God, the schizophrenic?

Originally posted by telerion
I will try a different approach to explaining free will. I was not trying to deliberately confuse you. I'm used to speaking in terms of sets and think it's a simple and concise language. That's why this method is also a common way in to approach the issue of free will in analytic philosophy. Essentially, my definition says that the state of nature does couldn't think of any better Creation than one where adults may rape children.

Essentially, my definition says that the state of nature does not determine an individuals decision. Let me try an example. Say a person is faced with the problem of picking up one of three balls from a table. One ball is red; one is yellow; and one is blue. Without loss of generalization, let's say that we observe the individual pick up the yellow ball. A determinist would claim that the combination of all events in nature up to the point of selection (i.e. the state of nature) caused the individuals choice. Really the individual never could choose any other ball than the yellow one.

An advocate of free will would disagree and claim that while the state of nature may have had some influence on the individual's choice, it did not determine the choice. The individual could have chosen the red or blue ball. This is a simplification of the whole issue, but that's the crux of the matter.

So far so good. We both agree up to this point.

Yes, it is evident that we cannot make choose to do any sort of action. If we do have free will, then limiting our set of choices to a number (bigger than one) cannot remove it. Yes, God did not need, as many xian apologists contend, to allow choice of evil actions. Certainly, this doesn't make the remaining choices meaningless. The choice of a spouse or a lover. The choice to donate to a needy family. This choice to read to a child. How can you say these are unimportant?

Don’t be too hasty. The choices you gave both have meaning and moral value.

1. The choice of a spouse or a lover.

Fornication is wrong according to the Bible. You may have a different opinion about this, but in reality not having sex before marriage can stop a lot of evil from happening. Example: STDS, kids with broken families, lack of commitment etc.

2. The choice to donate to a needy family.

This is a good action and is recommended by Jesus. Stealing from a needy family would be evil.

3. This choice to read to a child.

Again, a good action. If a parent decides to ignore his/her child what evil will that lead to? In order for choices to have any real meaning they need to have moral value. They need to be good or bad.

The ice cream example was to show you one very simple, obvious way free will can exist even when evil is not an option. You say ice cream is meaningless. Fine. Even if you do think these choices are "meaningless," that does not negate the fact that I have refuted the misconception that free will necessitates a choice over evil actions. A xian apologist cannot with honesty continue to claim that God decision to endow us with free will, even in its present design, constrained him to allow evil choices. Case closed.

Again too hasty. You’ve convinced me of two things.

1. There are some things that we cannot choose to do even though we have free will.

Example: We cannot choose to extinguish all the stars.

2. Not all of our possible choices have moral value.

Example: If I’m about to take a test and I have two #2 pencils to choose from, it’s meaningless which one I choose.

You haven’t convinced me of your third point however. The reason why good/evil has to exist along with free will is because there has to be meaning to our lives. Choosing between identical pencils for all eternity means nothing. Why would God create us to do meaningless things forever? That misses the point of everything. That is not why God created us and put us here.

You claim that evil must exist for good. Fine, but certainly the evil that exists could be limited to a choice not to do a good action. In mathematical terms we might call this the null.

The problem with this is that most of the time not doing the good/right thing leads to evil by default.

Take reading to a child. A good action. What would be the evil counteraction associated with this? Not reading to the child? This may not really be 'evil,' but rather "non-good."

Ignoring the child may lead to developmental problems as I’m sure you’ll agree.

Now a definite evil action would be raping the child. In Creation, we all have such a choice. But why? As I've already shown, it is unnecessary even if you believe that the option to commit some "non-good" action is worthwhile so that we can distinguish good.

I agree that the act of raping a child is unnecessary to say the least, but the choice to rape a child is very necessary. If we had no ability to choose to rape children then it would not be good to not rape children. What makes the decision to not molest children good is the fact that we could choose to do it if we wanted to. What makes the decision to molest children evil is the fact that we can choose not to do it. Both choices are available to us. If we did not have the ability to choose between good and evil actions then we would have no free will (at least not any meaningful kind of free will), and if we had no free will then none of our actions would be good or bad. They would simply be what we are forced to do.

