Coercive miracles?

[Pallas_Athene]

In another thread one poster asked what would be a convincing argument for the existence of the supernatural (or God). I gave my answer, and then another poster (name withheld) jumped in and said that if there would be no ambiguity, no way to explain away the miracle, then we would be “robbed” of our free will to decide if we would choose to believe of not.

So in other words, having absolute incontrovertible KNOWLEDGE about God’s existence would take away our free will. The question is now: “is knowledge coercive”? Is it preferable to have a deniable “miracle” as opposed to one which cannot be explained away?

Mind you, even if God’s existence would be established beyond any doubt whatsoever, it would NOT coerce us into any specific behavior. We would still be free to accept or deny God’s requirements of “preferred, moral behavior”. But at least it would be a choice made with open eyes, it would be a real choice.

Please discuss.

 

[Randy_Carson]

In another thread one poster asked what would be a convincing argument for the existence of the supernatural (or God). I gave my answer, and then another poster (name withheld) jumped in and said that if there would be no ambiguity, no way to explain away the miracle, then we would be “robbed” of our free will to decide if we would choose to believe of not.

So in other words, having absolute incontrovertible KNOWLEDGE about God’s existence would take away our free will. The question is now: “is knowledge coercive”? Is it preferable to have a deniable “miracle” as opposed to one which cannot be explained away?

Mind you, even if God’s existence would be established beyond any doubt whatsoever, it would NOT coerce us into any specific behavior. We would still be free to accept or deny God’s requirements of “preferred, moral behavior”. But at least it would be a choice made with open eyes, it would be a real choice.

Please discuss.

Actually, I want to begin by taking issue with your signature which reads:

When you argue for unbridled “free will”, you also argue for the continued existence of psychopaths, who kidnap, rape, mutilate and slaughter children.

Are you really comfortable with endorsing their activities and to be their advocate?

This is a non sequitur.

Although God is all-powerful, it is not possible for Him to grant us free will and the ability to make moral choices while simultaneously limiting our choices to the “good” only. Limiting our freedom would itself be a bad thing, and God does not make bad things.

Consequently, we have been given free will and the potential to choose to do evil; but the actualization of that potential is our decision, not God’s. We could freely choose to do only good, but we choose to do bad or evil things all the time. The responsibility for those choices is on us, not God.

In summary, there is no logical contradiction in the fact that both God and evil exist, and the possibility of choosing evil is a necessary condition of having true freedom to make moral choices. Thus, it is simply a false notion that an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good God would be able or even want to eliminate evil for the reasons we have seen in this exercise.

So, I do not endorse the activities of those who do evil nor am I their advocate. But I am in favor of free will which entails the potential for evil deeds for which neither God nor I am responsible (except my own).

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Actually, I want to begin by taking issue with your signature which reads:

When you argue for unbridled “free will”, you also argue for the continued existence of psychopaths, who kidnap, rape, mutilate and slaughter children.

Are you really comfortable with endorsing their activities and to be their advocate?

This is a non sequitur.

First of all, thank you for your contribution. I was hoping that someone will argue against it. Let me point out the most important word in my signature: “UNBRIDLED”. Free will is simply the ability to make choices among more than one possibilities. If you have the freedom to choose between chocolate and vanilla ice creams, you have free will. Now you may argue that this is not much of a freedom, choosing between two flavors is not a morally significant choice. You would be correct, too. But free will is not the ability to choose between morally significant options… it is the freedom to choose between any options.

Although God is all-powerful, it is not possible for Him to grant us free will and the ability to make moral choices while simultaneously limiting our choices to the “good” only. Limiting our freedom would itself be a bad thing, and God does not make bad things.

The question here is: “why is it a bad thing to eliminate some of the ‘bad choices’?” Observe the all-important part: “SOME” of the bad choices. We do it all the time in our inferior and ineffective ways, we try to eliminate the “freedom” of certain people. We put them into jails and prisons, we try to eliminate their freedom to perform some “evil” acts. You presented the argument that “limiting our freedom would be a bad thing”, and this is a very broad, sweeping argument. But you did not substantiate: “why” is it a bad thing?

