Are these people "robots"?

[BlaineTog]

I am willing to contemplate your evidence. Show me a case where God prevented a rape, and I will consider it. It should be a little more than pointing to an aborted rape attempt due to the random arrival of the police - and say: “maybe God interfered in this case”.

What you are asking for would require proof for the existence of God, which is, of course, absurd. Proof of the existence of God would injure free will grievously.

God generally works through alternative methods, methods which hide his splendor, lest it blind and burn us.

How can you say that the “world minus pain” equals to a “world minus chocies”?

Because that’s what such a world would require. In a temporal setting such as this one, people can either choose to do good or they can choose to do bad. If they choose to do bad, then there is pain. If it is made impossible for them to choose bad, then they are being given a ballot with one name on it. If they are given a choice, some will choose bad, because man is fallen.

Life would offer many challenges, but we would have more time to devote to creating new music, contemplate life’s many mysteries. We would have more time and energy to improve the quality of our life. Someone who is near starving cannot concentrate on God. He is concerned with the problem of where his next meal will come from.

Untrue. The poor tend to believe in God more than the rich. If you live in luxury, you’re less likely to think you need God.

This leads back nicely to the question in the OP. In a world comprised of only good, decent people (there are quite a few of them) no one would choose to cause pain, gratituous pain. But they still would have choices, many of them.

Not really. In the world you want, doing those bad things is made impossible by divine fiat at every turn. If you try to shoot someone, the bullet will turn into bubbles. If you try to be mean, they will only hear praise. You become impotent, like a child, and no one has less freedom to exercise their will than a child.

Additionally, “good, decent people” still sin, albeit not as often as others. Only a world composed of saints would be free of pain. But of course once you describe a world composed only of saints, you’re really talking about heaven.

The word “choice” does not mean that the only two options are to “love” or to “murder”. To say that these are the only valid options is oversimplfication.

No, but to say you can only either love or hate isn’t much of an oversimplification at all. Neutrality isn’t really an option, either, since all that is not love is a subtle form of hate.

It is a “dream” world, or a utopia. Do you see a logical reason for the idea that it cannot exist?

Yes. Even disregarding that in this world miracles to prevent wrongdoing happen to undermine every human decision, it requires everyone to make the right decision. But what if they don’t?

You know, I think I’m just going to quote C.S. Lewis. He’s clear.

“It was of no interest to God to create a species consisting of virtuous automata, for the ‘virtue’ of automata who can do no other than they do is a courtesy title only; it is analogous to the ‘virtue’ of the stone that rolls downhill or of the water that freezes at 32 degrees. To what end, it may be asked, should God create such creatures? That He might be praised by them? But automatic praise is a mere succession of noises. That He might love them? But they are essentially unloveable; you cannot love puppets. And so God gave man free will that he might increase in virtue by his own efforts and become, a free moral being, a worthy object of God’s love. Freedom entails freedom to go wrong: man did, in fact, go wrong, misusing God’s gift and doing evil. Pain is a by-product of evil; and so pain came into the world as a result of man’s misuse of God’s gift of free will.” (Dr. Joad as quoted in the The Christian World of C. S. Lewis by Clyde Kilby pp. 65-66)

 

[ateista]

What you are asking for would require proof for the existence of God, which is, of course, absurd. Proof of the existence of God would injure free will grievously.

Would it now? Allegedly the angels and the “first” humans had positive proof of God’s existence, and it did not impede on their free will to disobey. So this is not a valid objectition.

God generally works through alternative methods, methods which hide his splendor, lest it blind and burn us.

The same problem as before. God’s alleged physical involvement did not “blind” or “burn” the humans before the fall. Furthermore, you either deny the existence of the “revelations” or must accept that those who received the direct revelations did not get “blinded” or “burned”. Why would it be different for us? Moses, who received the stone tablets directly from God, survived the incident, didn’t he? And he was just as “fallen” as we are.

Because that’s what such a world would require. In a temporal setting such as this one, people can either choose to do good or they can choose to do bad. If they choose to do bad, then there is pain. If it is made impossible for them to choose bad, then they are being given a ballot with one name on it. If they are given a choice, some will choose bad, because man is fallen.

Please. I already said (many times) that they have all the freedom to do as they please, they are just disinclined to do harm.

Untrue. The poor tend to believe in God more than the rich. If you live in luxury, you’re less likely to think you need God.

