Free will revisited

[Hitetlen]

itsjustdave1988:

I didn’t say there are proofs of God’s existence in the strict sense of the word. Instead, there’s “actual knowledge” of God’s existence in the form of converging and convincing evidence which equates to a “preponderance of evidence” sufficient and reasonable to believe. Your nonsensical rejection of any evidence other than that which you experience personally severely limits your ability to attain knowledge of any sort, let alone knowledge about God. I suggest you don’t actually follow this epistemology, but only profess it for polemical reasons.

So I suggest you look beyond only that which is experimentally provable. There are some things we’ve come to know through science that cannot be experimentally proven, as for example, some experiments would require a particle accelorator the size of the earth. No funding seems available for that experiment.

Nontheless, we have scientific postulate which are reasonable based upon a preponderance of evidence. For example, everything which has a beginning, has a cause. We cannot prove this experimentally. However, we can infer this based upon what we do see come into existence.

Since scientists assert evidence that supports the conclusion that the universe has a beginning, then it appears that it has a cause, and that cause is external to the universe.

I am aware of this line of reasoning. You call it convincing, I do not. It incorporates the fallacy of “popular induction”, meaning that “since all the elements of the universe need a cause outside itself, therefore the universe itself also needs a cause outside itself.”

The concept that attributes of the elements can be transferred to the set which contains those elements is simply false. Just one example: the elements: “humans”; the attribute: “having a mother”; the aggregate (or set): “humanity”. True statement: “every human has a mother”. False induction: “therefore humanity has a mother”.

I am not saying that there are no examples where the set of elements share an attribute with the elements, it happens under certain circumstances. But your “prepondarance of evidence” assumes that this is a generic phenomenon, that every set of elements has an attribute which can be derived from the attribute shared by the elements. And this is simply false! So your “evidence” is worthless.

itsjustdave1988:

Nobel-prize winning Physicist Arno Penzias*,* for example, wrote: “Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.” (Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 83.)

This is just one of many converging clues to the existence of God.

As for the universe being especially “friendly” to life, that is simply a joke. The universe is very hostile to life, we need a very narrow range of parameters, which are hospitable to life. Now some people who wish to shoehorn this into a “miraculous” event, saying that it required a supernatural intervention to allow for this to happen. (Observe, that this is actually the opposite of what you quoted.) This is nonsense. How would they know it? This is simply the “God of the gaps” in disguise: “we don’t know how a specific occurrence happened, therefore it must have a supernatural explanation”. Bah, humbug!

Now, if you are intellectually honest, try to explain how the word “love” can be attributed to God, all the contrary evidence notwithstanding. What does the word “love” mean in this respect?

 

[Hitetlen]

itsjustdave1988:

LOL!!! You are aware, I hope, that the Catholic Church was teaching its doctrines about God even before the English words we now use even existed, right?

If the modern word “mercy” derives from the Latin word merces for example, then I’m thinking the LATINS know what they meant by that word even before the English word existed which derived from it.

I think then, it is reasonable to conclude that the “stolen concept” is the latter concept, not the former, which indeed predated the English language.

Nonetheless, Merriam-Webster lists several meanings of “mercy” and the usage I’ve presented is in accord with current general and more broad usage, your insistence upon only a narrow usage notwithstanding.

OK, let’s see the Webster:

Main Entry: mer·cy [](http://javascriptopWin(’/cgi-bin/audio.pl?mercy001.wav=mercy’))
Pronunciation: 'm&r-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural mercies
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French *merci, *from Medieval Latin *merced-, merces, *from Latin, price paid, wages, from *merc-, merx *merchandise
1 a : compassion or forbearance shown especially to an offender or to one subject to one’s power; also : lenient or compassionate treatment <begged for mercy> b : imprisonment rather than death imposed as penalty for first-degree murder
2 a : a blessing that is an act of divine favor or compassion b : a fortunate circumstance <it was a mercy they found her before she froze>
3 : compassionate treatment of those in distress <works of mercy among the poor>

• mercy adjective
• at the mercy of : wholly in the power of : with no way to protect oneself against
  synonyms MERCY, CHARITY, CLEMENCY, GRACE, LENIENCY mean a disposition to show kindness or compassion. MERCY implies compassion that forbears punishing even when justice demands it <threw himself on the *mercy *of the court>. CHARITY stresses benevolence and goodwill shown in broad understanding and tolerance of others <show a little *charity *for the less fortunate>. CLEMENCY implies a mild or merciful disposition in one having the power or duty of punishing <the judge refused to show clemency>. GRACE implies a benign attitude and a willingness to grant favors or make concessions <by the *grace *of God>. LENIENCY implies lack of severity in punishing <criticized the courts for excessive leniency>.