Consequently, we have been given free will and the potential to choose to do evil; but the actualization of that potential is our decision, not God’s. We could freely choose to do only good, but we choose to do bad or evil things all the time. The responsibility for those choices is on us, not God.

Let’s slow down a little. The responsibility is NOT totally ours. If you have substantial knowledge that a murder/rape/torture WILL be committed, and you have the ways and means to prevent it, and you fail to act to prevent that murder… then you definitely share the responsibility with the actual perpetrator. We could argue about the share of responsibility between you and the perp, but that is a secondary consideration.

In summary, there is no logical contradiction in the fact that both God and evil exist, and the possibility of choosing evil is a necessary condition of having true freedom to make moral choices. Thus, it is simply a false notion that an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good God would be able or even want to eliminate evil for the reasons we have seen in this exercise.

You bring up the phrase “true” freedom. There can be “true” freedom without rape and murder and torture. As the Catholic ethics teaches if one performs masturbations or extra-marital sexual acts, or even contraceptive sex in a sacramental marriage, these actions are “true” moral choices. If God would “wish” to fill up the torture chamber called “hell” with people, then having “sexual deviants” would do the task just nicely. There is no “need” for giving the ability to torture and rape others.

So, I do not endorse the activities of those who do evil nor am I their advocate. But I am in favor of free will which entails the potential for evil deeds for which neither God nor I am responsible (except my own).

You implicitly but not explicitly endorse their freedom. You are only responsible for those acts which you (personally) commit and for those which you fail to prevent (if there are such acts). But God has no such excuse. He could prevent all those acts, and since he does not, he shares the blame for them.

A quick summary. I see no reason to allow “too much freedom to hurt others”. And I have never seen any argument for allowing “too much freedom”… especially we have very limited freedom to help others. No “lay on hands”, no way to rescue people trapped in a mine or in a sunk submarine.

 

[Gorgias]

So in other words, having absolute incontrovertible KNOWLEDGE about God’s existence would take away our free will. The question is now: “is knowledge coercive”?

The question isn’t whether knowledge is coercive, but whether you, knowing with certainty that God exists, would still deny Him? That would be the epitome of a lack of rationality.

Mind you, even if God’s existence would be established beyond any doubt whatsoever, it would NOT coerce us into any specific behavior. We would still be free to accept or deny God’s requirements of “preferred, moral behavior”. But at least it would be a choice made with open eyes, it would be a real choice.

Two thoughts: first of all, are you really saying that, if you had absolute and undeniable evidence of God’s existence, and knowledge that He is who we say He is… that you’d still consider denying His will? That’s just illogical.

Second: you make choices all the time that are based on incomplete knowledge. These choices, too, are “real choices”. You’re building up a straw man here.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

The question isn’t whether knowledge is coercive, but whether you, knowing with certainty that God exists, would still deny Him? That would be the epitome of a lack of rationality.

I don’t see what you mean. Deny “what”? God’s existence? Obviously I would not deny that God exist. Deny what the apologists SAY about God? Of course I would deny it. If God would assert that the apologists correctly revealed his nature and his requirements about the acceptable behavior (no masturbation, etc…) then I would simply flip a “birdy” and say something that is not acceptable as a “charitable” expression. But that is not logically possible. What the apologists say is not a “mystery”, but a logical contradiction. And no matter how powerful God might be, he cannot instantiate logically contradictory state of affairs.

Two thoughts: first of all, are you really saying that, if you had absolute and undeniable evidence of God’s existence, and knowledge that He is who we say He is… that you’d still consider denying His will? That’s just illogical.

You mix up two things here. God’s “existence” and “what you (the apologists) SAY about him”. These are totally different subjects.

Second: you make choices all the time that are based on incomplete knowledge. These choices, too, are “real choices”. You’re building up a straw man here.

We always must make decisions on incomplete information. There is no “straw man” about it.

 

[AKDee]

The angels in Heaven had incontrovertible proof of God in all His magnificence, and yet Lucifer and a host of other angels chose by their free will to fall away from God and into sin and now we have the devil and his demons.

On that basis, I don’t think knowledge negates free will.

