I am baffled, please explain

[simpleas]

Because desire is not will. We can desire things we would not will and will things we do not desire. Desire does not actualize choices, but will does. Desire is only one aspect or consideration that the will acts on. It isn’t sufficient to guarantee that human beings will always choose the good merely because it is desired. (Refer to Paul in Romans 7)

Will requires something that desire does not - our free assent. We can be overcome by desire but that does not mean desire will always be acted upon or really agreed to by the will.

Considerations of the good involve much more than desire in order to be fulfilling to the ultimate good of human beings. Merely having all desires fulfilled would still not fulfill human beings – that requires, as Aristotle said, becoming all that we can be; the right ordering of desires according to the good which means desires are subordinated to the will with the will in control of desires.

Your solution requires that the will is subordinate to desires; if we ontologically are one with our will, that means we would no longer be free and rational agents but mere sentient beings - more like animals than human beings. So the question now becomes is it right of God to create rational agents with the capacity to decide their own existence or should God merely have made feeling, desiring or sentient beings.

This is basically your position, that of Pallas Athene, Bradski and anyone else who argues t hat God should have programmed human beings to always desire the good. That would involve, not making human beings but some other kind of animal.

In short, we don’t know enough about the will as active agency to make a claim that desire alone would be sufficient to guarantee human beings would always choose goodness.

I didn’t state any solution, I asked a question.

I also did not argue that God should have programmed humans to always desire good.

 

[tonyrey]

You’ll notice I wasn’t giving an explaination, I was asking you why would we be zombies, when you asked :

Can you explain how all atrocities can be prevented without turning us into zombies?

Atrocities can be prevented when we will to do what is good and act on that goodness. If we are following Christ’s teachings, then we are doing the good are we not? Are we zombies then?

“Atrocities can be prevented when we will to do what is good and act on that goodness” **is **an explanation if we believe we have the power to do so!

If we don’t have that power we are not responsible for what we do and the OP doesn’t make sense!

 

[simpleas]

“Atrocities can be prevented when we will to do what is good and act on that goodness” **is **an explanation if we believe we have the power to do so!

If we don’t have that power we are not responsible for what we do and the OP doesn’t make sense!

You still didn’t answer my question!

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Atrocities can be prevented when we will to do what is good and act on that goodness. If we are following Christ’s teachings, then we are doing the good are we not? Are we zombies then?

We do good when we align our will with God’s.
We have free will. Zombies do not.
In order to demonstrate our love we must relinquish our will to God.
Paradise is a state of love, a giving completely of ourselves; it is not bovine bliss.
Cattle do God’s will, acting instinctively.
Our instincts could be to do for each other. In this case we would be doing our will. It would not be love. We would not be giving ourselves to God.
Does this make sense?
If not, what doesn’t.

 

[Gorgias]

The “original sin” was the reason that God cursed the creation, which introduced death and other assorted bad things into the insofar “perfect” creation.

This doesn’t address either your assertion or my refutation of it.

We WOULD? For sure? Or could? You are not in the position to make definitive judgment what would have happened in the absence of original sin.

If I take the Bible as truth, then I can.

Sure, it is possible that someone down the line would have committed some disobedience, but that is not logically unavoidable.

How so?

Well, the usual understanding of God’s omnipotence that God can do anything and everything, except logically incoherent and/or contradictory actions. If you are about to deny that, then there is no more “omnipotence”.

Unless what I’m asserting is that it’s logically incoherent that it’s possible that there could be a world of humans without sin. You’re forgetting about that. Kinda sloppy reasoning on your part.

But humans, who are able to understand evil acts, who are able to perform evil acts, and who do not want to commit evil acts are logically coherent, and contain no contradiction

Yet, it doesn’t imply that it will occur. The ‘law of large numbers’ does not apply here.

, so - if one accepts the usual definition of omnipotence - then God is able to create such humans, and not just a few, but as many as he desires. And since God is not under any “pressure” to create people who would commit evil acts, he could have created a truly optimal world, no moral evils, not one.

Purple unicorns do not exist. God could create purple unicorns. Does the lack of purple unicorns prove that God is not omnipotent? Of course not. Does it prove that this world is not optimal? No.

I still think you haven’t proven your case that “perfect world with free will but no human sin” is feasible; you certainly haven’t addressed the contention that ‘enumerable does not imply logically possible.’ Moreover, you haven’t proven your case that what you view as ‘optimal’ is what God views as such; in fact, you’ve only stated that you believe it to be so. That’s far from proving your assertion.

