Free will revisited

[itsjustdave1988]

Hitetlen:

But of course God cannot be BOTH just AND merciful at the same time toward the same person.

You are wrong again, of course. Every father who has punished their son knows that one can be both just and merciful in one act of will.

 

[Hitetlen]

LatinCat:

A fellow Mathematician. How Fun! The problem with using empirical datat to “prove” truth is the problem of induction. In science, we begin with specific events and devlope universal rules/laws from those specific events or experiments. Thus we reason from the specific to the universal. The problem with such reasoning will become very clear: Let us say there is a man and he sees a flock of white ducks. It is the only flock of ducks he ever sees. The next day he sees another flock of white ducks. This happens several times a year for this man. He has the same repeated experience. So naturally, he assumes that all ducks are white. You see, through induction he has reasoned that because of his specific experience, the universal law/reality must be that all ducks are white. However, this is wrong. His induction has lead him astray. So, in sense, induction is really one big logical fallacy. Deduction, on the other hand is not prone to this problem because in deductive logic we argue from the universal to the specific. For example, the universal law is that all men are mortal. I am a man. My specific conclusion is that I am then mortal. Good reasoning. Now I do not suggest that we pick or premises to begin our arguments out thing air. That would be nothing more than axiomatic reasoning. But I suggest that we begin the reasoning process with INESCAPABLE premises. For example: The law of noncontradiction. It is impossible to escape such a premise: Something cannot be A and not A at the same time and in the same relationshiop. Even a denial of the law of non-contradiction affirms the law of non-contradiction. If I say that the law of non-contradiction is invalid, I exclude the law non-contradiciton from being valid. But if contradictions can be true, and the law of non-contradiction is false, then it is also true, because the contradictory statement: the law of non-contradiciton is invalid and valdid must also be true. Thus the law of non-contradiction is true. But wait, didn’t we say it was false. But being false, it is true. Hmmmmm. The law of non-contradiction is an inescapable premise. If you affirm it or deny it you end up affirming it. So it is an inescapable premise that is a good place to start the reasoning process from.

Induction is not the final word: the proof of the pudding is that it is edible. It is incorrect (as you said) to use the so-called popular induction: “all the ducks I have ever seen are white, therefore all the ducks must be white”. This simplistic approach is not used by anyone. Deduction is only possible in the exact sciences, and they all rely on axioms. But what does this have to do with the question I posted?

 

[Hitetlen]

itsjustdave1988:

You are wrong again, of course. Every father who has punished their son knows that one can be both just and merciful in one act of will.

Not at the same time! The word “just” means that the punishment must be commensurate to the deed. The word “merciful” means that there is no punsihment, or the punishment is less than what the deed should carry. If the deed needs exactly three slaps on the wrist, and the father does exactly tree, he was just. If he delivers only two, or one or none, he was merciful. If he beats the kid to death, he is playing God…

 

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

If he beats the kid to death, he is playing God…

the only one playing God here… are you…

 

[Hitetlen]

doomhammer:

This is the only ”free will” man has: to be what he wants to be. Can be an atheist or can be a believer. Can deny Christ or can accept Christ. Can live in vain or can live for God. Can worship himself or can worship the true God. Can follow his own will or can follow the Truth. Choices, consequences. Simple like that. Like Adam, hear God or hear the serpent, so us. Choices, consequences.

Except that believers assert that choices do NOT have to have consequences: the worst kind of monster can gain total forgiveness if he repents on his death bed. Only certain types of choices have unalterable consequences, the ones which do not hurt anyone, except God’s obviously fragile ego. God does not mind that some people follow his path, and kill, maim and rape other humans, those are OK, if the perp repents. But to listen to reason and discard ancient superstition - now that is unforgivable! You know, the picture you guys paint about God is simply ridiculuous.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Hitetlen:

itsjustdave1988:

Furthermore, since you can only speak for yourself about the lack

of actual knowledge, isn’t your first post more precisely a question as to why YOU lack actual knowledge of God? Perhaps you have impediments that keep you from acquiring actual knowledge of God.

Maybe, but if there would be evidence, I could understand that.