Aha! So God’s working model can be summarized by the slogan: “The beating will continue until the morale improves!”. Because the poor, the sick, the miserable are more likely to be “driven” to God, it is a good idea to inflict more poverty, more illness, more misery, so they will turn to God? No direct interaction by God, only a “subtle” nudging…

Not really. In the world you want, doing those bad things is made impossible by divine fiat at every turn. If you try to shoot someone, the bullet will turn into bubbles. If you try to be mean, they will only hear praise. You become impotent, like a child, and no one has less freedom to exercise their will than a child.

Not again, please. That is not what I said.

Additionally, “good, decent people” still sin, albeit not as often as others. Only a world composed of saints would be free of pain. But of course once you describe a world composed only of saints, you’re really talking about heaven.

I am not interested in eliminating “sin”. Sin is a Christian concept. I am interested in eliminating crime; crime which has victims. Such arrangement would not eliminate accidents either. A driver may get a heart-attack and drive into a bunch of children waiting for the school bus. So there might be plenty of need for compassion, help and other positive actions. Suicide bombers would be eliminated, however. Would you miss them?

No, but to say you can only either love or hate isn’t much of an oversimplification at all. Neutrality isn’t really an option, either, since all that is not love is a subtle form of hate.

Please, stop this. Neutrality no more a subtle form of hate than it is a subtle form of love. The “tertium non datur” is only valid in a binary system.

You know, I think I’m just going to quote C.S. Lewis. He’s clear.

“It was of no interest to God to create a species consisting of virtuous automata, for the ‘virtue’ of automata who can do no other than they do is a courtesy title only; it is analogous to the ‘virtue’ of the stone that rolls downhill or of the water that freezes at 32 degrees. To what end, it may be asked, should God create such creatures? That He might be praised by them? But automatic praise is a mere succession of noises. That He might love them? But they are essentially unloveable; you cannot love puppets. And so God gave man free will that he might increase in virtue by his own efforts and become, a free moral being, a worthy object of God’s love. Freedom entails freedom to go wrong: man did, in fact, go wrong, misusing God’s gift and doing evil. Pain is a by-product of evil; and so pain came into the world as a result of man’s misuse of God’s gift of free will.” (Dr. Joad as quoted in the The Christian World of C. S. Lewis by Clyde Kilby pp. 65-66)

Nothing I suggest undermines this concept. It simply removes the “beating” part, so people can truly choose God, if they are so inclined. The carrot will remain, only the stick is absent.

 

[fix]

Let’s not go into side discussions.

The link speaks to your issue. One of the problems we have is properly defining what we mean by freedom.

This is how Catholics understand freedom:

Liberty, then, as We have said, belongs only to those who have the gift of reason or intelligence. Considered as to its nature, it is the faculty of choosing means fitted for the end proposed, for he is master of his actions who can choose one thing out of many…

It seems from what you write that you think one would be free even if they had no other choices?

Could you please answer my original question? Would those people who use either reason or instinct to always make a moral decision be considered robots?

If they could choose evil, yet chose good they are not robots.

I reiterate, they are aware of the immoral choices, they are not forced to make a moral choice, they contemplate the immoral choices and freely decide against them.

Again, not robots.

Having only such individuals does not violate the “demand” that people ought to be free to love or not love God. If they all happen to choose to love God, it is what God (allegedly) wants.

Why didn’t God create such a world?

But your examples show that we can choose good over evil. They do not show one is prohibited from choosing evil.

 

[BlaineTog]

Would it now? Allegedly the angels and the “first” humans had positive proof of God’s existence, and it did not impede on their free will to disobey. So this is not a valid objectition.

Yes it is. Different ages are just that – different. They require different things. God needed to reveal himself, so he revealed himself to the early few so that he wouldn’t need reveal himself specifically to all. Additionally, if God remains in the shadows, then all our little choices become less perilous. The angels that chose to fight against God became demons instantly and forever. Adam and Eve, in choosing to sin, committed the second greatest offense in the history of the world and damned all of humanity to a life of pain.

Plsu, you’re misreading the story of Adam and Eve. When the snake came to tempt them, God withdrew. He left so that they would be able to choose.

The same problem as before. God’s alleged physical involvement did not “blind” or “burn” the humans before the fall.

And now we are fallen.

Furthermore, you either deny the existence of the “revelations” or must accept that those who received the direct revelations did not get “blinded” or “burned”. Why would it be different for us? Moses, who received the stone tablets directly from God, survived the incident, didn’t he? And he was just as “fallen” as we are.

It was done through intermediaries. And it would have been better of Moses could have been persuaded to do what he needed to do without divine revelation.

*Please. I already said (many times) that they have all the freedom to do as they please, they are just disinclined to do harm. *

But some would still choose harm. My point is that you are asking is absurd. Like with Murphy’s Law, if you can sin, someone will. And additionally, it isn’t a choice if you can’t actually choose, which is what you’re saying.