Interestingly you did not bring up any valid arguments either.

We seem to be at loggerheads, then. Neither of us accepts the other’s premises, and neither of us is able to appeal to logic to convince the other.

You just bastardized the commonly accepted definition of omnipotence, without offering a better one.

No; I asserted that your appeal to omnipotence was in error.

The premise was based upon the usually accepted definition of omnipotence. If you deny it…

I don’t deny ‘omnipotence’, just your misuse of it.

 

[PRmerger]

This is the way it was always going to be.

Did anyone notice the great coincidence (or not a coincidence at all) in the 1st reading today at Mass?

For God formed man to be imperishable;--Wisdom 1

See, Brad? It was NOT “always going to be” that way.

Initially we were made to be “not subject to decay or deterioration”.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Not just any “candy”, a poisoned candy, so “the very day you taste it, you will surely die”. Does that mean that God is “inhuman” and “inhumane”? (Only partially kidding)

“Poisoned” in this case is a relative characteristic. Warfarin is an anticoagulant that is often referred to as “rat poison.” It also saves the lives of many heart patients. One rat’s poison is another man’s life saver. What works for some forms of life can kill others. God was very clear in the garden - if you act like a rat (or some other less capable being) the tree of knowledge will be like poison to you and will kill you, so pay attention to the proper dose and schedule! With God’s say-so, not your own.

Now PA, in your studies of Christianity, you must have come across references from the Early Church Fathers with regard to the Tree of Life in Eden being a reference to Christ hung on the cross, after which his Body and Blood would become eternal food.

When Adam and Eve put themselves into the position of tasting from the Tree of Knowledge, they, at the same time, triggered the need for being fed from the Tree of Life in order to be saved. Tasting from the fruit of the tree of knowledge when not in the proper position to eat the fruit safely is much like rats ingesting warfarin. It brings on death. In that weakened state they were in no position to also eat from the tree of life and live forever - it would mean eternal death. Which is why they were put out of range of the Garden and the possibility of doing themselves even more harm. Christ became man to bring an antidote to the poison that knowledge of good and evil would be for A&E - creatures not capable of handling even a small dose. Implicit in the narrative (re: the reference to the Tree of Life) was a warning not to think eternal life would also be within the reach of A&E after imbibing from the TofK. Eternal life would mean eternal death without the Bread of Life to strengthen them and make them capable of handling eternal life.

Odd of you to claim God ought to be considered inhumane when after giving clear warning about the poison, being rebuffed by A&E, he saves A&E from further harm by exiting them from the garden and, then, did not abandon humanity (A&E’s offspring) to death but allowed himself to be crucified in order to turn himself into the food that saves us from death (our incapacity - like rats with warfarin - to ingest fruit from the T of K) at the same time as he brings us eternal life by giving us the precise food (the Eternal I AM) which we would need to live in eternity with him.

Your take on what God is doing, to be completely frank, is a complete travesty and utterly misrepresents the reality of it. It is tantamount to complaining that God treats us like rats because he allowed us to eat rat poison even though the “rat poison” in the correct dose and schedule would not only be tolerable but would bring eternal life to us provided we follow the prescription dispensed by God concerning where and when the fruit should be taken - i.e, not after talking with snakes.

Would you complain to your physician after heart surgery if the drug (warfarin) prescribed to you ended up killing you BECAUSE you didn’t follow the prescription, i.e., took the drug when you weren’t supposed to, after a very clear and stern warning? Would YOUR negligence or failure be -]God’s/-] the physician’s fault?

Note: Frankly, I don’t care if you answer my posts or not. It is much easier for me to pick apart your posts knowing that you choose not to rebut my points.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

If I take the Bible as truth, then I can.

Where in the Bible does it say that there is no possible state of affairs where there is at least one person who did not commit at least one sinful act? Actually the Bible says exactly the opposite, in the form of the Virgin Mary. So it is not logically impossible to have full free will, and no acts of sinful nature.

How so?

What is logically unavoidable? Something that MUST happen in all the possible states of affairs. Let me give a simple example. We have a six-sided die, with the numbers of one thru six on its sides. It is extremely improbable that in one zillion tosses the number six will never come up. But such an incredibly improbable event is still not logically impossible. However, it would be logically impossible that the number “seven” would show up on one of the tosses. Get it?

Unless what I’m asserting is that it’s logically incoherent that it’s possible that there could be a world of humans without sin. You’re forgetting about that. Kinda sloppy reasoning on your part.