Evidence of what? That you perhaps have only yourself to blame for not seeing and understanding what others do? Not everybody is well-equipped to understand all that is presented to them. Ever try to tutor a business major in Calculus? I have. He can insist to me all day long that what is being presented to him is unintelligle, but perhaps the problem isn’t in what is being revealed to him, but instead the problem has much to do with his own intellect and will, or other such impediments to learning what is easily knowable to others.

Don’t expect us to believe that just because you don’t understand it, that it necessarily means that the evidence is neither present nor knowable. That’s as absurd as the business student who insisted the Calculus was unknowable.

 

[Hitetlen]

john doran:

because he’s also (infinitely) respectful of the freedom of his creatures: as merciful as he is, he won’t offer it where it’s not wanted, and if you die without sanctifying grace, you don’t want anything to do with god. so god lets you walk away.

… directly into everlasting pain, torture. How “merciful” of him.

 

[Hitetlen]

itsjustdave1988:

Evidence of what? That you perhaps have only yourself to blame for not seeing and understanding what others do? Not everybody is well-equipped to understand all that is presented to them. Ever try to tutor a business major in Calculus? I have. He can insist to me all day long that what is being presented to him is unintelligle, but perhaps the problem isn’t in what is being revealed to him, but instead the problem has much to do with his own intellect and will, or other such impediments to learning what is easily knowable to others.

Don’t expect us to believe that just because you don’t understand it, that it necessarily means that the evidence is neither present nor knowable. That’s as absurd as the business student who insisted the Calculus was unknowable.

As a matter of fact, I have been teaching and tutoring math (all branches of it) for over 25 years. I met all kinds of students, from brilliantly smart to very mediocre, and a few outright stupid. I could find a way to teach ALL of them what they needed to learn. Yep, there are no stupid students, only lousy teachers.

 

[Hitetlen]

BillP:

I believe the OP’s issue was with that very construct. We are in effect given “free will” but only for a limited time, in fact the instant that conclusive proof is available that free will is taken away. Why would God choose to operate in this fashion is the question of the OP. And I believe its a very good question.

Thank you for your understanding.

 

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

Except that believers assert that choices do NOT have to have consequences: the worst kind of monster can gain total forgiveness if he repents on his death bed. Only certain types of choices have unalterable consequences, the ones which do not hurt anyone, except God’s obviously fragile ego. God does not mind that some people follow his path, and kill, maim and rape other humans, those are OK, if the perp repents. But to listen to reason and discard ancient superstition - now that is unforgivable! You know, the picture you guys paint about God is simply ridiculuous.

as i said before you are the only one here playing God. And you are going too fast, my friend! answering one post per minute!
“the worst kind of monster can gain total forgiveness if he repents on his death bed”
and that is precisely God’s mercy!
“the ones which do not hurt anyone, except God’s obviously fragile ego”
they hurt themselves. I know you do not understand this but… talking about God’s fragile ego, when God incarnated to save man!
“those are OK, if the perp repents” if regret is necessary means that those are NOT OK.
“But to listen to reason and discard ancient superstition - now that is unforgivable!”
the problem is that you are not listening to reason, you are denying reason.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Hitetlen:

Not at the same time! The word “just” means that the punishment must be commensurate to the deed. The word “merciful” means that there is no punsihment, or the punishment is less than what the deed should carry. If the deed needs exactly three slaps on the wrist, and the father does exactly tree, he was just. If he delivers only two, or one or none, he was merciful. If he beats the kid to death, he is playing God…

Yes, and the punishment commensurate with sin is everlasting torment. But even those in hell are shown mercy, as some will only suffer from eternal separation from God, but in a sense that is even greater blissfulness than can be experienced on earth. Others will suffer punishment of pain and suffering, what we call “torment” of hell, which is commensurate with their wickedness and mercilessness.

Mercy can mean what you state, but it also means “feel sorry for,” “pity” and “sympathy.” It comes from the Latin word merces which means literally “price paid” or “recompense.” Your narrow sense is just that, narrow. I can have pity or sympathy for my son whom I punish justly, where the punishment is and remains congruent with the offense. Mercy need not mean that the punishment they fully pay is not the precise punishment that justice demands.