Example: A computer does what it is programmed to do. A computer dose no good or evil.

If you believe God created the universe in the best way possible (already this suffers from questions of higher ordering over even God, but given that you are uncomfortable with sets, I won't go into spaces), then you must believe that allowing adults to choose to rape a child is better than not allowing them to. God must have thought it wise not to allow us the ability to extinguish the sun, but just couldn't think of any better Creation than one where adults may rape children.

You miss the point of creation. The point of all of this is the ultimate goal that I’ve mentioned in my previous post. Besides, how can you be so sure of what we cannot do? Science knows less than 1% of what there is to know about human consciousness. Jesus tells us that the goal of Christians is to be like him, and Jesus performed miracles.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
Let me summarize for you. God allows evil to exist so that good can exist. He gives us free will so that we can experience both good and evil, and ultimately realize that evil is wrong and good is the only way that leads to our lasting happiness. Once we get to the point where we have free will, and we’ve learned our lessons and choose good all the time (as Jesus does), God brings us back to him and lets us stay in Heaven where we belong. Some go through hell whether it be here on earth or in the afterlife, but all eventually return to God; and God, being omniscient, knows that this will be the end result. Amen.

Evil is just a necessary part of the equation. Look at it this way, every time we suffer we grow. Usually we suffer as much as we choose to anyway. People have far more control over their lives than they’ll often times admit to.

This may be easier to accept if you believe that God is also a fair God. He doesn’t just let good people suffer for no reason. According to the scripture people suffer as a result of their sins. This is part of the learning process. This is part of our journey back to God. In this way we come to understand the nature of evil and why it is a poor choice.

In spite of all the evil that people do, God forgives us time and time again, and often times saves us from the consequences of our own evil actions. God does this because he loves us, and despite all the evil that has to happen, God knows what the end result will be, a perfect creation. That’s why his plan is perfect. If we suffer through evil for a few years here on earth, how can that compare to eternity?

Originally posted by Omnislash
Beggin your pardon, my esteemed friend, but how is it you consider your inflammatory postulation about the Christian theology to be 'despelling ignorance'? 😉

p.s. My apologies for not responding in the other thread a while back. I have been on a bit of a hiatus.

Hey man,

How's it going? My point of view is that you should feel free to believe in whatever you wish, but don't try and pass it off as science, or necessarily as a true account of how the world is. Christian creationists would have people believe that the world is 10,000 years old and that god sits there pouring energy into the planet. Science has dispelled both those points, I will not accept them being taught as the 'truth'. Not acceptable. Likewise, believe in god if you will, but evolution happens. People who try and tell you it's wrong are typically suffering from that deadly sin of vanity.

L

Originally posted by telerion
Any properties of free will, including a necessary association with responsibility, were created by God, not respected by him ex ante.

I understand your point about Adam and Eve not understanding evil through experience, but iit fails to respond to twhitehead's original argument which you quoted. Before eating of the tree, Adam and Eve could not k ...[text shortened]... or us, but isn't salt and water in the ocean a mixture just like grains of sand on a beach?[/b]

Yes, God created free will and its property of responsibility transfer. And that property is essential to the reason for creating it. If responsibility ultimately goes back to God, then our choosing to love Him or not (i.e. our being good or evil, as it were) would also be His responsibility. Thus we become automatons, which we clearly aren't, nor were we created to be. Free will has to shift responsibility for our actions to us or the love we share with God isn't love at all and the reason for our creation becomes void.

Adam and Eve knew that God didn't want them to eat of the tree. And they understood the request. There is no indication in scripture of Adam say, "Huh? What does 'don't' mean?" And Eve understood it as she properly explained it to the snake.
The tree is called the 'tree of knowledge of good and evil' (Gen 2:17) Of what type of knowledge does it refer? Conceptual? No. They already understand the concept of do and don't. Experiential? Most likely, as that would represent a knowledge they did not currently posses. Thus they were responsible for their actions (as is consistent with free will).