Logically incoherent (or simply incoherent) is a sweet-tasting sound of middle-C. The state of affairs of having people without sin is perfectly possible - as believed by the Catholics - see the VM.

Yet, it doesn’t imply that it will occur. The ‘law of large numbers’ does not apply here.

You mean that it will happen by sheer luck? All I say is that God can actualize such a state of affairs.

Purple unicorns do not exist. God could create purple unicorns. Does the lack of purple unicorns prove that God is not omnipotent? Of course not. Does it prove that this world is not optimal? No.

Purple unicorns have nothing to do with an optimal world.

I still think you haven’t proven your case that “perfect world with free will but no human sin” is feasible; you certainly haven’t addressed the contention that ‘enumerable does not imply logically possible.’ Moreover, you haven’t proven your case that what you view as ‘optimal’ is what God views as such; in fact, you’ve only stated that you believe it to be so. That’s far from proving your assertion.

Ah, so if God prefers rapes and tortures as being optimal, then I have nothing to say. But according to the Catholic view, the “optimal” world is where everyone qualifies to be admitted to heaven. This is NOT my assertion, it is what the Catholics say.

We seem to be at loggerheads, then. Neither of us accepts the other’s premises, and neither of us is able to appeal to logic to convince the other.

The funny thing is that I appeal to the Catholic understanding of “free will”, and also the Catholic understanding of what constitutes an optimal world… etc. To put it simple, everything I say is based upon the Catholic teachings. When you argue against my assertions, you argue against the Catholic teachings. Which is perfectly fine by me.

No; I asserted that your appeal to omnipotence was in error.
I don’t deny ‘omnipotence’, just your misuse of it.

Tell me, HOW?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Where in the Bible does it say that there is no possible state of affairs where there is at least one person who did not commit at least one sinful act? Actually the Bible says exactly the opposite, in the form of the Virgin Mary. So it is not logically impossible to have full free will, and no acts of sinful nature.

It doesn’t say it anywhere because the fact that it is logically possible for a human being to have free will AND be sinless, does not mean that state can be brought about by God absent (name removed by moderator)ut from the human. The state of affairs is logically possible, but logically dependent upon BOTH the omnipotence of God AND human free will choice for that state. God cannot, without logical contradiction, independently of human free will, create a human that stays sinless. As soon as God creates the sinless human, the onus is put on the human to stay sinless, so the burden of logic is on both to do their part.

This is the point you keep missing and you (nor Bradski, nor anyone else) haven’t given a cogent reason to believe that the burden lies entirely on God to create that state of affairs because human autonomy logically precludes it.

 

[Gorgias]

What is logically unavoidable? Something that MUST happen in all the possible states of affairs. Let me give a simple example. We have a six-sided die, with the numbers of one thru six on its sides. It is extremely improbable that in one zillion tosses the number six will never come up. But such an incredibly improbable event is still not logically impossible. However, it would be logically impossible that the number “seven” would show up on one of the tosses. Get it?

Yeah, but you’re still not getting my argument. Peter explained it well: the conjunction of ‘God gives free will’ and ‘humans exercise free will’ means that God cannot impose purely non-sinful behavior without removing the ‘free will’ part. In other words, as you already pointed out, logical impossibility makes an argument invalid; your argument fails precisely because it’s logically impossible.

Purple unicorns have nothing to do with an optimal world.

Quite right. Neither, by the way, does your opinion about what an ‘optimal world’ is have anything to do with God’s opinion of what it is.

Ah, so if God prefers rapes and tortures as being optimal

Nope; I never said that. But, that’s an accusation that’s pretty par for the course among non-believers.

But according to the Catholic view, the “optimal” world is where everyone qualifies to be admitted to heaven

Nope; that’s inaccurate, too. A world in which we do not have free will, and therefore, in which we all go to heaven, is less optimal than this world, in which we do have free will. Therefore, your assertion of the Catholic view is inaccurate.

The funny thing is that I appeal to the Catholic understanding of “free will”, and also the Catholic understanding of what constitutes an optimal world

With all due respect, PA, you keep getting ‘Catholic understanding’ wrong. In other words, you’re giving us your understanding of what Catholic understanding is, and when we tell you that you’re mistaken, you turn around and say “a-ha! so ‘Catholic understanding’ is illogical or mistaken!” :doh2:

To put it simple, everything I say is based upon the Catholic teachings. When you argue against my assertions, you argue against the Catholic teachings.

