21 Jul 05
Originally posted by howardgeeWell, yea....you have limitations, you cannot will yourself to the moon.
If we have free will and God is omnipotent, then any choices we make are only because God lets us.
Thus they are not true choices because our 'freedom' to make the decisions has a proviso on God letting us.
What do you think free will means?
Kelly
21 Jul 05
Originally posted by KellyJayFree will means being able to do what you want (within the bounds of what is possible).
Well, yea....you have limitations, you cannot will yourself to the moon.
What do you think free will means?
Kelly
"Of course I am a free man; I can do anything my wife lets me!".
This is a joke, because - well, do I really have to explain?
Now substitute the word 'God' for 'wife' and you can see the contradiction. (Which is what makes the joke funny!)
21 Jul 05
Originally posted by howardgeeI think you picked a great example, are there things you may want
Free will means being able to do what you want (within the bounds of what is possible).
"Of course I am a free man; I can do anything my wife lets me!".
This is a joke, because - well, do I really have to explain?
Now substitute the word 'God' for 'wife' and you can see the contradiction. (Which is what makes the joke funny!)
to do, but because of the love you have for you wife you would not?
If so does that mean that you do have the ability or free will to, but
not the desire to hurt your wife in any way so you don't? The key to
our discussion is here in this discussion in my opinion.
Kelly
21 Jul 05
Originally posted by KellyJayNo, the implication is that she physically stops the husband from doing what he wants - with a rolling pin, etc!
I think you picked a great example, are there things you may want
to do, but because of the love you have for you wife you would not?
If so does that mean that you do have the ability or free will to, but
not the desire to hurt your wife in any way so you don't? The key to
our discussion is here in this discussion in my opinion.
Kelly
Just like an omnipotent God could stop us from doing anything (hence free will is an illusion).
21 Jul 05
Originally posted by howardgeeSo in your opinion you are more worried about getting beat up
No, the implication is that she physically stops the husband from doing what he wants - with a rolling pin, etc!
Just like an omnipotent God could stop us from doing anything (hence free will is an illusion).
than you caring for your wife's feelings? I'm not trying to insult
you, but your answer caught me by surprise.
Kelly
21 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayYou miss the point.
So in your opinion you are more worried about getting beat up
than you caring for your wife's feelings? I'm not trying to insult
you, but your answer caught me by surprise.
Kelly
The husband CANNOT do what he likes because the Wife is Physically preventing him. Thus he is coerced against his will. Therefore he does not have free will.
If the husband choses not to do something for fear of hurting her feelings, then he still has made a choice, and hence has free will.
This is why my example uses the former, not the latter explanation.
21 Jul 05
Originally posted by howardgeeYes, I do miss the point because my wife could not stop me physically
You miss the point.
The husband CANNOT do what he likes because the Wife is Physically preventing him. Thus he is coerced against his will. Therefore he does not have free will.
If the husband choses not to do something for fear of hurting her feelings, then he still has made a choice, and hence has free will.
This is why my example uses the former, not the latter explanation.
from doing almost anything, she is just 5ft tall and 9 months
pregnant, I'm 6ft and I more than likely have a hundred pounds or
more over her. Yet I love her and would never do anything that would
harm her if I could help it. There is nothing physical she could do to if
I wanted to go out all night, or whatever. I would have to deal with
what would happen after I did whatever I wanted, but than that is what
we are talking about now isn't it?
Kelly
21 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by Palynkaarguing that evil results from man's free will is going to get the theist nowhere in his rebuttal against the GAFE. the most obvious reason why this argument will fail is for the simple reason that an omnipotent and omniscient god can prevent one from actualizing the ultimate objective of one's will without constraining the freedom of the will. in other words, the claim that freedom of the will is incompatible with a world in which god prevents logically unnecessary suffering is a false claim.
I disagree.
All you have to picture is a parent-child relationship. The perfect balance between risk-safety that ensures the maximum happiness of a child is never in one extreme or the other (100% free-will, 100% control). Does this mean ...[text shortened]... nt for God and child for person and my opinion would remain valid.
if you look at a clear formulation of the GAFE (such has been provided by bbarr, and further expounded upon by Lucifershammer), the options open to the theist are clear: to get around the conclusion that god (so defined) does not exist, the theist can 1.) maintain that all suffering in the world is logically necessary OR 2.) he can argue that god at the very least demonstrates moral indifference to the logically unnecessary sufferings of man (and is thus by definition callous). discussing freedom of the will only muddies the waters unnecessarily -- it is irrelevant.