I think that a person who was determined not to believe in God simply would not believe in God, no matter how much proof was offered. The proof that would be seen as a miracle by some would be seen only as coincidence by someone who has chosen not to believe.

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t see what you mean. Deny “what”? God’s existence? Obviously I would not deny that God exist.

Pallas Athene:

So in other words, having absolute incontrovertible KNOWLEDGE about God’s existence would take away our free will.

You can’t have it both ways. Either we’re talking about God’s existence or we’re not. Which is it?

If God would assert that the apologists correctly revealed his nature and his requirements about the acceptable behavior (no masturbation, etc…) then I would simply flip a “birdy” and say something that is not acceptable as a “charitable” expression.

In other words, you’d act irrationally. OK… I don’t have a hard time seeing that.

You mix up two things here. God’s “existence” and “what you (the apologists) SAY about him”. These are totally different subjects.

But, that wasn’t your premise, now, was it?

We always must make decisions on incomplete information. There is no “straw man” about it.

And yet, you seem to be asserting that choices made with complete information are the only “real choices”. You’re having a real hard time staying consistent here.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

The angels in Heaven had incontrovertible proof of God in all His magnificence, and yet Lucifer and a host of other angels chose by their free will to fall away from God and into sin and now we have the devil and his demons.

On that basis, I don’t think knowledge negates free will.

I think that a person who was determined not to believe in God simply would not believe in God, no matter how much proof was offered. The proof that would be seen as a miracle by some would be seen only as coincidence by someone who has chosen not to believe.

It is impossible to “choose” not to believe something that you KNOW. Beliefs are not subject to volitional choices. You cannot force yourself to believe something that you know is not true.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

You can’t have it both ways. Either we’re talking about God’s existence or we’re not. Which is it?

Sorry, we have a misunderstanding.

This was the assertion of the OTHER poster. I just did not use the “quote” feature:

So in other words, having absolute incontrovertible KNOWLEDGE about God’s existence would take away our free will.

In other words, you’d act irrationally. OK… I don’t have a hard time seeing that.

I don’t think so. I could choose “not to serve” - which means “not to worship” (after all God needs no “servants”). It is just an unsubstantiated assertion of some believers that choosing not to worship God merits eternal punishment. Now if God personally would say that he will torture me eternally, if I refuse to worship him, then he would not merit to be worshipped. (See the first commandment. God demands to be “loved”. Of course I don’t think that the ten commandments actually come from God.)

But, that wasn’t your premise, now, was it?

Part of it. It started with the existence of the supernatural, and then it evolved into the next problem.

And yet, you seem to be asserting that choices made with complete information are the only “real choices”. You’re having a real hard time staying consistent here.

Having more information allows one to make more informed choices. I should have made it clear “to make really informed choices”. It was my mistake not to be pedantic about it.

 

[tonyrey]

The angels in Heaven had incontrovertible proof of God in all His magnificence, and yet Lucifer and a host of other angels chose by their free will to fall away from God and into sin and now we have the devil and his demons. On that basis, I don’t think knowledge negates free will.

We cannot be sure the fallen angels were aware of God in all His magnificence because Revelation is not an eye-witness account but an allegorical work.

I think that a person who was determined not to believe in God simply would not believe in God, no matter how much proof was offered. The proof that would be seen as a miracle by some would be seen only as coincidence by someone who has chosen not to believe.

If you are in the direct presence of God it seems extremely unlikely you wouldn’t believe He exists. We have to be at an “epistemic distance” in order to be truly independent; otherwise faith wouldn’t be a virtue:

15 Truly you are a God who hides himself, O God and Savior of Israel.

Isaiah 45:15

 

[Gorgias]

Sorry, we have a misunderstanding.

This was the assertion of the OTHER poster. I just did not use the “quote” feature:

OK. So, the question at hand is still “if you were to be confronted with information that conclusively established the existence of God, would that presentation of information take away your free will?”

