every atom in your body and simulate a small aria therefore south hyper computer is able to know in advance your decisions. Let me demonstrate human brains have evolved so we can performer such calculations to a limited degree “rounding up” our calculations. To deny determinism is for me like denying the sky is blue you have given me some information’s and in my human brain I have already constructed a simulation of you , you have stated that you are a atheist therefore I can fill the gapes with similar predictions for your mindset ad get a acuter result.

For instance I predict that for the you will answer to the following questions 1)NO 2)NO 3)NO 4)YES(in 65%)

1) Will you accept a god for no apparent reason ?

2) Will you start to play for no apparent reason ?

3) Will you give money to help replace the US constitution with the 10 commandments ?

4) Do you think marketing works ?

Like I have demonstrated from this simple information I have predicted your future answers without ever asking you for them are my calculations true ? Here is the question what is the test to determine the existence of free will ? If free will would infect exist our world would look completely deferent for instance marketing would not work.

What you have shown is that you learn from your environment. What you cannot do is tell me if I like cola do I drink Pepsi or Coke. Do I drink diet or regular? You don't have this data in your mind computer.

Marketing doesn't always work as you point out. If I market a new TV that is priced at $10,000 USD even with sexy ads I will sell very few. It has to have something people desire or it has to be made into something they desire, even better. If I market a TV for $10,000 and it is holovision 3-D with a 360 degree picture, and it allows you to alter the show you watch by command I will sell more.

Free will allows me to decide to drink Pepsi or Coke and possibly not be affected by the advertising. If I simply hate the taste of Coke no amount of marketing will convince me to buy it. Somehow you miss that there is always a choice though statistically some choices are minimally probable.

My rejection of religion and God is a freely made choice. I was a Christian and now I am not. The information I considered led me to that path. The same information is available to religious believers yet they continue to believe. They have made a free will choice just as I did.

Free will only means you are able to pick a choice or path to take. That this path is influenced by many factors including your taste, your politics, your economic state, and where you live is a given. This infomation can aide a researcher or a poll taker in making conclusions. What it cannot do is 100% predict my reaction.

Do you think I will sit and listen to a theologian preach on why Jesus has saved me even though I am an atheist. If so, will I do it everytime and why? If not why not? If I listen to them, will I tell them I am an atheist or not?

Sometimes I turn right to go left when I leave my house even when there is no apparent reason to pick that direction.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Jewish Belief on the Fall

It seems that Christians have no concept of events and beliefs that stem from the Hebrew Bible. Why is it that they don't accept Judaism's version  where the Garden of Eden story is seen as a parable. In fact Judaism does not see these events as The Fall of Man at all. Jews believe that man was created as a mortal and Eve was not the cause of death entering the world. Judaism does not have the concept of original sin as does the offshoot Christianity. Instead Judaism advocates the rise of man and Original Virtue. They teach each soul is pure upon entering the world and each man can return to his creator in a pure condition. Judaism sees that humanity has not reached its Golden Age as of yet but that it is in the future when the Kingdom of God is established on Earth.

So what I don't understand is how Christianity threw out the teaching of Judaism for a religion of a blood sacrifice and original sin. Christians have taken Judaism the original religion off on a complete tangent. This gets even more confusing when you look at the predicted Messiah or Moshiach. He was to be a great political leader who will be a descendant of David. In some of the same scriptures Christians have misinterpreted he is described as a great military leader, a judge and a righteous man. Man is key here. No where in Jewish tradition is he a god or part of God.

I am not Jewish this knowledge is from courses at a Jesuit University where I received a graduate degree. I have never understood how Christianity took this religion and swapped out its principles and successfully implemented the perversion now known as Christianity. I would say most Christians today do not realize the complete difference between Judaism and Christianity. A Jew believes man is born into the world pure and can leave it in the same state. A Christian believes man is born into sin and will perish forever unless he is saved by belief in Jesus.

As an atheist now and an outsider from both religions I see the arguments of Judaism in a different way then when I was a Christian. First off I would have to have proof God was real and not an imaginary offshoot of the ancient volcano God El. If I accepted God as real I would become a Jewish believer as they have far better claims to what their scriptures said then the pagans who created Christianity.

