The angels' situation is different from that of humans because all men are born with a sinful nature and angels are not. Anyway, there are angels that have never sinned. Therefore it is logically possible to create a set of agents (large in number) in which all members have free will and no one of the members sins. I contend that this creation is superior to a world which differs only in that it contains one more free-willed agent that does sin. Furthermore your god presumably knows ex ante which individuals will choose to sin and which will not. Therefore, he can choose to create only the agents that will use their free will to always do good.
The point is that in order for god to be perfect and good, he should not introduce a creation that he knows will become fallen or contain evil. If it is logically impossible to create a world with free will and without sin, then it makes sense to create a world without free will or not create at all. If this is not the case, then you must argue that sin is actually good and consistent with your god's plans.
You'll need to show for us why it is logically impossible to create a world where all free will endowed agents choose to always obey your god. Your argument above is one from probabilities (i.e., if the probability of an event on one draw is less than 1, then the likelihood of the event occuring on every repeated draw decreases in the number of independent draws increases). This argument is already misplaced because it ignores the the omniscience of your god. He is not rolling dice and then observing an outcome. He knows exactly what will occur ex ante.
Second, this argument is actually self-defeating because it by construct concedes that it is possible to have 100% of agents to always freely obey your god. The probability that this event will occur is equal to 1-P, where P is the probability that at least one agent will disobey. You have stated that P grows as the number of agents increases meaning that 1-P must shrink. Nevertheless until 1-P=0, it is always possible for the event to occur.
So the next predictable step for your argument is to claim that 1-P is zero. Unfortunately, you have already conceded that for some number of agents 1-P is not zero. Moreover by your belief in angels, this number must be pretty large.
Finally, since you are making an argument from probabilities, can you prove to us that their exists an N such that if the population of agents is N, 1-P=0 and if the population of agents is N-1, 1-P ~=0? What is this number N that defies even your god, Darfius?
And since God wanted to give the gift of eternal life to more than one or two people, He had to run the risk of losing some of His children to poor (but conscious) decisions on their part.
With perfect foresight, one does not "run risks." One simply chooses to take actions which will lead to an event or one does not.
Originally posted by telerionAnd the agent choosing not to create is... oh, that's right: God without integrity. Sure, that makes sense.
The angels' situation is different from that of humans because all men are born with a sinful nature and angels are not. Anyway, there are angels that have never sinned. Therefore it is logically possible to create a set of agents (large in number) in which all members have free will and no one of the members sins. I contend that this creation is ...[text shortened]... un risks." One simply chooses to take actions which will lead to an event or one does not.
If I were to suddenly find myself being a god, I would set up things in such a way as to make it clear to humans they can do what they will but don't go killing each other because you all think I want you to.
You kill each other, at least be honest about it, don't drag me into your petty wars.
I would bloody well let them know there is a heirarchy, I am at the top but don't really give a crap about what they do, I would have only one commandment: Don't do anything in my name, leave my ass out of it.
Hey, you want to blow yourselves into oblivion, be my guests, I have plenty of backups on other planets so if you want to see the rest of the universe, just keep that in mind.
Originally posted by telerion
The angels' situation is different from that of humans because all men are born with a sinful nature and angels are not. Anyway, there are angels that have never sinned. Therefore it is logically possible to create a set of agents (large in number) in which all members have free will and no one of the members sins. I contend that this creation is superior to a world which differs only in that it contains one more free-willed agent that does sin. Furthermore your god presumably knows ex ante which individuals will choose to sin and which will not. Therefore, he can choose to create only the agents that will use their free will to always do good.
Wow. First you point out how angels and men are fundamentally different and then you continue to compare the two. Apples and oranges anyone?
Let's correct you on your first claim very quickly. Mankind is not 'born' into sin. Their sinful 'nature' is what they have after consistently choosing to sin. That is not how angels and men are different. We are different because we 'bear the image of God Himself'. Angels do not.
I do not know exactly how it is that some angels have never sinned while simultaneously having free will. I suspect that perhaps being in the presence of God is a large enough deterrent except for the most evil (Satan and those who followed him). Why did God not create us in His presence then? Well, the same presence that prevents sin may serve to prevent love in its purest form. That is, a love that chooses to follow and worship Him completely freely, uninfluenced by His direct glory.
