B
- Status
S
Spock
Guest
Based upon your previous post I was hoping that you realize just how bogus your “free will” defense is. Apparently not. So keep on reading, I do not want to make the same argument twice.
We are all “brainwashed” from our birth. We are brainwashed by our parents, when they teach us how to behave, we are brainwashed by our teachers when they teach us values. You call this process “brainwashing” in a condescending manner, I call it teaching, educating, instilling good values. Whatever. The word is irrelevant. That is how everyone would have good attitude - if God refused to do it in the first place.
I am happy to tell you that my parents did a wonderful job of “brainwashing” in my case. It is almost “automatic” that I jump up and pass my seat on the bus when I see an elderly person - even though I am already 63 years old. I refuse to take advantage of a cashier’s error if she errs in my favor. It is almost an “automatic” response to give back the money she erroneously gave to me. Mind you, my free will is not impaired. I could stay seated and I could just pocket the money, if I wanted to. I simply do not want to, because the manners I learned in my childhood. And I am most capable of love. So there!
The feeling of being robbed will not be erased, will it? I can assure you, it is most unpleasant. Our house was burglarized once, even though nothing valuable was stolen. But the feeling of being “violated” still persists after many years.
And of course I am just itching to hear what kind of “amends” will you come up with when it comes to rape, torture and murder… how can these be “rectified”? By putting a flower on the victim’s grave? Be as specific as you want to.
You got the second part right.
Would they be really? There would be a whole world of art to be discovered, music to enjoy, books to read, games to play, travels to take, children to educate, having a good time with your friends or strangers. (True, there would be no enemies… but who would miss them?) And of course you could choose to learn new skills (“brainwashing” again!) and learn to create new pieces of art. Only dumb people are ever bored! There would be plenty of choices, choosing which symphony to enjoy, which play to see, which book to read, what game to play, which part of the wonderful world to visit. There would be no fear of hunger, rather a plethora of good foods to choose from, there would be no fear of walking at night in any neighborhood, there would ne no need to install locks on your door. I for one would not miss the daily statistics of murders and rapes. Would you?
We all could exercise our free will in infinitely many ways. If you guys still cannot understand it, then this conversation is over. I don’t want to waste my time to teach those who refuse to learn out of sheer stubbornness.
T
tonyrey
Guest
You are distorting the meaning of “brainwashing”. You have not been created **totally incapable **of harming anyone or allowing them to suffer as a result of your selfishness and indifference.
No society has ever worked under the principle that everyone should be brainwashed into doing what the State or an individual like yourself considers to be right.
You are capable of love because you have free will. You were not compelled to love. It was not a decision over which you had no control. If it was, you were not responsible for it and you are just a puppet. If you were deprived of your freedom to choose whom to love you would be the first to complain! You take your free will for granted but you cannot even explain how it exists…
Not by altering people’s brain processes and producing saints by genetic manipulation - but you obviously advocate that policy if you believe God should have done it…
You stated that injustice can never be rectified. I have refuted your statement with my example. I did not state that all injustice is rectified…
. You have forgotten to explain how in your Utopia there is no frustration, pain, misery or failure of any description… It sounds more like a fool’s paradise.
S
Spock
Guest
And guess what, the “brainwashing” I received was sufficient. You stated that in a society of good people there would be no free will. Do you still maintain it?
No one can. Free will is just a plausible assumption. It may not even exist.
Only because our technology is not sufficiently advanced.
Your example was deficient, because it did not restore the state of affairs as it has been. By the same token you could have argued that a rape victim has received ample restoration by surgically restoring her hymen and given a heartfelt apology. The psychological harm done by rape and by being robbed are not on the same magnitude, but both exist, and neither one can be erased. The rectification you suggested is superficial, and as such, unacceptable.
Ah, but there could be failure and frustration. In a game there will be winners and losers. The losers would feel frustrated. But since it is just a game, they could get over it. Pain, no. The arrangement of the world would prevent accidents, diseases, decay, etc… The world I am describing is perfectly feasible (since it contains no logical contradiction) and we try to build such a world. Since we are not omnipotent, we cannot hope to achieve it, but nevertheless we try get closer to it. We are eliminating diseases - as much as we can. We try to improve on the living conditions - as much as we can. It is hilarious how you guys try to argue for the existence of everything that we try to fight against, and what will not be in heaven, if such a place existed…You have forgotten to explain how in your Utopia there is no frustration, pain, misery or failure of any description… It sounds more like a fool’s paradise.