See: http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/jews-jesus/jews-jesus-index.html

See this on the Jewish belief on the Garden of Eden and the fall http://www.mrrena.com/misc/judaism2.php

See this on the Messiah: http://www.jewfaq.org/moshiach.htm

I personally would rather see Jews proselytize Christians and convert them back to a purer form of worship in mythology. If you must believe in God, please become a Jew or at least a God fearing believer obeying the 7 laws of Noah. Here I agree with the Jews, if Jesus existed he was a man and was not the Moshiach or Messiah.

I usually argue that the Garden of Eden and the fall of man is a story of mythology. The Jews say it is a parable. If Christians choose to accept this story as real they must first provide proof why Judaism the basis for their religion is in error.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
 Thanks for your posts

 Thanks for your posts pauljohn... I'm sending that last one to my xain friends. Wish you'd cross post that to "meph" in the RRS post "what faith you" ..... maybe I will. Save a xain ! Help the world !  

 


carx
carx's picture
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Free will allows me to decide to drink Pepsi or Coke and possibly not be affected by the advertising. If I simply hate the taste of Coke no amount of marketing will convince me to buy it. Somehow you miss that there is always a choice though statistically some choices are minimally probable.

I have not the impute if I hade then I can predict it. However there are 4 possible options so based on your behavior I can try to make a prediction and project it with the targeted consumer thus I predict you like Pepsi diet.

The question whose not If I can predict your likes based on incomplete data ! The question was how can you have this magic “Free will” if I have the complete model of every neuron in your brain.

Besides what is the test for free will how to test it ? What is it ? If it’s a synonym for a calculation how can you say its different from lets say a computer calculating the best option ?
Let me simply explain your brain has “valiums” of citron events , colors , object , abstractions every one of thus concepts has a negative or positive value and your choice is nothing else then the measurement of thus options and “choosing” the best (from the brain value) option.

So tale me sir how can you believe in this concept despite the evidence to the contrary ? AI , chat bots , evolution , physics , engineering point to the nonexistence of super magic and free will we can model every future behavior of animals and humans with mental deficiencies . Howe can “free will” be different then the explanation “god did it ” or “ fairs are responsible” a simple statement to explain the unknown. How can “free will” explain AI ? What can “free will” predict ? Howe is the statement “free will” different from a ignorant perspective like “Its heresy don’t unfold the mystery ” or “Its unknown mr.scientist go away we love to live in the dark ages ” ?

My favorite is that most people are not aware that its impossible for this word to not be deterministic let me demonstrate coffin is a drug with means that it over stimulates the brain therefore making a addict , similar to other pleasurable experiences or thoughts its this mechanism that determines you and me so how can “ free will “ exist if we have addictive hard drugs ? O and the best evidence for determinism is the fact that people refuse to accept it since they are determined to be addicted to “free will” however there are possibilities for me to make you recalculate your determination on free will. There is a 80% chance of you still claming to the free will superstition after this post.

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
carx wrote: I have not the

carx wrote:
I have not the impute if I hade then I can predict it. However there are 4 possible options so based on your behavior I can try to make a prediction and project it with the targeted consumer thus I predict you like Pepsi diet.

Since you had little info of course you missed the Pepsi/Coke prediction. You score 25% or 1 in 4. I hate Diet Pepsi. I don't drink Pepsi at all or Coke only Diet Coke.

carx wrote:
The question whose not If I can predict your likes based on incomplete data ! The question was how can you have this magic “Free will” if I have the complete model of every neuron in your brain. Besides what is the test for free will how to test it ? What is it ? If it’s a synonym for a calculation how can you say its different from lets say a computer calculating the best option ?

Let me simply explain your brain has “valiums” of citron events , colors , object , abstractions every one of thus concepts has a negative or positive value and your choice is nothing else then the measurement of thus options and “choosing” the best (from the brain value) option. So tale me sir how can you believe in this concept despite the evidence to the contrary ? AI , chat bots , evolution , physics , engineering point to the nonexistence of super magic and free will we can model every future behavior of animals and humans with mental deficiencies .