As you can see, the preponderance of usage pertains to the meaning “clemency” and “leniency”, so my interpretation is hardly “narrow”.

 

[Hitetlen]

this is a bogus quote (go down to “Tertullian.”).

Yes, some apologists try to whitewash the hostility of religion toward reason. So what is new? Admittedly Luther was not a Catholic, but his famous utterances show this: “Faith must trample all reason underfoot” and “Reason must be made the handmaiden of faith”.

You are right, I misquoted Tertullian’s phrase, here is the original:

Tertullian (*de Carne Christi *5): ‘Natus est Dei Filius: non pudet quia pudendum est; et mortuus est Dei Filius: prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est; et sepultus resurrexit: certum est, quia impossibile.’,

but the intent is clear: "some stories are so incerdible, that their improbability is actually evidence in their favor, because no one would “invent” them. And of course this reasoning is absurd.

 

[Hitetlen]

svoboda:

I guess it depends on how you define God. If you’re a pantheist as I am, there is plenty of evidence.

Pantheism is a different approach altogether.

 

[Hitetlen]

doomhammer:

James 4, 6: “God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.”
Galatians 6, 3: “For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he is deluding himself.”
Proverbs 16, 18: “Pride goes before disaster, and a haughty spirit before a fall.”
Isaiah 14, 13-15: “You said in your heart: “I will scale the heavens; Above the stars of God I will set up my throne; I will take my seat on the Mount of Assembly, in the recesses of the North. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will be like the Most High!” Yet down to the nether world you go to the recesses of the pit!”.
You are a perfect candidate for Hell (with your all free will!)! Cheers???

So what is new? Actually, I consider this one of the most damaging doctrine of Christinity, trying to take away the just pride for one’s accomplishments and demote everyone to be a shivering, scared individual.

 

[Hitetlen]

svoboda:

Hope I won’t repeat things I haven’t read in the thread:

Catholics believe that the all knowing God knows what every human being will choose in terms of heaven and hell.

If this is the case, then it means that the all-knowing and supposedly all-good Creator created most of us (are you familiar with the wide-way/narrow-way verses from the bible?) knowing that we’d end up in hell. Why not create only those he knows in advance will freely choose heaven?

In addition, God is supposed to be all-just, but is it justice to condemn to hell people who commit finite offenses. Infinite punishment for finite sin is not just.

The idea that finite offenses merit infinite punishment because they offend and infinite God or infinite good. But this doesn’t make sense, because venial sins also offend an infinite God/good, and yet they don’t merit infinite punishment. Plus, the fact that an infinite being is offended doesn’t make the offense itself infinite. Finite, limited beings should not be able to commit infinite offenses.

The idea that hell is really a choice that we make when we reject God. The “chief punishment” of hell is the eternal separation from God (who really loves us and wishes you wanted to be with him).

But this is again a paradox because here on earth we enjoy an existence without God, many atheists actively reject God and want nothing to do with any kind of a creator. If God is good then as I see it nothing would prevent him from allowing those who “reject” him for an ETERNITY to live the way we live here on earth. If I were God, I might even create an interesting/exciting world for those who “reject” me to explore.

I think most people could be very happy by simply having relationships with each other, learning, creating, sharing etc. There is no need for the whole fire and gnashing of teeth business.

I agree with your analysis!

 

[john_doran]

Hitetlen:

I am not saying that there are no examples where the set of elements share an attribute with the elements, it happens under certain circumstances. But your “prepondarance of evidence” assumes that this is a generic phenomenon, that every set of elements has an attribute which can be derived from the attribute shared by the elements. And this is simply false! So your “evidence” is worthless.

this isn’t right: since compositional deductions aren’t always false (e.g. every brick in the wall is stone; therefore the wall is stone), all he needs is for the one example to work - if the universe and the things in it are like the wall and the bricks, then the argument goes through.

why would you think that the kind of first cause arguments you’re referring to require all compositional deductions to work?