The point is that in order for god to be perfect and good, he should not introduce a creation that he knows will become fallen or contain evil. If it is logically impossible to create a world with free will and without sin, then it makes sense to create a world without free will or not create at all. If this is not the case, then you must argue that sin is actually good and consistent with your god's plans.
You have not explained how an imperfect creation that in and of itself has chosen to be so affects the Creator's perfection in any way. Insomuch as His goodness is impugned, yet again how can He be held responsible for the free choices of others?
I needn't argue that sin is good. What I can do is ask why He should choose to not create at all if it is indeed logically impossible to create a world wherein 100% of people freely choose Him? Must those who would choose good suffer (by not enjoying His presence) because of the choices of those who choose evil? That appears to be a greater evil than preserving those who choose evil from just judgment.
You'll need to show for us why it is logically impossible to create a world where all free will endowed agents choose to always obey your god. Your argument above is one from probabilities (i.e., if the probability of an event on one draw is less than 1, then the likelihood of the event occuring on every repeated draw decreases in the number of independent draws increases). This argument is already misplaced because it ignores the the omniscience of your god. He is not rolling dice and then observing an outcome. He knows exactly what will occur ex ante.
It is unclear how knowing everything has an effect on probabilities. It is necessarily true that the more people with free choice there are, the greater the chance that at least one will choose evil. That is even IF extenuating circumstances (such as an environment where everyone chooses sin) are not considered.
Second, this argument is actually self-defeating because it by construct concedes that it is possible to have 100% of agents to always freely obey your god. The probability that this event will occur is equal to 1-P, where P is the probability that at least one agent will disobey. You have stated that P grows as the number of agents increases meaning that 1-P must shrink. Nevertheless until 1-P=0, it is always possible for the event to occur.
I have already conceeded that it's likely possible that He could have created a world wherein everyone freely chose Him. The problem was that it would only have been one or a handful of people! God's primary goal is not to preserve people from just judgment, but reward people with His presence! So the optimal universe is a balance between the most number of people freely choosing Him and the least number of people freely rebelling against Him after considering the interaction between the two. In other words, a universe where 5 billion freely choose Him while 15 billion freely reject Him is preferable to one wherein 15 billion freely choose Him, but 150 billion freely reject Him. While His primary goal is to reward others with Himself, He is still conscious of the suffering (self-imposed) of His other creations.
So the next predictable step for your argument is to claim that 1-P is zero. Unfortunately, you have already conceded that for some number of agents 1-P is not zero. Moreover by your belief in angels, this number must be pretty large.
I don't even understand what you're saying here. You likely reverted to these symbols to draw attention away from the fact that you have the losing side of the argument. If I understand you correctly, though, then your mention of angels is irrelevant, as you've already conceded that they and man are fundamentally different (though not in the way you supposed).
Finally, since you are making an argument from probabilities, can you prove to us that their exists an N such that if the population of agents is N, 1-P=0 and if the population of agents is N-1, 1-P ~=0? What is this number N that defies even your god, Darfius?
I'm sure you can find a way to make this same argument without the symbols. I will freely admit that I am not knowledgeable in this area (is it formal logic?). As I said, though, I suspect you chose to use it even suspecting that I wouldn't understand, to give the impression that you are better prepared.
With perfect foresight, one does not "run risks." One simply chooses to take actions which will lead to an event or one does not.
I am guilty of little more than using an expression poorly here. God ahd to choose to actualize a universe from possible universes wherein the number of saved/damned varied from less/more preferable degrees. I trust that is preferable.
Jesus F-ing Christ, I can see this is going to turn into another snooty snip 'n' post war. Not interested. Allow me to clear some things up for the few spectators that, like you, did not understand my first post.
Yes, angels and humans are different. I pointed this out originally after you were the first to compare them. No where in that last post do I make them similar. I gave an example of a possible world in which a large number of agents choose freely to obey god. That is all that is required to refute your claim. You have decided not to address this point, but rather to erect a red herring. Maybe a year or two ago I would have gone down that trail. Far better things to do now.