Howe can “free will” be different then the explanation “god did it ” or “ fairs are responsible” a simple statement to explain the unknown. How can “free will” explain AI ? What can “free will” predict ? Howe is the statement “free will” different from a ignorant perspective like “Its heresy don’t unfold the mystery ” or “Its unknown mr.scientist go away we love to live in the dark ages ” ?

My favorite is that most people are not aware that its impossible for this word to not be deterministic let me demonstrate coffin is a drug with means that it over stimulates the brain therefore making a addict , similar to other pleasurable experiences or thoughts its this mechanism that determines you and me so how can “ free will “ exist if we have addictive hard drugs ? O and the best evidence for determinism is the fact that people refuse to accept it since they are determined to be addicted to “free will” however there are possibilities for me to make you recalculate your determination on free will. There is a 80% chance of you still claming to the free will superstition after this post.

I see what you are trying to say.

First I do not believe in super magic god knowing my actions.

If my mind is completely simulated with 100% accuracy in a computer yes it will always predict the outcome. I however see that as impossible. The best will be a high probability. I do not believe in a super magic god that knows what I think. The accuracy of a super magic simulation program is determined by the information available to simulate. The simulation would fail to predict perfectly as all it would take is a new piece of information that could change the outcome to the human decision. Our input sensors constantly add this new information which will cause an error in your program unless the program is constantly monitoring the human to add the information. Sometimes the human makes decisions that are not the best option while a computer always will. That is the problem. Humans are not perfect.

Free will can not predict. Free will and AI may not be compatible though technology may improve to make this statistically very small. Free will allows the scientist to explore the unknown and not live in the dark ages. We pursue areas of investigation based on very little possibility of success. A computer would not invest time in research where the odds of success are 1 in a thousand. Humans however will.

I expect that AI will be taken to the level that cyborg or robot humans are developed. So will they have free will? No is what you will say. My answer is I don't know as technology improves possible outcomes can be near infinity. If the simulation can predict outcomes at near infinity then there is no free will. Since this is not the case today computers and the invisible non-existent magic god can not make a perfect prediction. This is complicated by the actions of 6 billion other humans that react with the simulated human and everything else that can occur randomly. It only takes a minuscule error to cause prediction in the computer to be wrong.

As to coffee and addiction. This enters your equation as another parameter of data. Thus you can with high certainty predict actions related to the addiction. New data comes to the human, quit the addiction or die. Some will die some will quit the addiction. Again humans make decisions that are not the best choice.

In conclusion, simulation may predict group behaviors but will always have a statistical error for a given individual. In order to fully be predictive every single possible outcome of interaction must be considered as well as continued monitoring of the human brain to keep the data updated. Our computer technology hasn't reached that level as of yet.

I said in my last post I sometimes turn right to go left without an obvious reason. That is another problem with trying to predict human decisions with complete certainty. We sometimes make emotional or irrational decisions.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
j_day* wrote:shikko

j_day* wrote:

shikko wrote:

Yes, it does.  Since you neatly avoided answering the question I asked, I'll ask it again: is it even possible for god's knowledge of the choices you have yet to make to be wrong?  If not, you have no free will because that foreknowledge cannot be contravened; your actions are dictated by god's knowledge of the future.  If so, god is not omniscient.

So, no dodging: which is it?  Yes or no?

(snip)

God's knowledge of future choices can never be wrong.

Thank you for answering.  Therefore, we have no free will.

If nothing you can do can ever go against what god "knows" you will do, you have no choices to make, only the illusion of choices.  Try it this way:

You have three envelopes in front of you. Each one has a slip of paper with a city written on it.  The city is where you will go on vacation.  I tell you to open one envelope.  You pick the one in the middle, and inside is a slip that says "Honolulu".  I immediately hand you a folder with the right plane tickets, hotel reservations, etc., that you'll need for your trip, as well as your suitcase packed with sun hats and bathing suits.

How did I do this?