Any more “arguments”?
S
Spock
Guest
By the way… all of you neglected ro reflect on the fact that if you know that a crime will be committed, have the power to prevent it, and fail to do so, then you will be an accomplice and just as guilty as the perpetrator himself. The “defense” that you respected the would-be criminal’s free will “out of love” will not be accepted by any jury. Why don’t you try a better defense?
G
Ginkgo100
Guest
Perhaps if God just wanted to create a mechanistic, clockwork universe, you could say he should have used Model 1. But Catholics don’t believe that that is the purpose of Creation. The purpose is to create other beings with free will, with whom God can have a loving relationship. Model 1 would be a terrible design for this purpose, since it does not allow us to make a choice—and actually choosing Him is exactly what God wants.
Also, I disagree that (at least for human designers), Model 1 is always best. I like some designed products, such as software applications, that can be modified to adapt to new needs unforeseen when the product was conceived. That wouldn’t apply to God, I suppose, since we assume he would have foreseen all the possible needs in advance.
Also, I disagree that (at least for human designers), Model 1 is always best. I like some designed products, such as software applications, that can be modified to adapt to new needs unforeseen when the product was conceived. That wouldn’t apply to God, I suppose, since we assume he would have foreseen all the possible needs in advance.
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
A good design is relative to the end for which it was ultimately created. If the ultimate end is perfect love, then it would seem that our ability to deny love and freely act against it is absolutely necessary in respect of our freewill, since love is not something that can be forced upon a living person against their existing will. This would contradict the nature that is love.Or it can be that we have significant freedom of action, and we can do what God does not want us to do; that is the world was created according to Model 3. In that case God is not a good designer and/or creator. Why create something that the designer does not want?
Any arguments?
T
tonyrey
Guest
You yourself have neglected to reflect on the fact that if you know that a crime will be committed, have the power to prevent it, and fail to do so, then you will be an accomplice and just as guilty as the perpetrator himself. You are an accomplice, you cannot plead ignorance and you are therefore guilty. Of that there is no doubt whatsoever. You have deliberately set up the circumstances which lead to a crime or crimes. But first let us consider your analogy of God to a human accomplice.
A human accomplice does not create human beings with free will. God creates us with free will precisely to allow us to choose how to live. He does not usually intervene to prevent crimes because that would defeat the very purpose of creating us. It is the principle of the double effect I have mentioned.
God is not justified in permitting crimes if this is the only life we have but in the context of eternity not to give us free will is a greater evil than permitting us to commit crimes. No matter how horrendous the crime it occurs within the brief spark we call life on earth. Evil may seem interminable and irremediable to us but compared to the unending joy of heaven it is insignificant. We cannot have anything for nothing. Every gift we receive has its price. And the greatest gift of all is our freedom - without which we would be incapable of love, individuality, responsibility, innocence or guilt. We would be just characters on the stage of life acting out our parts according to the scripts we have been given.
When you decide to bring children into the world you know they may become criminals but you are prepared to take the risk - even though they may cause you and others great suffering. When they grow up you respect their freedom to live as they choose rather than try to force them to conform to your values. According to your argument you are not justified in bringing them into the world. You cannot plead ignorance because you have pointed out that the psychological harm done by rape and by being robbed - and worse crimes such as torture and murder - can never be erased or rectified. You are prepared to take the risk yet you deny that God is justified in doing so… The only difference is that God foresees crimes but we do not know when they will be committed. What we do know is that sooner or later one or more of our descendants will commit a crime and the only way to prevent that happening is not to have children. Do you regret having taken that risk?
P
promethius
Guest
I mean this in the least offensive way possible, but if this is your view of a good design, I’m glad you’re an engineer (?) and not God.
Yes, your whole premise is based on the creation of machines or other non-living systems, whereas God’s creation is of life (with free will). The two are not similar enough. I claim a logical fallacy of false analogy employed here.Any arguments?
S
Spock
Guest
Very well, let’s do that. If it is morally wrong for us to allow a crime to happen if you know it and have the power to prevent it, then it is morally wrong for God. There is only one moral code which applies to all, God and humans.