 

[Neithan]

svoboda:

If this is the case, then it means that the all-knowing and supposedly all-good Creator created most of us (are you familiar with the wide-way/narrow-way verses from the bible?) knowing that we’d end up in hell. Why not create only those he knows in advance will freely choose heaven?

Firstly, the verse where Jesus says that the gate is narrow and few are those who find it (Matthew 7:14): if you were a father and had twelve children, but a couple of them died in a car accident, wouldn’t you feel that the remaining ten were ‘too few’? God is a loving Father, and losing even one soul is a great tragedy–even if the majority go to heaven, that is ‘few’ for Him. This is how it should be understood.

Secondly, God does not know what we are going to do before He creates us. Think about this logically–this is impossible. Keep in mind however, that creation for God is a simultaneous event–He is outside time and space, *transcendent. *Also keep in mind that He is immutable, He cannot change.
So–at the moment in time when God creates us, He then knows exactly what we will do, and where we will end up; but He has already created us, and therefore will not change His mind.
Here is how the Catholic Encyclopedia says it:

First, it is asked why God, foreseeing that his creatures would use the gift of free will for their own injury, did not either abstain from creating them, or in some way safeguard their free will from misuse, or else deny them the gift altogether? St. Thomas replies (C. G., II, xxviii) that God cannot change His mind, since the Divine will is free from the defect of weakness or mutability. Such mutability would, it should be remarked, be a defect in the Divine nature (and therefore impossible), because if God’s purpose were made dependent on the foreseen free act of any creature, God would thereby sacrifice His own freedom, and would submit Himself to His creatures, thus abdicating His essential supremacy–a thing which is, of course, utterly inconceivable.

(Continued)

 

[Neithan]

svoboda:

The idea that finite offenses merit infinite punishment because they offend and infinite God or infinite good. But this doesn’t make sense, because venial sins also offend an infinite God/good, and yet they don’t merit infinite punishment. Plus, the fact that an infinite being is offended doesn’t make the offense itself infinite. Finite, limited beings should not be able to commit infinite offenses.

Venial sins do not merit infinite punishment because they do not break the relationship with God. Mortal sins are deliberate decisions which turn a soul 180 degrees away from its Creator–thus the requisite punishment is an existence in such a state for eternity, because the moment in which the decision is made is an eternal one.
When you die, you do not lose your free will–but the fact that you are taken out of time and space renders the state of your soul eternal. So if you die in a state of mortal sin–where you have decided fully against the dictates of Natural Law–you will not change your mind.
There are a vast array of differing theological opinions as to the exact nature of the punishment in Hell. As I already mentioned, some say that it may simply be the love of God which is abhorrent to the damned. It could also be the permanent unfulfillment of disordered desires, for example some sort of perversion etc. Who knows. What we do know is that souls who are in hell do not want to be in heaven.
Btw, we are only ‘finite’ and limited with regard to time in that we have a beginning but no end. Likewise, our punishment in hell will have a beginning, but no end. So it is rightly suited to our being. It is in fact a consequence of our natural aeveternal existence that heaven and hell are forever.

But this is again a paradox because here on earth we enjoy an existence without God, many atheists actively reject God and want nothing to do with any kind of a creator. If God is good then as I see it nothing would prevent him from allowing those who “reject” him for an ETERNITY to live the way we live here on earth.

The premise is false. God is present on the earth and everyone experiences Him, whether they beleive so or not. The Holy Spirit acts on all souls–even the unjust–and every truly good act is the result of a soul cooperating with grace (God’s relationship to Man). In fact *all *Good is an experience of God–even the simple pleasures of nature (God’s ‘fingerprints’). Hell is the state of a soul absolutely devoid of all goodness (and therefore pleasure).

I think most people could be very happy by simply having relationships with each other, learning, creating, sharing etc. There is no need for the whole fire and gnashing of teeth business.