Aha! So God’s working model can be summarized by the slogan: "The beating will continue until the morale improves!". Because the poor, the sick, the miserable are more likely to be “driven” to God, it is a good idea to inflict more poverty, more illness, more misery, so they will turn to God? No direct interaction by God, only a “subtle” nudging…

Not at all. The poor are more likely to turn to God, but it is also through works of charity that many are saved. The world is fallen, and though it needs to be fallen because man is fallen, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t work for its betterment.

Not again, please. That is not what I said.

But it is! You have railed against God for not preventing rape. But what if someone wants to commit rape? God should make it physically impossible? You acquiesced to that, numerous times here!

You know what, I’m tired of repeating myself. Read C.S. Lewis’ “The Problem of Pain.” Good day.

 

[ateista]

It seems from what you write that you think one would be free even if they had no other choices?

If only one choice or option exists, we cannot speak of freedom. Also, even if there are several hypothetical choices, but force is applied to make all, but one carrying a penalty, we cannot speak of freedom.

If they could choose evil, yet chose good they are not robots.
Again, not robots.

Agreed.

But your examples show that we can choose good over evil. They do not show one is prohibited from choosing evil.

Absolutely. There are people, who freely choose good, others freely choose evil. According to Christians God created both kinds, and was aware “beforehand” who will turn out which way.

God is under no “obligation” to create anyone. He is free to choose only to create those ones, who will freely choose to be good, and free not to create those who freely choose to do evil. (Bunch of “free”-s in this sentence. )

The point is that this world would be much better without the ones who freely choose evil (rapists, murderers, etc.) and it would still be a far cry from becoming a total utopia. No coercion would be needed, God could still sit back and allow all the free choices to happen, knowing full well that they will all turn out to be as he wishes them to be.

You know, people say that God is a rational being. A rational being avoids things he does not want, and seeks out things he does want.

 

[ateista]

But it is! You have railed against God for not preventing rape. But what if someone wants to commit rape? God should make it physically impossible? You acquiesced to that, numerous times here!

There are two options. One is to make evil deeds physically impossible, the other is to create only those people who will freely avoid doing them. I see nothing wrong with either one.

You don’t like the first one, and even though I disagree with you, I accept your opinion. But there is nothing wrong with the second one. The only objection you brought up is Murphy’s Law. Murphy’s Law is a good satirical way of making fun of Nature, but it is not a law of nature.

 

[fix]

If only one choice or option exists, we cannot speak of freedom.

Ok

Also, even if there are several hypothetical choices, but force is applied to make all, but one carrying a penalty, we cannot speak of freedom.

This I do not understand. Are you saying if a penalty applies that negates moral freedom? We have laws against speeding and penalties, yet you may still choose to speed.

Agreed.

OK

Absolutely. There are people, who freely choose good, others freely choose evil. According to Christians God created both kinds, and was aware “beforehand” who will turn out which way.

OK

God is under no “obligation” to create anyone. He is free to choose only to create those ones, who will freely choose to be good, and free not to create those who freely choose to do evil. (Bunch of “free”-s in this sentence. )

Yes, He could give us free will or not.

The point is that this world would be much better without the ones who freely choose evil (rapists, murderers, etc.) and it would still be a far cry from becoming a total utopia. No coercion would be needed, God could still sit back and allow all the free choices to happen, knowing full well that they will all turn out to be as he wishes them to be.

The only way that would make sense, imo, would be if we changed the definition of free will.

You know, people say that God is a rational being. A rational being avoids things he does not want, and seeks out things he does want.

That is true. He wants us to be with Him in heaven. What you seem to be asking is why did He not make us to be immediately in heaven where we are most free and yet can no longer sin"

 

[ateista]

This I do not understand. Are you saying if a penalty applies that negates moral freedom? We have laws against speeding and penalties, yet you may still choose to speed.

Well, I had something else in mind. Like the mafia telling you: “obey us, or we shall kill your child”. Techincally, one could say that you still have a “choice”. But that is not much of a choice, is it? Obviously there are levels of “coercion”. If the penalty for speeding would be instant execution, I would say that not to speed is no longer a viable option.

But I was not clear in my wording. Would this clarification be sufficient?

Yes, He could give us free will or not.

That is not what I said. He could have chosen not to create those people, who will use their free will to do evil. The rest would use their free will to do the good things.

The only way that would make sense, imo, would be if we changed the definition of free will.

I don’t see that conclusion. Maybe you could explain?