God shows mercy to all those who show mercy to others, and only those who commit voluntary fault will suffer torment for their wickedness. But to those who do not show mercy, God shows none (cf. James 2:13). Thus, God shows mercy to all except the merciless, but He is always just. Justice and mercy are not incompatible as you erroneously claim.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Hitetlen:

Except that believers assert that choices do NOT have to have consequences: the worst kind of monster can gain total forgiveness if he repents on his death bed.

Catholic believers teach that every penny shall be paid (cf. Matt 5:26). It’s called penance. We can indeed be forgiven by God if that is His Will, but *penance shall be paid. *For example, if my son deliberately breaks his sister’s toy, his sister may ultimately forgive him if he is sincerely sorry for his act, but the boy will make satisfaction for his wrongdoing (penance). King David in Sacred Scritpure was forgiven by God for his sins, but immediately suffered great punishment for his sin.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Yep, there are no stupid students, only lousy teachers.

Nice slogan, but that’s all it really is. If you’re willing to delude yourself into thinking that every student can understand everything, then I can see why our education system is in the mess that it is in, passing kids just cuz they tried real hard, but can only do single-digit math at best when they leave HS.

I suggest you have barriers to understanding that you are too stubborn to admit. Until you break those barriers down, you won’t ever come to know what others have come to know about God.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… belief in a god does not rely on proof or evidence, it relies on faith. Not the same thing.

I disagree. Albert Einstein believed in a god based upon the evidence. Many number of nobel-prize winning scientist also belive in a god, not because of faith, but because they see evidence in nature which makes the existence of a god the most probable conclusion.

If you read the Bible, even the demons believe in Jesus, but they don’t have faith in Him. So belief in the sense that one intellectually assents to the existence of a god is not dependent upon supernatural faith.

 

[Hitetlen]

“the worst kind of monster can gain total forgiveness if he repents on his death bed”
and that is precisely God’s mercy!

And that mercy stops at the arbitrary moment of death, when everyone would have actual proof of God’s existence. You know: “infinite mercy” does not end.

“the ones which do not hurt anyone, except God’s obviously fragile ego”
they hurt themselves. I know you do not understand this but… talking about God’s fragile ego, when God incarnated to save man!

To “save” them, from what? Himself? The hell he created for them?

“those are OK, if the perp repents” if regret is necessary means that those are NOT OK.
“But to listen to reason and discard ancient superstition - now that is unforgivable!”
the problem is that you are not listening to reason, you are denying reason.

That is deep Me denying reason

 

[Hitetlen]

itsjustdave1988:

Yes, and the punishment commensurate with sin is everlasting torment.

By what standard? Not mine for sure. Everlasting torment for finite deeds is out of proportion by any sane standard.

itsjustdave1988:

But even those in hell are shown mercy, as some will only suffer from eternal separation from God, but in a sense that is even greater blissfulness than can be experienced on earth. Others will suffer punishment of pain and suffering, what we call “torment” of hell, which is commensurate with their wickedness and mercilessness.

Have you been there to speak with such authority about it?

itsjustdave1988:

Mercy can mean what you state, but it also means “feel sorry for,” “pity” and “sympathy.” It comes from the Latin word merces which means literally “price paid” or “recompense.” Your narrow sense is just that, narrow. I can have pity or sympathy for my son whom I punish justly, where the punishment is and remains congruent with the offense. Mercy need not mean that the punishment they fully pay is not the precise punishment that justice demands.

Are you playing word games? Justice: eternal punishment for finite “sins”? Now mercy does not really mean what it means?

itsjustdave1988:

God shows mercy to all those who show mercy to others, and only those who commit voluntary fault will suffer torment for their wickedness. But to those who do not show mercy, God shows none (cf. James 2:13). Thus, God shows mercy to all except the merciless, but He is always just. Justice and mercy are not incompatible as you erroneously claim.

If that is the case then I am home scot-free. I never tortured anyone, tried to be helpful and loving. As a matter of fact, I am very much amused that those who are not aware of my atheism actually belive that I am a devout Christian, based upon my behavior toward others, and those who find it out are really, really shocked at the revelation.