I haven't finshed my research on perfect foresight yet, but there is a place in the Bible where God regrets and another where He changes His mind. That would imply a lack of perfect foresight. Now there are also detailed prophesies prophsied 100s of years before the events, so we know He can see into our future. Perhaps it an ability He can use but isn't always "on". I'm still researching...

My point on coexisting is that we don't know how things exist in Heaven. They could be like things here on Earth or they could exist in a totally different fashion. I'll have to do more research on this.

DF

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Hey man,

How's it going? My point of view is that you should feel free to believe in whatever you wish, but don't try and pass it off as science, or necessarily as a true account of how the world is. Christian creationists would have people believe that the world is 10,000 years old and that god sits there pouring energy into the planet. Sc ho try and tell you it's wrong are typically suffering from that deadly sin of vanity.

L

Hello my friend. 🙂

I am well, and hope it is the same with you.

I think you have a healthy viewpoint. I can certainly appreciate your distaste for (theological) conjecture being propagated as absolute truth. I think this is only natural for a man of logic. I have been thinking about the assumed/implied/inherant difficulties in correlating the perceptions of our scientific community with that of some of our theological community. I would like to try something on for size with you. Tell me what you think about the following statement.

The scientific community has accumulated an amassment of data which strongly implies certain characteristics of our origins. Some/much/all of our current understanding and accepted interpretation of this data infers characteristics of our origins which may not be in accordance with certain theological teachings.

How does that grab you? It does not make any claims other than the blatently obvious and nigh irrefutable. Simply the state of affairs really, purposefully devoid of conclusions. The reason I state it as such is simply because this, in my humble perception, is the real base fact of the matter. Everything else is conjecture. I may come to the conclusion that the world is 10k years old due to a historical account within a theological text. You may come to the conlusion that it is vastly older due to the interpretation of a vast pool of data. Regardless, either of our stances are conjecture, and nothing more. Sure, we could debate who is more credible, by what criteria, etc. so on and so forth.

But that, my friend, is typically and asinine endeavor. Your criteria will never satisfy me, nor shall mine satisfy you. We each have our own manner of interpreting data, our own criteria for validity. We need not share the same perception to be able to understand each other and value the possibility of the others validity.

In all things (if not science especially), we all suffer from the same fatal flaw. We all have the same handicap to overcome. No matter what we see, what we design, how closely we scrutinize a subject......we are always the observer, and incapable of being otherwise.

We are always limited in our understanding by our ability to observe.

Why, I can even use you as an example of this. 😉 Take your recent research for example, revising data tables and such. Your work is accomplished by your ability to observe, yes? The understanding of a subject is refined (and in some cases revolutionised) as we become capable of observing more, and doing so in an unbiased manner. This is simply the nature of things.

Such being the case, at the risk of beating a dead horse, I see no reason why science and religion must butt heads. Science is science and theology is theology, and neither has much of substance to say about the other (in my humble opinion).

Now, I'll grant you, I am a rather biased individual. I am a believer of a theology as well as a lover of science. As such, it may be a cop out for me to think that some day the two will come together, like a couple of puzzle pieces, and our understanding of this world and existence will be profound. This, of course, is the ideal for me and I can offer little substance to support my theory. But, like I said, I am a man of faith, and that is a faith I extend partially into science. 😉

I am interested in what you think of my perception here. If you find flaw with any of my statement, by all means, point it out. This is a matter I seriously wish to hammer out for myself.

Best Regards,

Omnislash 🙂

Originally posted by Omnislash
Hello my friend. 🙂

I am well, and hope it is the same with you.

I think you have a healthy viewpoint. I can certainly appreciate your distaste for (theological) conjecture being propagated as absolute truth. I think this is only natural for a man of logic. I have been thinking about the assumed/implied/inherant difficulties in correlating the perce ...[text shortened]... . This is a matter I seriously wish to hammer out for myself.