Quote:

God says "you will eat pizza tomorrow". That is predetermined. But not by God, by me. It's not like when He says "you will eat pizza tomorrow" that I'm like "but I don't want pizza". He's not making me do something. I already made the choice, He's just telling you the choice you already made.

This entire paragraph is an illustration of my point.  If you cannot help but make this choice, you didn't really have a choice to make in the first place, because nothing you can ever say or do can either countermand god's will or contravene god's foreknowledge of the outcome of the choice.  You are a puppet.  If god tells you the choice you already made and can't be wrong about that, he is in effect removing your ability to make a free choice about it.

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

 

Quote:
namely anything not good is evil, such as mountains, gravity and comedy.

Who says that mountains, gravity, and comedy, aren't good? I would certainly argue that they are--I certainly don't think that they are "not good."

 

Anything which cannot be "morally not good" is good.  Mountains, gravity, and all such things that you might consider "inherently neutral" I would consider good.

So your system does not have an "n/a" category and is strictly and mercilessly binary?

 

Quote:

Quote:

The existence of A does not necessarily entail the existence of its opposite, call it anti-A.  The lack of A-ness is not equal to the opposite of A-ness; the lack of the colour blue doesn't mean something is orange (its opposite); it just means it's not blue.

 

I know.. your equating "not good" meaning = opposite.  That's not the proposition I am making.   You use particular colors as if it is an appropriate analogy, but in the construct I am proposing, it is not.

 

But above, you just said "anything which cannot be 'morally not good' is good", so how does that not necessitate everything being categorized into exactly one of two opposed states?

Quote:

 

If you want to use colors, fine.

 

The existence of orange necessitates that there is a concept of "not orange."  "Not orange" would entail all those things of which do not fall under what would be defined as orange.  This would include blue, black, birds, babies, the internet.

None of these things are necessarily "the opposite."

 

When you change what you said to read this way, I understand and agree; a concept of a quality necessitates the concept that other things may not have that quality.  I was commenting on what you said originally, which used the words "good" and "evil", or "good" and "not good", which you define by exclusion to be synonymous with "evil".

 

Quote:

"Evil" is not necessarily "the opposite" of good. 

 

 

Beg pardon?  What, then, is evil?

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


j_day* (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
shikko wrote:j_day*

shikko wrote:

j_day* wrote:

shikko wrote:

Yes, it does.  Since you neatly avoided answering the question I asked, I'll ask it again: is it even possible for god's knowledge of the choices you have yet to make to be wrong?  If not, you have no free will because that foreknowledge cannot be contravened; your actions are dictated by god's knowledge of the future.  If so, god is not omniscient.

So, no dodging: which is it?  Yes or no?

(snip)

God's knowledge of future choices can never be wrong.

Thank you for answering.  Therefore, we have no free will.

If nothing you can do can ever go against what god "knows" you will do, you have no choices to make, only the illusion of choices.  Try it this way:

You have three envelopes in front of you. Each one has a slip of paper with a city written on it.  The city is where you will go on vacation.  I tell you to open one envelope.  You pick the one in the middle, and inside is a slip that says "Honolulu".  I immediately hand you a folder with the right plane tickets, hotel reservations, etc., that you'll need for your trip, as well as your suitcase packed with sun hats and bathing suits.

How did I do this?

Quote:

God says "you will eat pizza tomorrow". That is predetermined. But not by God, by me. It's not like when He says "you will eat pizza tomorrow" that I'm like "but I don't want pizza". He's not making me do something. I already made the choice, He's just telling you the choice you already made.

This entire paragraph is an illustration of my point.  If you cannot help but make this choice, you didn't really have a choice to make in the first place, because nothing you can ever say or do can either countermand god's will or contravene god's foreknowledge of the outcome of the choice.  You are a puppet.  If god tells you the choice you already made and can't be wrong about that, he is in effect removing your ability to make a free choice about it.