21 Jul 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloHow would you know what a God like that would have to do?
arguing that evil results from man's free will is going to get the theist nowhere in his rebuttal against the GAFE. the most obvious reason why this argument will fail is for the simple reason that an omnipotent and omniscient god can prevent one from actualizing the ultimate objective of one's will without constraining the freedom of the will. ...[text shortened]... . discussing freedom of the will only muddies the waters unnecessarily -- it is irrelevant.
Kelly
21 Jul 05
Originally posted by KellyJayHow would you know what a God like that would have to do?
How would you know what a God like that would have to do?
Kelly
Kelly
i'm quite sure i wouldn't know everything that must be done -- i am not the one who is purported to be omniscient. the god in question is omniscient, and he therefore knows what must be done.
21 Jul 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloOriginally posted by LemonJello
arguing that evil results from man's free will is going to get the theist nowhere in his rebuttal against the GAFE. the most obvious reason why this argument will fail is for the simple reason that an omnipotent and omniscient god can prevent one from actualizing the ultimate objective of one's will without constraining the freedom of the will. ...[text shortened]... . discussing freedom of the will only muddies the waters unnecessarily -- it is irrelevant.
the most obvious reason why this argument will fail is for the simple reason that an omnipotent and omniscient god can prevent one from actualizing the ultimate objective of one's will without constraining the freedom of the will.
In my opinion, that is incorrect, like that God would be constraining it, even if one couldn't feel it. How is what you said not a very important constraint? Free will requires the risk of failure/suffering or it isn't free will at all.
Originally posted by LemonJello
if you look at a clear formulation of the GAFE (such has been provided by bbarr, and further expounded upon by Lucifershammer), the options open to the theist are clear:
I fail to recognize bbarr as an omniscient being like some here.
I think that there is a third option that implies that God values free-will more than the complete absence of suffering. Therefore my option 3 is:
3) The risk of suffering is logically necessary. (The suffering itself is not, as it depends on Man, not God, to choose correctly.)
Originally posted by LemonJello
discussing freedom of the will only muddies the waters unnecessarily -- it is irrelevant.
Why is it irrelevant? Because it provides an escape to bbarr's hermetic logic?
21 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloOkay, than if that is true, can you really put up a test and see if God
[b]How would you know what a God like that would have to do?
Kelly
i'm quite sure i wouldn't know everything that must be done -- i am not the one who is purported to be omniscient. the god in question is omniscient, and he therefore knows what must be done.
[/b]
is real or not when it comes to evil? Not knowing what must be done,
you may allow something through that should not be or cut something
off that should be allowed through into this universe. If what has
been written actually covers the whys of it, could you see it?
Kelly
21 Jul 05
2 edits
Originally posted by PalynkaHow is what you said not a very important constraint (on free will)?
free will is a process by which the agent may sufficiently endorse the underlying maxim of an action (or of the attempted undertaking of such action); free will has nothing to do with the ultimate outcome of any undertaken action. lest you forget, the compatibilist notion of free will is unconstrained even if actions themselves are deterministic in nature.
The risk of (logically unnecessary) suffering is logically necessary.
how is this going to get you anywhere? it is not true that the existence of the risk of logically unnecessary suffering logically necessitates the existence of logically unnecessary suffering itself. even if it did, anything that logically necessitates that which is logically unnecessary is itself logically unnecessary in the same respect (otherwise, we arrive at a contradiction). therefore, even if your claim is true, it fails to address the existence of logically unnecessary suffering. this is not going to get you around the GAFE!
God values free-will more than the complete absence of (logically unnecessary) suffering
even if true, this doesn't matter; free will and an absence of logically unnecessary suffering are compatible. so god can have his cake and eat it too! why doesn't he?
21 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayi don't have any idea what you are trying to convey. the GAFE is a valid argument in that its conclusion follows logically from the premises.
Okay, than if that is true, can you really put up a test and see if God
is real or not when it comes to evil? Not knowing what must be done,
you may allow something through that should not be or cut something
off that should be allowed ...[text shortened]... n written actually covers the whys of it, could you see it?
Kelly
if one can show that it is a sound argument in that (additionally) its premises are also true, then the conclusion is true and we can be sure no such god exists.
more realistically, the GAFE can be shown to be at least persuasive in that the premises are very likely to be true. then we can be confident in holding the belief that no such god exists.
this is the general methodology, and it is the best we can do. does this address what you are asking?
Not knowing what must be done, you may allow something through that should not be or cut something off that should be allowed through into this universe.
not sure what you are saying.