Best Regards,

Omnislash 🙂

I'm happy with that interpretation. Faith is one of those things. It doesn't require evidence. Science is one of those things. It doesn't require belief.

As I say, happy for you to believe in god, that's up to each individual. When the scientific evidence leads only to the conclusion that the bible is factually wrong, I think the bible should conceed. Science, conversely, doesn't tell people either to believe or not in god.

As you say, science and religion work on two different levels. Science tells of what is 'real' as in things that have mass-energy and exist in space-time. Religion is a guide for how to live and for some it provides the ultimate explanations that we currently don't have.

I will not have science perverted by religious zealots, for example, those trying to promote ID. Similarly, I know it is impossible to prove or disprove god using science. It's an invalid question, like 'what caused the big-bang?'

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I'm happy with that interpretation. Faith is one of those things. It doesn't require evidence. Science is one of those things. It doesn't require belief.

As I say, happy for you to believe in god, that's up to each individual. When the scientific evidence leads only to the conclusion that the bible is factually wrong, I think the bible should co ...[text shortened]... sprove god using science. It's an invalid question, like 'what caused the big-bang?'

I can certainly appreciate your position. I would like to add that I am in significant disagreement with those promoting ID as a scientific theory, both from a scientific and a theological point of view (lol).

It is my belief that much of the conflict between the two fields arises from individuals refusal to accept (or atleast bend enough to show amiable tolerance for) the theories of the converse position. As you say, science requires absolutely no belief what so ever where as theology typically is centered around it. One follows empirical evidence, the other inference/intuition/etc. Like I said, we are but observers attempting to find conclusions in the limited data we are able to glean from our limited observations. I don't think it would kill a theist to concede that the data at hand implies things which are not in accordance with his theology. Likewise, I don't think the scientific community should be sore for acknowledging the limited capacity to understand and that theology has much to offer for explanations.

Seriously, when did scientists and theologans decide to take up arms against each other? For that matter, to what end? I have to laugh at it all a bit, as I find it ironic how each have taken a chapter out of the others book (if you will pardon me for generalizing). I see scientific theories being proselytized and theological assertions using science to further their point. Both endeavors, in my opinion, are humorous at best and self defeating at worst. Again, just as you said, science lies in the empirical and religion in the intuitive. One using the tactics of the other? Quite laughable I think, though I mean no disrespect towards those parties who employ such as I understand they probably (usually?) have good intentions.

Anyway, I'm probably getting far off topic here, so I'll leave it at that.

Originally posted by Omnislash
Seriously, when did scientists and theologans decide to take up arms against each other?

Whenever the power of one was first threatened by the findings of the other.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Whenever the power of one was first threatened by the findings of the other.

😀 Fair enough, that is true indeed.
It would have been truer to its intent if I had phrased it as this,
"Whenever/why did scientists/theologans ever come to the conclusion that the findings of one threatened the power of the other?"

But indeed, I think you are quite correct sir. Quite. 🙂

Originally posted by Omnislash
😀 Fair enough, that is true indeed.
It would have been truer to its intent if I had phrased it as this,
"Whenever/why did scientists/theologans ever come to the conclusion that the findings of one threatened the power of the other?"

But indeed, I think you are quite correct sir. Quite. 🙂

Probably around the time that Copernicus had this crazy idea that the earth is not the centre of the universe!!!

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Probably around the time that Copernicus had this crazy idea that the earth is not the centre of the universe!!!

Copernicus improved Ptolemy's heliocentric model. It seems that the uproar only began after his death. First Bruno suggested that not even the sun was the centre of the universe, let alone man. He got burnt for his efforts. Next, Galileo invented the telescope and started applying the theory--finding mountains on the moon, moons around Jupiter, and so on (these discoveries were all upsetting in their way). Even so, there was no witchhunt against Galileo. When a certain fanatical Dominican attacked him, "the Dominican Preacher General, Father Luigi Maraffi, wrote Galileo an apology, saying "unfortunately I have to answer for all the idiocies that thirty or forty thousand brothers may or actually do commit"."