You are thinking about this from a human perspective only. Imagine for a moment that a movie, such as Die Hard, is real (as in no writers). Imagine a part where Bruce Willis has a choice between going left and right. Bruce Willis goes left instead of right. You knew he was going to do that because you have already seen it happen. That doesn't mean that the decision made was a result of you knowing where he was going to go. He didn't go left because you knew he was going to go left. He wasn't restricted by your knowledge. Your knowledge is based on what you have already seen. When you quote a movie or a song, you don't say "Jamie Foxx was forced to say that because I knew the words". Michael Jackson chose the words to his song, you know them, that doesn't mean he is forced to sing what you know as opposed to you know what he's going to say because you have already heard him say it.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
j_day* wrote:shikko

j_day* wrote:

shikko wrote:

j_day* wrote:

shikko wrote:

Yes, it does.  Since you neatly avoided answering the question I asked, I'll ask it again: is it even possible for god's knowledge of the choices you have yet to make to be wrong?  If not, you have no free will because that foreknowledge cannot be contravened; your actions are dictated by god's knowledge of the future.  If so, god is not omniscient.

So, no dodging: which is it?  Yes or no?

(snip)

God's knowledge of future choices can never be wrong.

Thank you for answering.  Therefore, we have no free will.

If nothing you can do can ever go against what god "knows" you will do, you have no choices to make, only the illusion of choices.  Try it this way:

You have three envelopes in front of you. Each one has a slip of paper with a city written on it.  The city is where you will go on vacation.  I tell you to open one envelope.  You pick the one in the middle, and inside is a slip that says "Honolulu".  I immediately hand you a folder with the right plane tickets, hotel reservations, etc., that you'll need for your trip, as well as your suitcase packed with sun hats and bathing suits.

How did I do this?

Quote:

God says "you will eat pizza tomorrow". That is predetermined. But not by God, by me. It's not like when He says "you will eat pizza tomorrow" that I'm like "but I don't want pizza". He's not making me do something. I already made the choice, He's just telling you the choice you already made.

This entire paragraph is an illustration of my point.  If you cannot help but make this choice, you didn't really have a choice to make in the first place, because nothing you can ever say or do can either countermand god's will or contravene god's foreknowledge of the outcome of the choice.  You are a puppet.  If god tells you the choice you already made and can't be wrong about that, he is in effect removing your ability to make a free choice about it.

You are thinking about this from a human perspective only. Imagine for a moment that a movie, such as Die Hard, is real (as in no writers). Imagine a part where Bruce Willis has a choice between going left and right. Bruce Willis goes left instead of right. You knew he was going to do that because you have already seen it happen. That doesn't mean that the decision made was a result of you knowing where he was going to go. He didn't go left because you knew he was going to go left. He wasn't restricted by your knowledge. Your knowledge is based on what you have already seen. When you quote a movie or a song, you don't say "Jamie Foxx was forced to say that because I knew the words". Michael Jackson chose the words to his song, you know them, that doesn't mean he is forced to sing what you know as opposed to you know what he's going to say because you have already heard him say it.

Is this a special pleading argument? I can never get the fallacies striaght.

Also, How does god already seeing you do X (before you've actually done it) not affect your decision to do X or not?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


carx
carx's picture
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
j_day* wrote:You are

j_day* wrote:

You are thinking about this from a human perspective only. Imagine for a moment that a movie, such as Die Hard, is real (as in no writers). Imagine a part where Bruce Willis has a choice between going left and right. Bruce Willis goes left instead of right. You knew he was going to do that because you have already seen it happen. That doesn't mean that the decision made was a result of you knowing where he was going to go. He didn't go left because you knew he was going to go left. He wasn't restricted by your knowledge. Your knowledge is based on what you have already seen. When you quote a movie or a song, you don't say "Jamie Foxx was forced to say that because I knew the words". Michael Jackson chose the words to his song, you know them, that doesn't mean he is forced to sing what you know as opposed to you know what he's going to say because you have already heard him say it.

GOD FUCKEN DAMIT J_DAY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Would you please don’t behave like a retard OK ?

I will explain J_day and if you are to retarded to read my posts or address them I’m going to lose any respect for you and assume you are playing a retard (or are one).