That is true. He wants us to be with Him in heaven. What you seem to be asking is why did He not make us to be immediately in heaven where we are most free and yet can no longer sin"

Well, that would be logical, wouldn’t it? It makes no sense (to me) that a rational and powerful being - having a desire for something that is universally good, would not directly execute his wish, rather choose a roundabout way which allows outcomes that he definitely does not want (like some people ending up in hell - if you believe in hell, that is.)

The current setup is quite irrational and dumb.

 

[BlaineTog]

There are two options. One is to make evil deeds physically impossible, the other is to create only those people who will freely avoid doing them. I see nothing wrong with either one.

You don’t like the first one, and even though I disagree with you, I accept your opinion. But there is nothing wrong with the second one. The only objection you brought up is Murphy’s Law. Murphy’s Law is a good satirical way of making fun of Nature, but it is not a law of nature.

God is in the process of creating those second kinds of people, but they have to freely choose to be that kind of person. That’s what the earth is: the womb of heaven. And God gives us the incredible dignity of being present for our own creation.

 

[ateista]

God is in the process of creating those second kinds of people, but they have to freely choose to be that kind of person.

But that still does not answer the question. God knows that some people will choose to be good, let’s call them type “A”. God also knows that some will choose to be evil, let’s call them type “B”.

What is the point of creating the type “B” people?

 

[BlaineTog]

But that still does not answer the question. God knows that some people will choose to be good, let’s call them type “A”. God also knows that some will choose to be evil, let’s call them type “B”.

What is the point of creating the type “B” people?

It doesn’t work like that. People are not mechanistic robots in a determinist system. That God knows what’s going to happen before he creates the human is both irrelevant and doubly misleading; irrelevant because they still have the ability to choose, and misleading because it both implies a determinism that isn’t there and there is no “before” for God, at the very least not in any sense that can be meaningful to humans on Earth.

 

[ateista]

It doesn’t work like that. People are not mechanistic robots in a determinist system. That God knows what’s going to happen before he creates the human is both irrelevant and doubly misleading; irrelevant because they still have the ability to choose, and misleading because it both implies a determinism that isn’t there and there is no “before” for God, at the very least not in any sense that can be meaningful to humans on Earth.

I did not say that choice does not exist. Both the type-A and the type-B people freely choose their paths. God’s alleged “foreknowledge” allows that. But it is also said that God “creates” those people. The creation does have a “time-point” in our universe, supposedly at the moment of conception (though this interpretation is relatively new). Even if you say that God is not bound by our time, he could have “chosen” not to create those type-B people.

Reflecting on the bold part: if you now say that it is meaningless to speak of “before” as far as God is concerned, then it is also meaningless to say that God has “foreknowledge”. As a matter of fact, I agree. We have now dispensed with the concept of “omniscience” - as a meaningful concept. It is now obvious that “omniscience” is nothing more, than a “good-sounding” word, without any meaning…

I am quite satisfied with this outcome, even though it was not my original intent to arrive at this conclusion. In another thread, where we talked about God “acting”, the final result was the same: the believers eventually conceded that the phrase “God acts” or God created" is totally meaningless - and thus we dispensed with “omnipotence”.

We are making good progress here.

Furthermore, we could choose any of God’s alleged attributes and after a thorough analysis we would arrive at the same conclusion: the word which describes God’s attribute (any attribute) does not mean anything like it does when applied humans, and when it is applied to God - in other words, it is totally meaningless.

Makes you wonder, is it meaningful to speak about God at all?

(Finally, to demonstrate my limited foreknowledge: Not everyone will like my conclusions.)

 

[davidv]

But that still does not answer the question. God knows that some people will choose to be good, let’s call them type “A”. God also knows that some will choose to be evil, let’s call them type “B”.

What is the point of creating the type “B” people?

The point is, type “B” people can, of their free will, can become type “A” people. For example, Augustine.

 

[ateista]

The point is, type “B” people can, of their free will, can become type “A” people. For example, Augustine.

No, they cannot. The definition of type-B is the people who will choose to be evil. The concept of repentance is meaningless in this world. What has been done - stays done and no amont of repentance can “undo it”. Even if a type-B person repents, he will not change into a type-A.

 

[BlaineTog]

No, they cannot. The definition of type-B is the people who will choose to be evil. The concept of repentance is meaningless in this world. What has been done - stays done and no amont of repentance can “undo it”. Even if a type-B person repents, he will not change into a type-A.

Like I said, doesn’t work that way. The world is not determined, not for anyone.