Where the significant difference is, that we don’t **know **ahead that our child will go astray, while God does. The other difference is that we don’t have the power to prevent our children to go wrong and God does. Furthermore we try to minimize that risk by “brainwashing” (I love that word!) our children to have a good value system. Yet being imperfect, we sometimes fail. We attempt to limit what our children will “want”, by instilling a proper value system, by teaching them proper behavior to respect others. We can and do try to curtail the freedom of our children, precisely out of love. And there is nothing wrong with it. We can and also try to curtail the freedom of adult criminals, as well. And there is nothing wrong with it either.
We can plead our ignorance in front of that hypothetical jury, because we do not have the foreknowledge and power to make sure that our children will conform to the correct moral standards. God cannot plead that. God is guilty as charged for being an accomplice to all the crimes his creation committed from petty larceny to geniocides, from rape to torture.
In your next paragraphs you want to explain this. Let’s see how you succeed.
Since it is possible to create beings with free will, who will not violate the standards of morality, this argument is still incorrect. You cannot prove that having free will logically leads to immoral and/or criminal behavior. The existence of free will logically implies the **possibility **of incorrect behavior, but possibility does not equal actuality.
Two problems here. First you wish to extend the playing ground beyond this existence, which carries absolutely no weight for an atheist. Second, you keep saying that not having free will is a “greater evil” than allowing the actuality of “other evils”, no matter how horrendous they might be. I see no justification for this stance. No one can ever prove this concept, it is just being repeated as a “mantra”.
I have seen this before, and every time I shudder. It is incredibly insensitive to downplay the horrors of this existence, as being “insignificant”. But it is much worse than that. You try to argue based upon the concept that later positive actions will somehow “retroactively” justify prior horrors. And there is no such principle. A father giving a nice present later will not “make up” for allowing his child to beaten up eariler.
And you keep saying this, without any justification. I am getting tired of pointing out that freedom only leads to potentiality, but not to actuality. Can you understand the difference?
The risk we take cannot be compared to the certain knowledge God has. We know the risk is there, albeit a small one and we try to minimize it by deliberately “brainwashing” our children, by teaching and educating them. If a decent person would know with absolute certainty that his child will grow up into a monster then I am pretty sure he would rather abstain than go forward and create a sociopath. God does not take risks, God knows.When you decide to bring children into the world you know they may become criminals but you are prepared to take the risk - even though they may cause you and others great suffering. When they grow up you respect their freedom to live as they choose rather than try to force them to conform to your values. According to your argument you are not justified in bringing them into the world. You cannot plead ignorance because you have pointed out that the psychological harm done by rape and by being robbed - and worse crimes such as torture and murder - can never be erased or rectified. You are prepared to take the risk yet you deny that God is justified in doing so… The only difference is that God foresees crimes but we do not know when they will be committed. What we do know is that sooner or later one or more of our descendants will commit a crime and the only way to prevent that happening is not to have children. Do you regret having taken that risk?
S
servornon
Guest
Hey Spock, I completely agree with you, and I am firmly in league with the Roman Catholic Church. You are right that it makes no sense that God created the third model…until you realise that what we see here is only half of creation, for God created the Heavens along with the Earth. What you see here on Earth is the model of free will and the choice between good and evil. Many choose evil. Therefore, it would seem that God’s plan is imperfect.
But now proceed to Heaven. There, everyone does the will of God - and therefore it is a perfect system - **AND ** it has free will. Now how much better is that in comparison to having no free will at all? It is fantastic.
Then I would like to nitpick on perfection. I will give two typed of perfection: micro-perfection and macro-perfection. What you are discussing is macro-perfection, being the perfection of the entire system of Earth. But what of micro-perfection? This I say is the perfection of the individual. Is it possible for a person on Earth to fully submit to God and join his will with God’s? I think of the saints, and I say yes. God gave us Jesus, the mediator, that has helped us through the Word to be able to say “yes” here. So micro-perfection is possible. And this makes the whole system perfect…let’s dub that macro-macro-perfection, which includes Heaven and Earth. Micro-perfection is what creates macro-macro-perfection. So you see it is quite perfect. Through the journey of life we go through the progressive stages that go like this: it starts with Action, which yields Experience, and Experience coupled with Reason yields Knowledge, and Knowledge coupled with a desire for Happiness yields Virtue, and Virtue coupled with the Bible yield justification of Faith, and justification of Faith coupled with instruction yields spiritual virtue, and spiritual virtue coupled with strength yields charity, and charity allows for the insertion of the Bible in the stage of virtue. So this micro-system, provoked by the macro-system’s imperfection, creates perfection macro-macroily.