 

[Hitetlen]

itsjustdave1988:

Nice slogan, but that’s all it really is. If you’re willing to delude yourself into thinking that every student can understand everything, then I can see why our education system is in the mess that it is in, passing kids just cuz they tried real hard, but can only do single-digit math at best when they leave HS.

I did not say that “everyone” is capable of learning “everything”. But based upon my not negligible experience, an average person can learn pretty much even the most complicated subject, IF they are willing to learn. I am always willing to learn, and my capabilities are far higher than average - even though I say it myself. (Yes, pride is one of the deadly sins… so be it.)

itsjustdave1988:

I suggest you have barriers to understanding that you are too stubborn to admit. Until you break those barriers down, you won’t ever come to know what others have come to know about God.

No kidding? What barriers? My lack of faith?

 

[Hitetlen]

itsjustdave1988:

I disagree. Albert Einstein believed in a god based upon the evidence. Many number of nobel-prize winning scientist also belive in a god, not because of faith, but because they see evidence in nature which makes the existence of a god the most probable conclusion.

Einstein did NOT believe in God, his famous quote notwithstanding. I don’t deny that many many, extremely talented people did believe in God, but that is neither here nor there. They believed on faith, and they projected their faith into nature, a common behaviour. But it is interesting to observe that most of them (maybe not all) projected their faith into OTHER disciplines, not the one in which they excelled. And if you wish to apply to numbers, how come that 90+ percent of all scientists are atheists?

itsjustdave1988:

If you read the Bible, even the demons believe in Jesus, but they don’t have faith in Him. So belief in the sense that one intellectually assents to the existence of a god is not dependent upon supernatural faith.

No, the “demons” (another unsupported superstition!) KNOW Jesus. One does not beleive in what one KNOWS. Knowledge and belief are mutually exclusive.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Hitetlen:

On the other hand, you can lead a very loving altruistic life without believing in God, and when you are finally given evidence, your whole previous life does not matter any more; off you go into eternal damnation. This is horribly unfair and unjust.

Firstly, according to “the theology” God gives sufficient grace to every person such that they can attain eternal life in heaven. God sufficiently (although not completely or perfectly) reveals himself and His will to every human being. Although each person receives certain gifts from God, sufficient to attain everlasting life in heaven, not all gifts are equal. However, those with more gifts are judged more severely than those with less gifts. In math terms, the “judgment-to-gifts” ratio is exactly the same. As such, the judgment is perfectly fair, even if one person has greater gifts and knowledge of God than another.

Secondly, those who hypothetically live “loving lives” but do not believe in God would only die in original sin. They commit a sin of omission insofar as they reject the grace God gave them to be believers and to become one with Him. Yet, according to “the theology” those who die in only original sin suffer from eternal separation from the Vision of God, but live a blissful existence that is of a greater happiness than what can be experienced on earth.

Thirdly, one who “does not believe” may suffer from invincible ignorance, but sincerely observe what God has revealed in their hearts. Thus, “the theology” teaches…

There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal torments. (Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore)

That is, those who through no fault of their own do not appear to be a believer in our eyes, may indeed be a believer in the eyes of God, said to belong to the Church in “soul” if not visibly in “body.”

It appears to me that you understand very little of “the theology.”

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Hitetlen:

I did not say that “everyone” is capable of learning “everything”. But based upon my not negligible experience, an average person can learn pretty much even the most complicated subject, IF they are willing to learn. I am always willing to learn, and my capabilities are far higher than average - even though I say it myself. (Yes, pride is one of the deadly sins… so be it.)

No kidding? What barriers? My lack of faith?

No lack of charity intended, but you don’t seem too me to be very knowledgeable of the theology you seem to reject. Based upon the limited evidence before us, you don’t even seem to have higher than average capabilities. You may be very good at math, but your knowledge of “the theology” is clearly deficient.

You may disagree, but I don’t share the confidence in your capabilties that you do. Your lack of belief is not due to a lack of gifts given to you. It is possible that you simply lack the intellect or are simply lazy, and that’s why you lack knowledge of “the theology” of God. It could be that your pride keeps you from admitting that you were wrong about “the theology” that you oppose.