All human happiness results from an experience of some Good–which requires God.
The existence of hell is a logical consequence of the existence of heaven. If one beleives that there exists a place wherein human happiness is absolutely fulfilled forever (I think the Argument from Desire is a good one), then there *must *exist a place where human happiness is absolutely void, forever. Every positive absolute, has an absolute negative. For every good, there is a lack of that good. If there is a place with absolute good, there must be a place with absolute lack of good (i.e. evil).
A worldview with a heaven and no hell is a worldview of impotent justice.

 

[Hitetlen]

john doran:

this isn’t right: since compositional deductions aren’t always false (e.g. every brick in the wall is stone; therefore the wall is stone), all he needs is for the one example to work - if the universe and the things in it are like the wall and the bricks, then the argument goes through.

why would you think that the kind of first cause arguments you’re referring to require all compositional deductions to work?

Actually it goes the other way round. Since not all compositional entities inherit the attributes from their members, one only needs ONE counter-example to prove that if the argument is based ONLY on composition, it is fallacious.

What is needed here is a specific argument for your “if” statement: “if the universe and the things in it are like the wall and the bricks, then the argument goes through” - and that is precisely what is missing.

 

[john_doran]

Hitetlen:

Actually it goes the other way round. Since not all compositional entities inherit the attributes from their members, one only needs ONE counter-example to prove that if the argument is based ONLY on composition, it is fallacious.

untrue: the only way one example of compositional fallaciousness would demonstrate anything to be false would be if the claim was that every compositional argument works. but that’s not the argument at all.

Hitetlen:

What is needed here is a specific argument for your “if” statement: “if the universe and the things in it are like the wall and the bricks, then the argument goes through” - and that is precisely what is missing.

no. what’s needed here is some demonstration from you that the universe and everything in it is more like humans and parents than it is like bricks and walls.

 

[Hitetlen]

john doran:

untrue: the only way one example of compositional fallaciousness would demonstrate anything to be false would be if the claim was that every compositional argument works. but that’s not the argument at all.

I never said otherwise. To reiterate: if an argument is based ONLY on composition, it is fallacious.
john doran:

no. what’s needed here is some demonstration from you that the universe and everything in it is more like humans and parents than it is like bricks and walls.

You gotta be kidding me. I did not propose anything as a proof or argument. The onus is on the one who proposes, not on the one who asks for proof. I never thought that such an obvious requirement is up for dispute.

But even if the proponents COULD prove that the universe needs a “cause”, it would not help them to establish that this cause actually equals the God of Christianity. It could be an impersonal “cause”, or a causative agent, who is not around any more.

To go on: there is no direct proof or evidence for God. At best I see such circumstantial “evidence” - and insofar all I saw were fallacious. And as all prosecutors will attest, a truckload of circumstantial evidence is not worth a grain of direct evidence. So to refer back to the old commercial: “Where is the beef?”

 

[thistle]

Hitetlen:

To go on: there is no direct proof or evidence for God. ?"

Here we go again. Same old broken record!!

 

[john_doran]

Hitetlen:

I never said otherwise. To reiterate: if an argument is based ONLY on composition, it is fallacious.

i don’t know what this means.

Hitetlen:

You gotta be kidding me. I did not propose anything as a proof or argument. The onus is on the one who proposes, not on the one who asks for proof. I never thought that such an obvious requirement is up for dispute.

it’s up to both, actually - anyone making an affirmation.

and you affirm that you believe that the first cause argument commits the compositional fallacy. i’m asking you to show how.
Hitleten:

But even if the proponents COULD prove that the universe needs a “cause”, it would not help them to establish that this cause actually equals the God of Christianity. It could be an impersonal “cause”, or a causative agent, who is not around any more.

not entirely true: first cause arguments succeed (if they succeed) in demonstrating the existence of a being that exists necessarily. also, a little subsequent reasoning gets you to personal and intelligent…

you’re right, though, that you can’t get the god of christianity out of the cosmological argument, though. but so what? you can’t learn how to do heart surgery by studying quantum cosmology, either.
Hitleten:

To go on: there is no direct proof or evidence for God.

what do you mean, “direct”?
Hitleten:

At best I see such circumstantial “evidence” - and insofar all I saw were fallacious. And as all prosecutors will attest, a truckload of circumstantial evidence is not worth a grain of direct evidence.

that may be true, but there are many reasonable beliefs that are based on circumstantial evidence.