Now would there actually be a creation if there was no free will? All of the creatures would be lifeless pawns to God, right? So is it even possible?
And as for being self-sufficient and not needing to create us…well, that is somewhere that we cannot go. I have myself been puzzled over this, but as St. Augustine says: “God created Earth because is was good.” A slightly frustrating answer, but hey, we have life, it is cool, and God hasn’t told us why he created it…yet. You see, there are many questions in life that don’t need to be answered. They are insignificant to the whole picture. We are all workers here. What worker that is not the boss knows everything that the boss knows? Why do the lower workers not get to know everything that the boss knows? Surely there must be some company that divulges all of its information to all of its workers. No? Then why not?
Peace
S
Spock
Guest
Would you define “perfect” love? Love is just a nice, positive emotion, a state of the mind. Whether it happens “naturally” or “imposed” from the outside is of no consequence. The emotion is the same. For the one who is “induced” to love by mind control, there would be no difference, part of the control is the happiness felt over the love they feel.
Of course people prefer “natural” emotions, which just a sign of “sour grapes”.
For all you know, your love toward God may be imposed upon you by God, and you are happy to love God. And maybe the lack of love toward God is also something God “induced” in me. How would we know if we are manipulated? Maybe we are just rats in a cage, and God studies us. Maybe he is amused by the fact that people spend time arguing about his existence. Who can tell? The rats cannot see outside their cages. Neither can we.
S
servornon
Guest
I love this guy! His reasoning is solid. I think that atheists turn into the best Catholics because in the end they really understand every detail because they have tested it all. With just an ounce of faith, he will surpass most of us in understanding.
I think I snag here in this development is the concept of suffering, evil, and the criminality of it all. 1) God knows everything, and foresees evil and suffering. 2) God allows it to happen. 3) Therefore, God is at fault. A logical progression. But the question comes when we say God is at “fault”, that God should be convicted as a criminal. You are logical in saying so. So I pose a question, using another analogy: should all deer be killed because they eat the leaves off of trees? Why are there deer on earth? Don’t they cause suffering? Would it not be better if plants were left to their own devices? What would become of the plants? What would they evolve in to? Would they be better for it? Would they be more prosperous? In light of this, should it be a crime to have deer?
The question is if suffering is evil. Is suffering evil? Is suffering ugly? If suffering is ugly, and life is suffering, then life is not worth living. BUT, suffering is beautiful…! Suffering is essential to salvation, it is essential to the entire plan of God. Suffering is good. You should like suffering. A simple saying is this: the bad let’s you know what is good. To make a list, suffering: shows the merits of true love, allows works of God to be shown through those that suffer, makes it so that peace may only be found by joining with God, and it has a redemptive quality. Unfortunately, I feel like I am building a castle in the air and I am not explaining thourougly the reasoning behind this list, but your question is HUGE, and I would have to write a book on it to show it. You are essentially bringing up a topic that involves the entire span of life and history, so the answer would likewise be equivically long. I hope you understand that our lack of a perfect answer is in part due to this. However, once you start to truly delve into the millions of pages written from the saints, the philosophers of the Church (philsophers who I say are much wiser than secular philosophers), I am sure that this topic will be covered. I did a quick Google search, and I found this website: http://www.religious-vocation.com/redemptive_suffering.html. Perhaps it may shed some more light or form of network of wisdom to other sources.
I think that another snag is the emotion of love. Spiritual love is on a whole other plain, Spock. It is not about making you feel good. This emotion is about wholly giving yourself over to others, to serve others through God. This is our calling, as Christians, as Jesus says that the most important thing is to love and serve God.