So what was all the fuss about?

"Nevertheless, in February 1616, the Copernican System was condemned. According to Drake (page 63): "A principal area of contention between Catholics and Protestants was freedom to interpret the Bible, which meant that any new Catholic interpretation could be used by the Protestants as leverage: if one reinterpretation could be made, why not wholesale reinterpretations? A dispute between the Dominicans and the Jesuits over certain issues of free will was still fresh in the pope's mind, as he had to take action in 1607 to stop members of the two great teaching orders from hurling charges of heresy at each other. These things suggest that Paul V, if not temperamentally anti-intellectual, had formed a habit of nipping in the bud any intellectual dispute that might grow into factionalism within the Church and become a source of strength for the contentions of the Protestants.""

Paul V was prepared to suppress the truth to prevent it from becoming Protestant ammunition.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Copernicus improved Ptolemy's heliocentric model. It seems that the uproar only began after his death. First Bruno suggested that not even the sun was the centre of the universe, let alone man. He got burnt for his efforts. Next, Galileo invented the telescope and started applying the theory--finding mountains on the moon, moons around Jupiter, and so ...[text shortened]... was prepared to suppress the truth to prevent it from becoming Protestant ammunition.

Indeed, there is a fascinating passage about it in John Gribbin's book, "Science; A history". I'm just as prone to sound bites as anyone else though!

Anyhoo, my point is that it was around this time when the first divergence between science and religion really occurred IMO.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Act 1; God creates earth and everything in it. Eve, being the wench that she is, eats apple. God not happy. Punishes all of mankind, forvever. Next couple of thousand years plagued with plagues, wars, civil unrest, floods, pillars of salt, sodomites and general smiting. [curtains close on Roman soldiers marching into sunset....]

Act 2; God sends ...[text shortened]... 's not called that anymore, it's called 'dissociative identity disorder'.

Views?

I think you're putting it all in the context you would like it to be, scottish. The truth is, eating Apple isn't what Eve did that was wrong. What she did was to go against the commands of God and bring sin into the world via Satan. The apple was no evil. It was the act of choosing what Satan told her to do and not what God commanded. If you could only imagine a world without sin. If we were in that world today, things would be so much better, so much easier. If you actually think this world is all there is, I feel sorry for you, for anyone who does.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Hey man,

How's it going? My point of view is that you should feel free to believe in whatever you wish, but don't try and pass it off as science, or necessarily as a true account of how the world is. Christian creationists would have people believe that the world is 10,000 years old and that god sits there pouring energy into the planet. Sc ho try and tell you it's wrong are typically suffering from that deadly sin of vanity.

L

And, that is just what God has allowed, scottish. He has given us free will and we can either choose to believe in His Son Jesus Christ and the salvation the Lamb of God offers or deny him and go to hell. That's all folkes! Nice theorizing, scottish.

Originally posted by powershaker
And, that is just what God has allowed, scottish. He has given us free will and we can either choose to believe in His Son Jesus Christ and the salvation the Lamb of God offers or deny him and go to hell. That's all folkes! Nice theorizing, scottish.

Prove that god allowed it. Prove that it didn't just happen that way. I bet you can't. Until then, I'd stick to making statements you can back up with facts.

Originally posted by powershaker
I think you're putting it all in the context you would like it to be, scottish. The truth is, eating Apple isn't what Eve did that was wrong. What she did was to go against the commands of God and bring sin into the world via Satan. The apple was no evil. It was the act of choosing what Satan told her to do and not what God commanded. If you could o ...[text shortened]... If you actually think this world is all there is, I feel sorry for you, for anyone who does.

I made a statement. I did not make any judgement. Are you denying that Eve ate the apple, and it was as a result of that action, irrespective of why, that mankind was to be punished for all eternity? That's what your bible says, after all.