 

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

I agree with your analysis!

How touching! What an inspiring view! The enemies of the True Faith, Atheism and Pantheism, allied!

 

[doomhammer]

“Where is the beef?”

What we have so far? According to our friend, the Holy Scriptures are nonsense; the Holy Magisterium of the Church is nonsense, the teachings of the greatest Greek philosophers, is also nonsense; and so the testimony of modern scientists, not to mention billions of “common people” that reasonable profess the belief in One God. Of course, the lives of saints, martyrs, and many others who testified with their lives God’s mercy and justice, is more nonsense. That’s OK.
But, as a matter of fact, as I stated before, “All atheists believe in God when they die”. It’s too late to accept God. At that moment you are also going to realize all the lost chances you had to accept and recognize God during lifetime. Departing to hell, do not blame God because of that. Because you rejected God, now God is rejecting you. Maybe you can try your word games with God, but in my humble opinion, it won’t work…

 

[Hitetlen]

john doran:

i don’t know what this means.

Simply that the fallacy of composition is based upon the argument that the composed entity always or necessarily inherits the attributes of its members. Once this is proven incorrect in the general sense, whoever wishes to use this argument must establish, that in that particular example the composite does inherit the necessary attribute.
john doran:

it’s up to both, actually - anyone making an affirmation.

and you affirm that you believe that the first cause argument commits the compositional fallacy. i’m asking you to show how.

Not exactly, the first cause argument in its basic, undiluted form runs as this: “In the universe everything forms a cause-effect pair of relationship. Therefore, the universe also needs a causational agent for it to exist”. This is a fallacy of composition and the error is the bold-faced printed word: “therefore”. If the person who wishes to employ this argument wants to avoid the fallacy, he or she must establish that the composite entity actually DOES inherit this attribute in this instance. I do not argue that God does NOT exist, the proponent argues that God does exist - and wishes to establish an argument based upon the first cause. I am under no obligation to prove a negative.

Furthermore, it is not certain that even within the universe every occurence needs a causative agent. It has been observed that matter-antimatter particles “hop” into existence (usually mutually annihilated soon afterwards) which do not seem to have a cause for this occurrence. So we have to tread the water carefully: in order for the “first cause” argument to work, the proponent has to establish that in the universe everything MUST have a causative factor. And that does not seem likely.
john doran:

not entirely true: first cause arguments succeed (if they succeed) in demonstrating the existence of a being that exists necessarily. also, a little subsequent reasoning gets you to personal and intelligent…

No way. It would only prove that there was an agent, which was responsible as a causative agent, nothing more. “Its” or “his” continued existence is not a corollary of this alleged fact. The concept of “necessary” existence does not come into the picture at all.

It is another possible hypothesis that the universe keeps on expanding-collapsing in a cyclical fashion. This hypothesis cannot be substantiated (according to our current level of knowledge, of course), since nothing could survive the collapsing period.
john doran:

you’re right, though, that you can’t get the god of christianity out of the cosmological argument, though. but so what? you can’t learn how to do heart surgery by studying quantum cosmology, either.

Indeed, but don’t the proponents try to establish the existence of that particular God? A generic “run-of-the-mill” god would not be a good substitute, would it?
john doran:

what do you mean, “direct”?

“Direct” as opposed to “circumstantial” evidence.
john doran:

that may be true, but there are many reasonable beliefs that are based on circumstantial evidence.

For sure, with the provision that we always keep the possibility open that the circumstantial evidence can be misleading and we are always ready for correction if it is proven incorrect.

But I have to point out that this method is mainly used in criminology, and we all know that many times it fails, and innocent people are convicted on misleading or incorrectly interpreted circumstantial evidence. We have to be aware that sometimes even personal “eyewitness” accounts are suspect; it happened that people we convicted on “evidence” supplied by eyewitnesses, who simply lied to have a convenient scapegoat for the crime THEY committed.

 

[Hitetlen]

doomhammer:

How touching! What an inspiring view! The enemies of the True Faith, Atheism and Pantheism, allied!