If god has for knowledge then you have no free will do to “causality” contained in the lows of physic and other action reaction principals. In your example well it’s a little silly lets make it a simulation program that do to compression simulates the displayed image in a simulation containing only the rules of the simulation and the starting positions of the objects. If I start the simulation and see the result and end it and start it again I know before what is going to happen however my knowledge of this fact doesn’t force the result the rules or “causality” is doing the job. Therefore “causality” eliminates free will.

On the other hand if god knows in advance the future I’m blameless , every body is blameless there is no sin since every one of us is doing exactly what god won’t since he created this universe with the knowledge what the future will be.

To make it small and simple for your mind , imagine god when he created eve knowing in advance her “choices” therefore god created sin for his amusement since he could NOT create Eve. He set up the circumstances knowing the results we are just a fire following the oil path we are blameless god wonted for us to sin , he wonted the holocaust , Stalin , atheism , RRS , and me its exactly like he wants , it and its perfect , I’m going to destroy Christianity and the believe in god and god wants it its perfect !

If god is all knowing and the creator of this world there is no sin !

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Yup , the very word "SIN" is

Yup , the very word "SIN" is proof of a no other, all knowing, powerful, caring,  commander god .... We are "condemned", we are "contained", to this circumstance ....  as science asks "how so is this we are ???"    ....      

Isn't "free will" just a silly religious word ploy, of asking why  ???   Why ask WHY? ,  asked a lot of wise buddhas, and Budweiser beer too, I think ?   ....

SIN and GOD , in the the same sentence is most amusing ..... ahhh yes,  Religion shit , as Jesus yelled and smashed the church temple in loving atheist indignation .... 

YES , Smash all Dogma, I meant,  heal the enemy .... love the enemy    /    

   going for a beer run .... I need wisdom !  


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
j_day* wrote:shikko

j_day* wrote:

shikko wrote:

This entire paragraph is an illustration of my point.  If you cannot help but make this choice, you didn't really have a choice to make in the first place, because nothing you can ever say or do can either countermand god's will or contravene god's foreknowledge of the outcome of the choice.  You are a puppet.  If god tells you the choice you already made and can't be wrong about that, he is in effect removing your ability to make a free choice about it.

You are thinking about this from a human perspective only.

I will seek your forgiveness, then, seeing as I am human.

Quote:

Imagine for a moment that a movie, such as Die Hard, is real (as in no writers). Imagine a part where Bruce Willis has a choice between going left and right. Bruce Willis goes left instead of right. You knew he was going to do that because you have already seen it happen. That doesn't mean that the decision made was a result of you knowing where he was going to go. He didn't go left because you knew he was going to go left. He wasn't restricted by your knowledge. Your knowledge is based on what you have already seen. When you quote a movie or a song, you don't say "Jamie Foxx was forced to say that because I knew the words". Michael Jackson chose the words to his song, you know them, that doesn't mean he is forced to sing what you know as opposed to you know what he's going to say because you have already heard him say it.

I really don't know what to say to this anymore.

I know you believe what you're saying is true, and good, and that's my sticking point.  Your ability to believe this is so alien to me that I cannot comprehend how you can believe it.

You illustrate your beliefs with references to fiction.  Other than the obvious ironies, there is not a lot I can say to your blind devotion to a stupid idea that Dijkstra didn't say: "that's not even wrong."

Hamby, you're probably not reading this thread any more, but I think I see where you're coming from now when you posted a while ago about how the more you study the more difficult it becomes to put yourself in a believer's shoes.  I used to think I was pretty good at that, but I have found a case where it's just not possible for me.  I've gotten to the point where I simply cannot think of a more clear way to explain a point, and I've come to the conclusion that it's no longer my fault that I can't get my point across, which is what I usually feel when this happens.

J_day, I want to feel something akin to hope in this instance, but I don't.  Your ability to reason has been hamstrung so masterfully and completely by what you have been instructed to believe that you think this crutched hobbling is the best you can do.  I am truly sorry for the cage in which you find yourself, thinking that instead of being locked in, you have locked things out.  I wish it weren't so.

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.