To put it simply, you’re mistaken. I’m arguing against your erroneous assertions, not against Catholic teachings. If that’s too much for you to grasp, then this discussion is in trouble…

Tell me, HOW?

Umm… I did. Twice, at least, I think. And again here in this post: I disagree not with the notion of ‘omnipotence’, but with your take on it. You take a scenario which you can enumerate, but not demonstrate is logically feasible, and then claim that this scenario’s existence in your mind proves that God is not omnipotent. Your claim fails because you’re not dealing with a logical assertion – that is, it is impossible to put a dent in the notion of ‘omnipotence’, since it does not hold up on its own merits.

 

[Bradski]

It is unrealistic to expect good to come from every event…

Did someone suggest that? I must have missed it. You’re beginning to sound like those people who sing praises to God for saving the one child in an aircraft full of broken and burnt bodies. You’ll give Him full credit for the one life, but switch off entirely if someone mentions the three hundred or so who died screaming in terror.

And are you in agreement now that the Catholic view is that this way is NOT the way it was meant to be? God had to correct it by the Incarnation?

God had to CORRECT it? Did I get that right? God made the heavens and the earth and us and had to CORRECT it? It turned out not the way He wanted? Or maybe not. This is the way He wanted it to turn out. In which case it always HAS been the way it was meant to be. We only have the two options here. Unless you can find a third, then we are left with this.

1. This is not the way it was meant to be. God meant it to be one way, it turned out to be not the way He wanted and He had to correct it. It is possible for God to say, sometime after the Fall: ‘This is NOT the way it was meant to be’ (this is your argument above).
2. It IS the way it was meant to be.

 

[PRmerger]

God had to CORRECT it? Did I get that right? God made the heavens and the earth and us and had to CORRECT it? It turned out not the way He wanted?

Yep. That’s right.

That’s the price of free will.

 

[Bradski]

Yep. That’s right.

So we have an EN where every frame of existence is there to be seen. It is unchanging, immutable. In fact, by it’s very definition it is…eternal (the clue is in the name). But now you suggest that God decides to change it. To make some ‘corrections’.

I guess we have to stop calling it the Eternal Now from here on in. If God can change it, can make some corrections, it isn’t eternal any more.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If God can change it, can make some corrections, it isn’t eternal any more.

Not sure that follows. God is eternal and immutable, but that does not entail nothing existing in eternity can be time bound and changing. In other words, time and change may be internal features of things existing in eternity, but not of God. The universe may have time as a component of its internal workings but the universe, as a whole, may be “situated” in eternity.

 

[Bradski]

Not sure that follows. God is eternal and immutable, but that does not entail nothing existing in eternity can be time bound and changing. In other words, time and change may be internal features of things existing in eternity, but not of God. The universe may have time as a component of its internal workings but the universe, as a whole, may be “situated” in eternity.

Ye gods and little fishes. This is like catching smoke.

First we raise problems with omniscience and free will and we are treated to the farcical proposition that if there appears to be a problem then omniscience doesn’t actually have to mean what it says it means when we use it to describe God.

Now, when problems are raised about whether things are exactly as God has planned, we apparently can have multiple versions of the Eternal Now. It isn’t fixed after all. It can be changed by God at any time. So maybe we have to talk about which version we mean when we say EN. Is it the EN before God changed it (but not changed in linear time, Bradski, oh no – it’s all in the Eternal Now) or the one after that (a LATER version of the EN? A DIFFERENT version? A SEPARATE version?).

Your attempts to redefine basic concepts so as not to address the problems have rendered the whole discussion worthless. But then again, I’m using the terms ‘attempt’, ‘address’, ‘problems’ and ‘worthless’ in ways which you might want to change at some point.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Ye gods and little fishes. This is like catching smoke.

First we raise problems with omniscience and free will and we are treated to the farcical proposition that if there appears to be a problem then omniscience doesn’t actually have to mean what it says it means when we use it to describe God.

Now, when problems are raised about whether things are exactly as God has planned, we apparently can have multiple versions of the Eternal Now. It isn’t fixed after all. It can be changed by God at any time. So maybe we have to talk about which version we mean when we say EN. Is it the EN before God changed it (but not changed in linear time, Bradski, oh no – it’s all in the Eternal Now) or the one after that (a LATER version of the EN? A DIFFERENT version? A SEPARATE version?).

Your attempts to redefine basic concepts so as not to address the problems have rendered the whole discussion worthless. But then again, I’m using the terms ‘attempt’, ‘address’, ‘problems’ and ‘worthless’ in ways which you might want to change at some point.