As for being in the prescence of god, your "off the top of your head" hypothesis would imply that in heaven we will not be able to love him in the purest form. Anyway it's arbitrary hogwash, and anyone with a shrivel of imagination can dream up 15 more.
As for the quality of the creation and its implication for its creator, I am acting under the supposition that perfection is better than imperfection. A perfect being should do what is best. Creating imperfection is inferior to creating perfection. Therefore an imperfect creation is not consistent with a perfect omnipotent, omniscient creator.
In light of this, if creating a wolrd with free will necessitates imperfection (see my question earlier to whodey), it makes sense that a perfect being would choose the better of creating a world without free will or not creating at all.
Must those who would choose good suffer (by not enjoying His presence) because of the choices of those who choose evil? That appears to be a greater evil than preserving those who choose evil from just judgment.
This has been addressed several times now by both myself and dottwell.
Now for probabilities. Probabilities describe the likelihood of events when outcomes are uncertain. For instance, if you flip a fair coin the probability that it comes up heads is .5. On the otherhand, if one could calculate all the sufficient physical forces applied to the coin from its given state to the moment that it comes to rest, one could know with certainty what the outcome would be. This is called conditional expectations. Your god omniscience means that he never faces a scenario where he does not know the outcome with certainty. For him probabilities are always either 1 or 0.
The notation was only very basic (junior high level) algebra. '~=' simply means 'not equal to,' and I used it because I don't know how to make the normal 'not equal to' symbol on my keyboard. The point was simply that no matter how small you make the probability as long as that probability is positive, the outcome associated with it is logically possible.
I do not use this basic notation as a form of obfuscation. I am merely making the argument simple and clear. You have stumbled into the problem of how a rational agent makes decisions. A subject with which I am very familiar. For instance, you claim to know the very preferences of this amazing creator. You say, " God's primary goal is not to preserve people from just judgment, but reward people with His presence!" You then go on to describe an optimization problem that is not well defined given the preferences you claim. If it is the case as you say that your god values rewarding good people more than he disvalues punishing bad people, then the solution is to create an infinite number of people. To get the interior solution you advocate you need to do a more careful job of stating his preferences. To get to the point necessary though, you'll have to know a sufficient amount as for all of us to cry "BS!"
Finally for your last bit, all I'm simply asking (and you don't understand it because I am being formal about it so as to cut off silly rabbit trails) is for you to prove to us that there is a maximum number of individuals that can be created before it is impossible that all them choose to obey your god. You have stated one or two. I have given an example of many, many more than two (angels). So what is this magic number and how can you prove by your probability argument that the likelihood of the event vanishes at that magic number?
I am guilty of little more than using an expression poorly here. God ahd to choose to actualize a universe from possible universes wherein the number of saved/damned varied from less/more preferable degrees. I trust that is preferable.
You have just loosely described what is known as the "choice set." First, your god did not have to actualize a universe. That was a possibility. So it should be included in the choice set. Second, you shouldn't say that the "number of saved/damned varied from less/more preferable degrees." Rather simply say that this number varied. This feature is actually independent of the preferences your god has over this choice set. Anyway, you'll need to tell us the preferences that are consistent with what we observe. The ones you have given so far do not fit this bill.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by telerionOr keeping the assumption that God is perfect, couldn't it follow that evil is not imperfect as you had assumed?
The point is that in order for god to be perfect and good, he should not introduce a creation that he knows will become fallen or contain evil.
So either God is imperfect (and perhaps doesn't exist) or evil is in someone way part of perfection.
Originally posted by whodeyFirst of all, in this universe, maybe "free will" does correlate with happiness. That is because that's the way the universe works. I wouldn't make a universe like that because it allows people to suffer and not be happy.
Do you not get agitated when other impose their will upon you? What if someone forbade you to eat but one kind of food? What if you were bound and gagged and prevented from going anywhere? Therefore, does free will not correlate in some way to your level of happiness?