Enemies? I am not hostile to the “true faith”, but I like to acknowledge a good line of reasoning when I see one. If I could agree with your line of reasoning, I would praise you, too. Try it.

 

[Hitetlen]

doomhammer:

What we have so far? According to our friend, the Holy Scriptures are nonsense; the Holy Magisterium of the Church is nonsense, the teachings of the greatest Greek philosophers, is also nonsense; and so the testimony of modern scientists, not to mention billions of “common people” that reasonable profess the belief in One God. Of course, the lives of saints, martyrs, and many others who testified with their lives God’s mercy and justice, is more nonsense. That’s OK.

Nope, testimonial evidence in and by itself just does not cut it. If the testimonials can be affirmed by personally conducting the necessary experiment, the testimonials lose their significance. If they cannot be confirmed they remain unsupported assertions, not to be taken seriously.

doomhammer:

But, as a matter of fact, as I stated before, “All atheists believe in God when they die”.

That remains to be seen. Nobody came back yet to “prove” it.

doomhammer:

It’s too late to accept God.

The original question of this thread (which seems to have deteriorated beyond recognition: FUBAR is the word) was precisely aimed at this question, and most posters avoid answering it.

doomhammer:

At that moment you are also going to realize all the lost chances you had to accept and recognize God during lifetime. Departing to hell, do not blame God because of that. Because you rejected God, now God is rejecting you. Maybe you can try your word games with God, but in my humble opinion, it won’t work…

I bet they will work. First, I do not “reject” God, I simply do not believe that such an entity exists. And since beliefs or lacks of beliefs are not under volitional control, my lack of belief is not something that I can change. If God is truly just (and I do not appeal to his mercy either) he cannot kick me into hell for something I am unable to influence, which is not my fault.

Indeed, I could play the “game”, join the church, go to mass, pray to God, but all that would be a real farce if I am unable to believe in all that. Do you think that God is interested in the appearances; he would be delighted to see me lie and pretend, rather than being up-front and straightforward about it? In my opinion your view of God is much more degrading to him than my simple disbelief.

 

[john_doran]

Hitetlen:

Simply that the fallacy of composition is based upon the argument that the composed entity always or necessarily inherits the attributes of its members. Once this is proven incorrect in the general sense, whoever wishes to use this argument must establish, that in that particular example the composite does inherit the necessary attribute.

ok: the universe is like a brick wall, and just as “every brick in the wall is stone; therefore the wall is stone” is sound reasoning, so is “everything in the universe is caused; therefore the universe is caused”.

Hitetlen:

Not exactly, the first cause argument in its basic, undiluted form runs as this: “In the universe everything forms a cause-effect pair of relationship. Therefore, the universe also needs a causational agent for it to exist”. This is a fallacy of composition and the error is the bold-faced printed word: “therefore”.

look, i know you think it’s the fallacy of composition, but it seems as though you’re drawing that conclusion as a matter of formal entailment, i.e. it’s fallacious because every argument of that form is fallacious (just as denying the antecedent is formally fallacious). but, again, this just isn’t true.

every part of the balloon is blue. Therefore the balloon is blue.

Hitetlen:

If the person who wishes to employ this argument wants to avoid the fallacy, he or she must establish that the composite entity actually DOES inherit this attribute in this instance. I do not argue that God does NOT exist, the proponent argues that God does exist - and wishes to establish an argument based upon the first cause. I am under no obligation to prove a negative.

you are under an obligation to prove that the argument makes the compositional fallacy, since not all compositional arguments are fallacious.

if you think this one is false, show how it’s false, since it’s certainly not formally invalid.

Hitetlen:

Furthermore, it is not certain that even within the universe every occurence needs a causative agent. It has been observed that matter-antimatter particles “hop” into existence (usually mutually annihilated soon afterwards) which do not seem to have a cause for this occurrence. So we have to tread the water carefully: in order for the “first cause” argument to work, the proponent has to establish that in the universe everything MUST have a causative factor. And that does not seem likely.

the interpretations of quantum mechanics that posit acausal events are far, far less certain than the principle of causality. and since there are other interpretations of the data that do not involve such a radical departure from common sense (i.e. hidden variables theories), there is no good reason to doubt the causal principle based on some recondite philosophy of science.