Reflecting on the bold part: if you now say that it is meaningless to speak of “before” as far as God is concerned, then it is also meaningless to say that God has “foreknowledge”. As a matter of fact, I agree. We have now dispensed with the concept of “omniscience” - as a meaningful concept. It is now obvious that “omniscience” is nothing more, than a “good-sounding” word, without any meaning…

Non sequitur, and a pretty bad one at that. “Before” is a meaningless word when discussing God’s relation to the world, in the same way that it’s meaningless to say “before” for the Author of a completed book. Never did I imply in any way, shape, or form that God doesn’t know what a person is going to do before they do it, but this knowledge doesn’t equal rigid necessity that they do that they do. And just because “foreknowledge” is analagous only doesn’t mean God doesn’t have “knowledge.” That’s where your fallacy is, by the way.

Oh, and way to totally ignore that I actually said in preference of a random tangent that has nothing to do with anything, unless you’re only here to try to frustrate us anarchically.

I am quite satisfied with this outcome, even though it was not my original intent to arrive at this conclusion.

Ok, that’s it, I’m Ignoring you. I have no interest in arguing with someone who’s only purpose in posting seems to be absurdly trying to disprove something he clearly doesn’t understand well with vast leaps of logical, logical fallacies, and fudging thread results.

 

[davidv]

No, they cannot. The definition of type-B is the people who will choose to be evil. The concept of repentance is meaningless in this world. What has been done - stays done and no amont of repentance can “undo it”. Even if a type-B person repents, he will not change into a type-A.

No one can choose to “be” evil, God created us good. One can only choose to “do” evil. On what basis can you declare that once one chooses evil, they can no longer choose good? And why do you assume that a type B would only choose evil? This seems very arbitrary and not in evidence in the real world.

 

[ateista]

No one can choose to “be” evil, God created us good. One can only choose to “do” evil. On what basis can you declare that once one chooses evil, they can no longer choose good?

I did not say that. I merely said that doing evil first and doing good later does not compensate for the prior evil, does not make the prior evil disappear. The past cannot be changed.

And why do you assume that a type B would only choose evil? This seems very arbitrary and not in evidence in the real world.

That was the premise of the thought experiment. I was not speaking about the real world, only about a hypothetical existence.

 

[ateista]

And just because “foreknowledge” is analagous only doesn’t mean God doesn’t have “knowledge.”

An analogy is only useful if it gives insight into the question. Otherwise it is useless.

Ok, that’s it, I’m Ignoring you.

That is your prerogative. It was nice to talk to you.

I have no interest in arguing with someone who’s only purpose in posting seems to be absurdly trying to disprove something he clearly doesn’t understand well with vast leaps of logical, logical fallacies, and fudging thread results.

It is not useful assume what my “only” purpose is. Though you are, of course, welcome to do it.

 

[davidv]

I did not say that. I merely said that doing evil first and doing good later does not compensate for the prior evil, does not make the prior evil disappear. The past cannot be changed.

That was the premise of the thought experiment. I was not speaking about the real world, only about a hypothetical existence.

How does this hypthetical help us answer your OP?

 

[ateista]

How does this hypthetical help us answer your OP?

You know, I really don’t understand you guys at all.

What I am saying is that the overwhelming majority of the people are basically decent, good fellows. They do not hurt anyone, do not rob banks, do not rape women, do not go on a killing spree. There are some exceptionally good people, too. Also there are a few who are sociopaths, psychopaths, gangsters, murderers, suicide bombers and, of course the true scum of the Earth, the politicans - who make wars.

What is wrong with the suggestion that the world would be a much better place without these people? If I would have brought up this concept in a secular environment, I bet you all would agree with this concept.

Now that I went one step further, and suggested that God ought to eliminate these people (to save the innocent victims in the name of love), your automatic “protection reflex” kicks in, because you take it as a criticism of God. Can’t you just look at the evidence with an unbiased mind?

My post ends here. The rest is just clarification.

A loving mother will grab a gun and kill the person who wants to rape her child - because she really loves her child - and does not care about the “free will” of the rapist. To hell with the free will of the bad people. Let them rot in hell now, and not after they committed more atrocites.

A loving parent will protect his child, and will overrule the child’s free will if he sees that the child is about to make a disastruous choice - again, because he loves his child and wants the best for him. Sure, he will allow to make small mistakes, but never life-threataning ones.

The “objection” to this is that the parent will allow his grown-up child to make bad decisions. No kidding. If and when we become like God, that is we really grow up, then and only then should God refrain from interfering. But up until that point it is his absolute duty to interfere. You bring someone into the world, you are responsible for him until he becomes like you.

That is the point.