Secondly, you're talking about being told to do certain things by an outside agency when I want otherwise. In my creation, this would never happen, because no one would ever want anything they couldn't have. Or, in other words, they'd have and be able to do anything they wanted.
EDIT - And they wouldn't want anything which would deny others what the other people wanted.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIncluding kill god?
First of all, in this universe, maybe "free will" does correlate with happiness. That is because that's the way the universe works. I wouldn't make a universe like that because it allows people to suffer and not be happy.
Secondly, you're talking about being told to do certain things by an outside agency when I want otherwise. In my creation ...[text shortened]... ey couldn't have. Or, in other words, they'd have and be able to do anything they wanted.
Originally posted by telerionI don't know what a "snip 'n post war" is, but I have my suspicions. I had forgotten how much you enjoy hearing yourself speak. That will get tedious quickly.
Jesus F-ing Christ, I can see this is going to turn into another snooty snip 'n' post war. Not interested. Allow me to clear some things up for the few spectators that, like you, did not understand my first post.
Yes, angels and humans are different. I pointed this out originally after you were the first to compare them. No where in that last ...[text shortened]... what we observe. The ones you have given so far do not fit this bill.
I'll refute you in summary form if you prefer (rather than pasting and responding).
Bringing up angels is irrelevant. We are not angels, so it would have been impossible for God to create a world in which we are both ourselves and angels. Are you whining because God didn't make us as angels and have more people freely choose Him? Well as I said, then less would freely choose to love Him in its purest form.
Your objection that they'd somehow 'stop' doing so is worthless, since all that matters is that those who choose Him have done so before. That act of pure love is enough to justify making the possibility that they will in the future sin nearer to 0, since they have already showed that when times are at their roughest (in a situation of pain, sorrow, etc) they would choose Him. What is the likelihood that they'd rebel against Him in paradise?
Calling it 'crap' is not a refutation to the theory about the effect the presence of God has. Your posturing is unimpressive and always has been, tel.
How exactly are you measuring the 'imperfection' of the creation? The fact that death exists? That evil does? If the former, you'd be hardpressed to explain how death is 'less' perfect than life. If the latter, then evil was not inherent in creation, but rather a result of creation itself. The Creator created a perfect creation, but since the creation was sentient, it itself chose to become less than perfect. Yet another of your arguments fails.
You claim to have addressed my argument from creating the world despite evil people suffering, but I have not seen it. Do so again, please or I will call BS on you.
Did you not see where I added that He is 'also conscious of the suffering (self-imposed) of His creations that chose to rebel against Him? I cannot be faulted for your lack of comprehension. He seeks a balance between many choosing Him, few rebelling against Him, with the former being significant while the latter is as insignificant as possible. The examples, I thought, were ideal to explain this. Aside from the impossibility of having an 'actual infinite' amount of things (in this case beings), the larger the number of saved got, the larger the number of unsaved would be. Though getting a large amount of saved people is more important, it is not solely important. Considering (and lessening) the amount of unsaved is still a factor. Keep up.
I meant He 'had' to do so once He had made the decision to do so! He 'had' to choose from the possibilities that He had! This is basic comprehension, tel (unlike me not being knowledgable of symbols).
As I said, your angel example has been proven irrelevant many times.
Quit the longwinded posturing and give us substance. Why you get rec'ed is beyond me. Oh, I know, because you hate God, too.
Originally posted by whodeyLove by its very nature demands free will, you cannot force someone to love you or program them to love you.
The key is that he is a God of love. Therefore he creates for the purpose of love. Love by its very nature demands free will, you cannot force someone to love you or program them to love you. This free will then made it possible for the fall to occur.
Why can't you, theoretically and assuming you have God powers, program someone to love you? Love's an emotion like any other.
Originally posted by DarfiusHe's immortal? I thought he died?
If you can determine that God existed 'a long time ago', then by induction you can determine that He exists now, since by His very nature He is 'immortal'. What should be your motivation? A sincere search for that which is true. To my mind, the only barrier to that in this case is laziness.
I do sincerely search for that which is true. However, one can only do so much searching since we're limited. Christianity has so much going against it that I only spend a little time on it and the time I do spend on it only emphasizes the low chance of Christianity being true.