I don’t think so. I could choose “not to serve”

That’s a telling turn of phrase. Do you know the story of the fallen angels? There’s a passage in Jeremiah (2:20) in which God recounts Israel’s reaction to Him. He tells the prophet to tell Israel, “you said to me, ‘I will not serve’”. In the discussion of how Satan and the other fallen angels rebelled against God, that phrase is used, as spoken by Satan, to express that he has broken with Him. “Non serviam.” Kind of interesting that you’d choose that phrase to express your reaction to certain knowledge of God.

Having more information allows one to make more informed choices. I should have made it clear “to make really informed choices”. It was my mistake not to be pedantic about it.

Not ‘pedantic’; ‘precise.’

 

[tonyrey]

In another thread one poster asked what would be a convincing argument for the existence of the supernatural (or God). I gave my answer, and then another poster (name withheld) jumped in and said that if there would be no ambiguity, no way to explain away the miracle, then we would be “robbed” of our free will to decide if we would choose to believe of not.

So in other words, having absolute incontrovertible KNOWLEDGE about God’s existence would take away our free will. The question is now: “is knowledge coercive”? Is it preferable to have a deniable “miracle” as opposed to one which cannot be explained away?

Mind you, even if God’s existence would be established beyond any doubt whatsoever, it would NOT coerce us into any specific behavior. We would still be free to accept or deny God’s requirements of “preferred, moral behavior”. But at least it would be a choice made with open eyes, it would be a real choice.

Please discuss.

Replace God by Big Brother and see if your argument works. Your aversion to prying eyes and lack of privacy suggest that you - like most of us - would be inhibited if you knew everything you think and do is not only being constantly observed but also judged by how much of your time and energy you devote to love and care for others.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

OK. So, the question at hand is still “if you were to be confronted with information that conclusively established the existence of God, would that presentation of information take away your free will?”

Of course not.

That’s a telling turn of phrase. Do you know the story of the fallen angels? There’s a passage in Jeremiah (2:20) in which God recounts Israel’s reaction to Him. He tells the prophet to tell Israel, “you said to me, ‘I will not serve’”. In the discussion of how Satan and the other fallen angels rebelled against God, that phrase is used, as spoken by Satan, to express that he has broken with Him. “Non serviam.” Kind of interesting that you’d choose that phrase to express your reaction to certain knowledge of God.

The choice of the words was intentional. If the user name “Non Serviam” would have been available, I would have chosen it. By the way, to choose “not to worship” does not entail “rebellion”. Only the most egotistical and despotic rulers would wish to be worshipped and praised all the time. How boring it would be to hear the constant chanting: "O greatest One! Blah, blah, blah…O greatest One!.. "

Not ‘pedantic’; ‘precise.’

Very well. Let’s use the word “precise”. Now what?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Replace God by Big Brother and see if your argument works. Your aversion to prying eyes and lack of privacy suggest that you - like most of us - would be inhibited if you knew everything you think and do is not only being constantly observed but also judged by how much of your time and energy you devote to love and care for others.

There is no need for the analogy. You, the believers are not inhibited from performing all sorts of “sinful acts”, even though you believe that God observes and judges every thought, every act that you make. Look at the “Moral Theology” forum, and see how much “free will” the people have to commit all those sinful acts. Of course the poor suckers are then tortured by their own guilt… until they go and confess… get a weekly dose of absolution… and then the merry-go-round starts all over again.

So, no. Knowledge would not take away our freedom to do whatever we wish to do.

 

[tonyrey]

Replace God by Big Brother and see if your argument works. Your aversion to prying eyes and lack of privacy suggest that you - like most of us - would be inhibited if you knew everything you think and do is not only being constantly observed but also judged by how much of your time and energy you devote to love and care for others.

The analogy is unpalatable but it corresponds to the reality you have described in a recent post. Our belief that God is all-seeing doesn’t amount to constant awareness - any more than you live as if you’re a freak of nature. If you** never** feel guilty or** neve**r try to make amends for having wronged a person you are either a saint or a devil in disguise! I leave you to decide which…

Your aversion to Big Brother speaks for itself. I can’t remember your exact words but they amount to contempt for - and even horror at - the very idea of an invasion of your privacy as if it’s the equivalent of being in hell! You would be the last one to tolerate any interference with your freedom.