I am glad we are now seeing eye to eye. See how easy that was?

And here you were arguing a few weeks ago how what we think is logically impossible - like subatomic particles being in two places at the same time - is turning out to be only apparently so. Now you want to place very strict limits on the kinds of thinking you are willing to concede might challenge our “basic concepts.” Scientific ideas, yes. Religious ones, no. Oh, Bradski, you are a droll fellow.

 

[oldcelt]

Ye gods and little fishes. This is like catching smoke.

First we raise problems with omniscience and free will and we are treated to the farcical proposition that if there appears to be a problem then omniscience doesn’t actually have to mean what it says it means when we use it to describe God.

Now, when problems are raised about whether things are exactly as God has planned, we apparently can have multiple versions of the Eternal Now. It isn’t fixed after all. It can be changed by God at any time. So maybe we have to talk about which version we mean when we say EN. Is it the EN before God changed it (but not changed in linear time, Bradski, oh no – it’s all in the Eternal Now) or the one after that (a LATER version of the EN? A DIFFERENT version? A SEPARATE version?).

Your attempts to redefine basic concepts so as not to address the problems have rendered the whole discussion worthless. But then again, I’m using the terms ‘attempt’, ‘address’, ‘problems’ and ‘worthless’ in ways which you might want to change at some point.

I second your frustration…but we are certainly not the first to experience it.

 

[Bradski]

I am glad we are now seeing eye to eye. See how easy that was?

And here you were arguing a few weeks ago how what we think is logically impossible - like subatomic particles being in two places at the same time - is turning out to be only apparently so. Now you want to place very strict limits on the kinds of thinking you are willing to concede might challenge our “basic concepts.” Scientific ideas, yes. Religious ones, no. Oh, Bradski, you are a droll fellow.

Except that the arguments to which you refer were to warn against making definitive statements about problems where the obvious answer should be and invariably is: I don’t know.

Specifically, you (and PR) making a negative statement (it cannot happen that way) when your only argument, and I mean literally your only argument why it couldn’t happen that way was that it appeared to be illogical. Plenty of examples were given that showed that to be a fallacious argument that carried zero weight. In other words, quite possibly it couldn’t happen like that, but you are going to need a hell of a better argument than: ‘It can’t happen like that because…it doesn’t seem right’.

Now what we have are posters raising problems with the way Christians perceive God and problems in the way they are interpreting the way the world works and you are redefining terms in order to not have to say: I don’t know.

The first argument was an encouragement to admit ‘we don’t know’. Your redefinitions area transparent attempt to make the problem disappear in the first instance so that you don’t have to admit that.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Now, when problems are raised about whether things are exactly as God has planned, we apparently can have multiple versions of the Eternal Now. It isn’t fixed after all. It can be changed by God at any time.

I am not clear why you are having such a problem with this.

It has always been claimed by classical theism that God is eternal. It has always been claimed that creation was an act of God (and “changed by God at any time.”) It has always been claimed (in Christianity,) that in God we “live, move and have our being.” So, you see this isn’t a “multiple version” at all, it is the same version but viewed from a perspective that you seem not to have bothered to understand or take seriously in terms of what exactly was being claimed.

Your attempts to redefine basic concepts so as not to address the problems have rendered the whole discussion worthless. But then again, I’m using the terms ‘attempt’, ‘address’, ‘problems’ and ‘worthless’ in ways which you might want to change at some point.

Nah! My attempts have made it difficult for you to answer which is why you punt to “redefine basic concepts” as if that were, in PA’s mode of thinking, an unpardonable offense.

By the way, we’ve been through this exact issue before.

Take an analogy: the time signature of the story and characters within a book or play is not necessarily tied to the time signature of the world in which the author writing the book exists or a reader reading it does. If the universe is analogous to a book “written” or a play “produced” by God from eternity, there is nothing that precludes the universe from having its own time signature, one not corresponding to the eternality of God. The Eternal Now may be analogous to the portal through which the reader of a book connects to the time signature within the story each moment s/he “peers into” or reads the story. The only difference being that in the case of our known reality, we can peer into the eternal now through the present moment and God permits us that slice of eternality from which to transcend the slice.

This isn’t as obtuse or worthless as you make it out to be.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I second your frustration…but we are certainly not the first to experience it.

Like two delicate and pampered ladies from years past who would feign a “faint” at anything even remotely difficult for them to deal with. Ah, you two “run” like Victorian girls.