You know what, you seem like a really level-headed person who does not harbour any bias. I think that reading Matthew’s gospel would let you in on more of what we are trying to say here. With your insight, you could pick up on a lot of the reasoning. But it seems like most of us here are not up to par on the explanation. We are close, but not good enough. I know that Pope John Paul II wrote an encyclical (the most authoratative document given by a Pope and therefore the most insightful and best to read…short, too) about human suffering, since he went through so much in his life (cf “Karol” the movie), and I know that Father Stan Fortuna charismatically explains this in simpler terms (may be found on YouTube). I feel like I have failed today in settling this, but you have helped me to realise that I need some honing on this end, too!
Peace
T
tonyrey
Guest
Where precisely do you obtain this moral code?
God minimizes the risk of crimes by giving us a conscience and revealing to us important truths like the Commandments and the Golden Rule. He curtails our freedom by restricting our life on this earth to seventy years or so. He knows that by living in society it is more difficult for individuals to commit crimes without being punished. He also knows that ultimately it is impossible to prevent every crime without taking away our power of self-determination.
If you really believed that everyone should be prevented from committing crimes you would advocate brainwashing - in the full sense of the word - in schools and other educational institutions. You would advocate surgical techniques to prevent hardened criminals from committing further crimes. In other words your morality boils down to expediency. It would violate the principle of liberty and human dignity.
We cannot understand the nature of free will. All we know is that it is the power to transcend physical causality in a way that is impossible for any other creature. For the atheist there is no explanation. For the theist it is a sharing in divine power. It enables us to defy our Creator and frustrate His will by committing crimes that prevent people from fulfilling the purposes for which they have been created. It even allows us to kill them and cut short their opportunities in this life.
God’s omnipotence is limited in direct proportion to the extent to which we are free. There can be no half-measures with free will. We either have it or we do not. It cannot be distributed selectively amongst our mental activities because it is inextricably linked to our power of reason. The truth makes us free but we have to be free to arrive at the truth. Without free will we could not choose what to think and we would be incapable of rational activity. It is absurd to suggest that we could be moral slaves and yet free in every other respect.
The risk of one of your descendants committing a crime is very large indeed. Within 20 generations, you are likely to have about a million descendants. The percentage of violent crimes is about 1% of the population. This means that about 10,000 of your descendants will commit violent crimes. You cannot plead ignorance of this fact. You have pointed out that the horrors of life in this world can never be rectified. Yet you are prepared to reproduce knowing full well that many of your descendants will become victims of horrific crimes and thousands of them will be perpetrators of horrific crimes. If you accuse God of guilt you too are guilty…
The reason why you are prepared to have children is because you appreciate the immense value of life and you are prepared to share it with others in spite of all the evil in the world. Yet you deny that God is justified in creating human beings with free will.
You express doubt as to whether we have free will. That is predictable, because for an atheist free will must be an illusion. Your entire argument is intended to prove that God does not exist. Yet you believe evil exists and that it can and should be prevented as far as possible. Consistent atheists like Albert Camus admit that life is absurd because there is no reason or purpose for our existence. Good and evil have no rational foundation in a pointless existence. Nor has free will because it implies that all events are either random or determined. It does not make sense to believe in self-control if there is no self. The self is no more than a word describing the activity of brain processes caused by physical events. Truth, goodness, justice, beauty, love, freedom, responsibility, innocence and guilt are merely human ideas that correspond to nothing in reality.
Your only logical position is nihilism…
S
Spock
Guest
From reason. I don’t want to be hurt, therefore I do not hurt others. I wish to be helped in times of need, therefore I help others in their times of need. It is simple reciprocity, God does not play any part in it. But the point is if there is a universal moral code, then it applies to both God and us. If it is wrong to allow crimes for us (if we have the power to prevent it), then it is equally wrong for God.
Nonsense. There is no way that you can prove that the risk is already “minimal”. It is easy to further minimize the harm just by preventing one more criminal act. And the golden rule way predates Christianity.
Not true. We curtail the freedom of criminals without any adverse effects to everyone else. As a matter of fact we enhance the possibility of self-determination of others BY curtailing the freedom of criminals.
Only the liberty of the criminals. For others the existing system is sufficient.
Sure there is. We don’t know the precise mechanism of it, but free will can be adequately explained as an emerging attribute, stemming from the complexity of the brain.
Yet another example of the “God of the gaps”. The theist assumes that everything that cannot be explained by the current state of science must be of “supernatural” origin. Fortunately for all of us, this realm is constantly shrinking.