 

[Randy_Carson]

FThe question here is: “why is it a bad thing to eliminate some of the ‘bad choices’?” Observe the all-important part: “SOME” of the bad choices. We do it all the time in our inferior and ineffective ways, we try to eliminate the “freedom” of certain people. We put them into jails and prisons, we try to eliminate their freedom to perform some “evil” acts. You presented the argument that “limiting our freedom would be a bad thing”, and this is a very broad, sweeping argument. But you did not substantiate: “why” is it a bad thing?

What choices could an all-powerful God eliminate without infringing upon our free will?

Let’s say for the sake of argument that God did prevent the rape of one person…or prevent a murder of another. If He does that for one or two, would He become obligated to prevent every murder? Every rape? Divorce hurts people, too…what about preventing every divorce? Unemployment is bad…should God be obligated to prevent anyone from losing their job? Or falling on the playground and skinning their knees?

If God intervened in every situation that conceivably causes us pain, our lives would be so free from suffering that we would consider a hangnail to be a great injustice requiring God’s intervention.

But at what point would God have to eliminate free will in order to accomplish this utopian existence? As disgusting as it is, God cannot stop the rapist or murderer without impinging on the free will of all mankind. Consequently, He allows the pain in order to respect the greater good.

And if we are not morally free to choose to rape or not rape, to kill or not kill, and we are forced to serve and obey God, why would we love Him since we had no other choice?

Let’s slow down a little. The responsibility is NOT totally ours. If you have substantial knowledge that a murder/rape/torture WILL be committed, and you have the ways and means to prevent it, and you fail to act to prevent that murder… then you definitely share the responsibility with the actual perpetrator. We could argue about the share of responsibility between you and the perp, but that is a secondary consideration.

For us humans, this may be true because while we may be able to prevent a single crime, we are not capable of preventing ALL crime. But God’s situation is different; because of who He is, He COULD simply eliminate all crime. And that has the side effect of eliminating the potential for evil choices which impinges on free will.

You bring up the phrase “true” freedom. There can be “true” freedom without rape and murder and torture. As the Catholic ethics teaches if one performs masturbations or extra-marital sexual acts, or even contraceptive sex in a sacramental marriage, these actions are “true” moral choices. If God would “wish” to fill up the torture chamber called “hell” with people, then having “sexual deviants” would do the task just nicely. There is no “need” for giving the ability to torture and rape others.

Incorrect. I can live in complete freedom NOT choosing to rape and murder, but I can’t live in complete freedom without the potential to choose rape and murder.

If you like vanilla ice cream and I give you 12 different varieties of vanilla to choose from, you may be happy, but you are not free because you never had the option of choosing chocolate once in awhile.

You implicitly but not explicitly endorse their freedom. You are only responsible for those acts which you (personally) commit and for those which you fail to prevent (if there are such acts). But God has no such excuse. He could prevent all those acts, and since he does not, he shares the blame for them.

Sorry, but this is incorrect. I explicitly endorse their freedom. I want EVERYONE to have 100% pure free will. I also want everyone to choose to do only good with that freedom of choice, but I recognize that not all will do so. I do NOT endorse bad choices, of course.

In the US, we are guaranteed freedom of speech, and I will defend your right to say whatever you want to say. I may not agree with or endorse your statements, but I support your right to say it.

 

[SonOfMan]

What if I use my free will to surrender my free will to God so that I can only make good choices? Well, Ive tried it before and God doesnt respect my free will in this instance. Why?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

What choices could an all-powerful God eliminate without infringing upon our free will?

You seem to think that free will is an all-or-nothing phenomenon. Our freedom is already seriously limited. No matter how hard we try “to will” to cause harm to someone on the other side of the globe, we are unable to bring it to fruition - due to the physical impossibility. No matter how hard we try to save people trapped in a mine, we are unable to help them, because we lack the ability.

So there are already limits to our freedom. Why is it a problem to eliminate some options (doing bad things) and give us some more options (doing good things)?

Let’s say for the sake of argument that God did prevent the rape of one person…or prevent a murder of another. If He does that for one or two, would He become obligated to prevent every murder? Every rape? Divorce hurts people, too…what about preventing every divorce? Unemployment is bad…should God be obligated to prevent anyone from losing their job? Or falling on the playground and skinning their knees?