As I said before, only an idiot would allow to defy and frustrate his will, especially when his will is for the benefit of everyone. No one can deny that the optimal state of affairs would be to be with God, and enjoy the “beatific vision” (whatever it may be). By allowing to “frustrate” his will, the only goal he achieves is that some people will not enjoy this benefit, rather will be tortured in hell forever. No matter how hard I tried to “defame” God, I could not insult him more that you guys do by suggesting that he deliberately allows to “frustrate” his vision.
To be continued…
S
Spock
Guest
Nonsense. Our freedom to ACT is already limited. Whatever we WANT may be unlimited, but whatever we can DO is severly limited. In one aspect it is too limited - we are unable to help everyone even if we want to. In the other aspect it is not limited enough - we are able to harm others if we want to.
Why would it be? We already limited. We may have a moral desire to help and are unable to do so. We may have the immoral desire to hurt others, but physically unable to so. There is no UNLIMITED freedom.
A probability of something may be very high, but still infinitely smaller than certainty. They cannot be compared.
I don’t think so. We have children, because nature imbued us with the irrational desire to procreate.
Sheer nonsense. Beauty, justice, love, etc… are very well defined for us and they have nothing to do with the supernatural.
On the contrary. Since we have this life only, it is only very logical to cherish it, and try to improve on its quality.
S
Spock
Guest
First a welcome, as I see you are new to the board.
Then a few questions: what do you mean by “suffering”? Physical pain, mental anguish, or both? Whose suffering is “beautiful”? Your own? Other people’s suffering? The suffering of animals? Please elaborate…
And a remark: God could have just created us directly in heaven and bypass all this charade. We all would enjoy whatever joy that brings. As is, many people will only “enjoy” the everlasting torture in hell - which they do NOT want, and allegedly God does not want either. The current arrangement is definitely suboptimal, thus not the sign of a “good” and capable creator.
B
buffalo
Guest
Why didn’t the first atheist kill the second?
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Spock
From reason. I don’t want to be hurt, therefore I do not hurt others. I wish to be helped in times of need, therefore I help others in their times of need. It is simple reciprocity, God does not play any part in it. But the point is if there is a universal moral code, then it applies to both God and us. If it is wrong to allow crimes for us (if we have the power to prevent it), then it is equally wrong for God.
According to this notion, God committed universal murder when He requires death for us all?
I’m sorry, I just don’t get it. How can God be subject to the laws He created? Would God be subject to gravity? Would He be subject to thermodynamics? Would He be subject to entropy? Etc, etc.?
If universal physical laws do not apply to God, why would universal moral laws apply?
God made us in His image and likeness. We do not make Him in our image and likeness.
God has a standard of freedom too. And his standard of freedom takes precedence over ours. If god wishes to take our lives, that is God’s business, not murder. Because life does not end with death anyway, except for the atheist (or so he thinks).
I wish to be helped in times of need, therefore I help others in their times of need.
Yes, this is the natural law summed up in the Golden Rule which God planted in our hearts and Jesus reminds us of in his preaching. It is easy to forget, and many have, but anyone who reads scriptures cannot miss it. :bible1:
From reason. I don’t want to be hurt, therefore I do not hurt others. I wish to be helped in times of need, therefore I help others in their times of need. It is simple reciprocity, God does not play any part in it. But the point is if there is a universal moral code, then it applies to both God and us. If it is wrong to allow crimes for us (if we have the power to prevent it), then it is equally wrong for God.
According to this notion, God committed universal murder when He requires death for us all?
I’m sorry, I just don’t get it. How can God be subject to the laws He created? Would God be subject to gravity? Would He be subject to thermodynamics? Would He be subject to entropy? Etc, etc.?
If universal physical laws do not apply to God, why would universal moral laws apply?
God made us in His image and likeness. We do not make Him in our image and likeness.
God has a standard of freedom too. And his standard of freedom takes precedence over ours. If god wishes to take our lives, that is God’s business, not murder. Because life does not end with death anyway, except for the atheist (or so he thinks).
I wish to be helped in times of need, therefore I help others in their times of need.
Yes, this is the natural law summed up in the Golden Rule which God planted in our hearts and Jesus reminds us of in his preaching. It is easy to forget, and many have, but anyone who reads scriptures cannot miss it. :bible1:
- Status