This is just an age-old slippery slope fallacy. I (and everyone else) would be perfectly happy if all the violent actions would be eliminated. And let the rest happen. By the way, there would be no need to resort to a personal intervention. There is much better, subtle way to achieve this. Simply create people without the desire to cause harm and pain to others. Good, benevolent behavior would be the “default” norm.

And if we are not morally free to choose to rape or not rape, to kill or not kill, and we are forced to serve and obey God, why would we love Him since we had no other choice?

There would be no need for that. We would be free to worship (forget that “love”) God or not to. We would be free to go to church, or take a nice trip. We would be free to commit such heinous acts as masturbating, or expressing our love to each other without being “open” to procreation. Lots of “delicious” sinful acts, so God could live out his “justice” and send the offenders to the eternal fire. By the way, you forget that we are commanded by God to “love” him - read Luke 10:27. And if we decline that then we are threatened by eternal torture. Where is the freedom when one is blackmailed into “love”?

For us humans, this may be true because while we may be able to prevent a single crime, we are not capable of preventing ALL crime. But God’s situation is different; because of who He is, He COULD simply eliminate all crime. And that has the side effect of eliminating the potential for evil choices which impinges on free will.

Again, where is the “plus side” of allowing the actuality of those violent actions? You can’t just argue that the potentiality is good. You need to show some actual, real advantage of a rape committed. Why would the world be “worse off” if there would be no rapes?

If you like vanilla ice cream and I give you 12 different varieties of vanilla to choose from, you may be happy, but you are not free because you never had the option of choosing chocolate once in awhile.

Sure. Our freedom would be more limited. But the rape and torture are hardly the equivalent of choosing chocolate ice-cream.

Sorry, but this is incorrect. I explicitly endorse their freedom. I want EVERYONE to have 100% pure free will. I also want everyone to choose to do only good with that freedom of choice, but I recognize that not all will do so. I do NOT endorse bad choices, of course.

But you do exactly that. Maybe you never thought about it this way, but as long as you are against eliminating violent acts, you endorse the existence (not just the possibility but the actuality) of all the rapes, tortures and murders.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You seem to think that free will is an all-or-nothing phenomenon. Our freedom is already seriously limited. No matter how hard we try “to will” to cause harm to someone on the other side of the globe, we are unable to bring it to fruition - due to the physical impossibility. No matter how hard we try to save people trapped in a mine, we are unable to help them, because we lack the ability.

So there are already limits to our freedom. Why is it a problem to eliminate some options (doing bad things) and give us some more options (doing good things)?

This is just an age-old slippery slope fallacy. I (and everyone else) would be perfectly happy if all the violent actions would be eliminated. And let the rest happen. By the way, there would be no need to resort to a personal intervention. There is much better, subtle way to achieve this. Simply create people without the desire to cause harm and pain to others. Good, benevolent behavior would be the “default” norm.

There would be no need for that. We would be free to worship (forget that “love”) God or not to. We would be free to go to church, or take a nice trip. We would be free to commit such heinous acts as masturbating, or expressing our love to each other without being “open” to procreation. Lots of “delicious” sinful acts, so God could live out his “justice” and send the offenders to the eternal fire. By the way, you forget that we are commanded by God to “love” him - read Luke 10:27. And if we decline that then we are threatened by eternal torture. Where is the freedom when one is blackmailed into “love”?

Again, where is the “plus side” of allowing the actuality of those violent actions? You can’t just argue that the potentiality is good. You need to show some actual, real advantage of a rape committed. Why would the world be “worse off” if there would be no rapes?

Sure. Our freedom would be more limited. But the rape and torture are hardly the equivalent of choosing chocolate ice-cream.

But you do exactly that. Maybe you never thought about it this way, but as long as you are against eliminating violent acts, you endorse the existence (not just the possibility but the actuality) of all the rapes, tortures and murders.

:compcoff:

 

[Pallas_Athene]

:compcoff:

Sorry, I am not able to parse that message. Would you be so kind and be a tad more verbose?