Sbee0:
We’re going round in circles here. You’re presupposing free will because that’s how you reconcile a good God with a bad world.
I am using logic and nothing else.
You’re starting with your conclusion (God exists and is perfect) and creating a rationale for why he allows bad things to happen.
I already explained why that is the case. Your prerogative if you choose not to accept these reasons. Facts don’t become less factual if people disagree with them.
I’m pointing out there’s no evidence for free will, and you’re saying “the evidence is God gave us free will.”
I’m doing nothing of the sort, and there is evidence for free will. Read my post again.
Okay - suppose we have free will. Why does that give God a get-out? Assume I have free will. Assume my friend Joe has free will. Assume I know he’s planning to murder someone, and I could stop it happening. Do I say to myself, “Well, Joe has free will so I’ll let him get on with it?” I think that would make me - anybody - a bad person. But apparently not God. God gets a free pass. Because… erm, actually, I can’t think of a good reason.
Joe has free will whether or not to perpetrate the act, and so do you to stop him or not do so. It’s not that complicated. How do you know that God isn’t going to stop him either? He doesn’t need a bolt of lightning to do so.This premise and conclusion is a complete non sequitur if you’re trying to disprove there’s a God.
Wesrock:
I can’t help with your experience (or perception) of atheists I’m afraid. I don’t consider skepticism a negative trait as long as it’s accompanied by a willingness to be open to new evidence.
This is probably why people smarter than me don’t actually spend many hours typing up an explanatory post only to be ignored or given question begging responses.
First realize that the whole point of following Jesus Christ is not to become religious, but rather to go through a complete transformation of heart through a complete demolishing of your old self. To simply accept a set of facts and theological truths is not the point of being Catholic. Thus to simply become religious without the spiritual transformation of turning away from sin and beginning the journey of uprooting everything in our heart that separates us from God-- the unforgiveness, the resentments, the pride, the impurity, the dishonesty, etc. then religion is hollow and ends up condemning one even worse, being that to those to whom much is given much is expected. The Sacraments are fountains of supernatural grace that empower us to say NO to sin and to begin our transformation. Thus to merely be Catholic and yet stay the same rotten person, is simply a recipe for hypocrisy and condemnation.
Hence the confusion between “will” and “free will” as I previously mentioned. It’s the reason why this has been debated for centuries.Sbee0:
Exactly. So we treat people instead of just punishing them.
Tell that to those who are on death row. Why is the state going to kill them if ultimately what they did wasn’t their fault? It’s obvious that the whole concept of justice collapses on itself if human beings did not really have the free will to choose right and wrong. I mean… there’s really no argument to be made to the contrary here.
The fact that our justice system is based on the supposition of free will does not mean that it’s right, or that free will exists.Our concept of justice and morality (among many other things in life) would completely fall apart in a deterministic world as nobody ultimately would be responsible for their actions. Like I said, how could you prosecute me for anything when ultimately I am just doing what determinism - “fate” - or whatever you want to call it - wrote for me. There’s an excellent reason why nobody I know of to date has ever tried to argue in court that their client is not responsible for a crime where every possible piece of evidence that exists points to their guilt - and win.
So are you making an argument for anarchy where anything goes because nobody is responsible for anything? That is the outcome of a world where there genuinely isn’t free will.
I’ll agree it feels like that. That’s not evidence, any more than a feeling of paranoia is evidence that everyone is talking about you.
Or say, it feels like it’s hot because it really is hot. Go figure.
You think that’s instinct? You don’t think the dog feels in control of whether to chase the stick? Perhaps a subject for a different thread…
Sure. Animals are wired differently than humans and the difference when it comes to free will and instinct is important. We do of course have some built in instincts ourselves, among them survival. If I put my hand close to a hot flame, I don’t have to choose whether to move it, I just do.
What distinction? I see those things acting on the laws of physics. That’s what I’m claiming for humans, in the absence of any evidence for a non-physical enabler of free will.
Yes, this is definitely a big part of it. Even now, reading this post, he probably still thinks we’re talking about only a matter of scale, as if men are molehills and God the biggest mountain and he thinks we’re just claiming the laws of physics don’t apply to a mountain, only molehills.
Sorry I’m not quite sure what you’re asking? Do you mean who or what initiates a thought before we are conscious that we are thinking about it? Could be lots of different things… our own instinct, a thought based on a recalled memory or past experience, God putting a thought into our mind, etc.
Perfect logic based on flawed premises does not provide an accurate answer.FredBloggs:
I am using logic and nothing else.
Indeed - whether they are facts or not is untestable. They are assertions. If you begin by claiming your belief should be considered as fact then you shut off rational discussion.FredBloggs:
I already explained why that is the case. Your prerogative if you choose not to accept these reasons. Facts don’t become less factual if people disagree with them.
You’re right - my mistake. You’re actually saying “the evidence for free will is that we have free will.” Which is no less absurd.FredBloggs:
I’m doing nothing of the sort, and there is evidence for free will. Read my post again.
Who said I was trying to disprove God? That would be impossible. I’m just pointing out that if he does exist, the evidence suggests that he can’t be all-good, all-powerful and all-knowing, without invoking an unjustified get-out clause by which his amoral acts are actually just fine and dandy. The existence, or otherwise, of free will doesn’t let God off the hook.FredBloggs:
Joe has free will whether or not to perpetrate the act, and so do you to stop him or not do so. It’s not that complicated. How do you know that God isn’t going to stop him either? He doesn’t need a bolt of lightning to do so.
That’s an interesting point. There’s an assumption that theists have the drop on atheists by virtue of the fact that they believe. That this belief somehow gives them insight into the nature of God that is unavailable to the atheist.
A false dilemma fallacy is not evidence. I already explained how an all-good all powerful God and an imperfect world can and do co-exist.Sbee0:
Perfect logic based on flawed premises does not provide an accurate answer.FredBloggs:
I am using logic and nothing else.
Not flawed at all. God is all good. God creates all that is good. Therefore, it does not logically follow that there is evil in the world unless the evil originated from something else. God is omniscient. The argument that we have no free will because of God’s omniscience is entirely based on a modal logical fallacy.
You’re right - my mistake. You’re actually saying “the evidence for free will is that we have free will.” Which is no less absurd.FredBloggs:
I’m doing nothing of the sort, and there is evidence for free will. Read my post again.
Nope. Read my posts again. All of it.
Who said I was trying to disprove God? That would be impossible. I’m just pointing out that if he does exist, the evidence suggests that he can’t be all-good, all-powerful and all-knowing, without invoking an unjustified get-out clause by which his amoral acts are actually just fine and dandy. The existence, or otherwise, of free will doesn’t let God off the hook.FredBloggs:
Joe has free will whether or not to perpetrate the act, and so do you to stop him or not do so. It’s not that complicated. How do you know that God isn’t going to stop him either? He doesn’t need a bolt of lightning to do so.
Uhhhh… please tell me you’re not talking about the Christian era here. Or even Judaism post-Exile.
Okay, he probably thinks early Christians believed in a super powerful sky man.
Oh Lord help me, it’s like he walked into a sixth grade classroom for an explanation of atomic particles and thinks the answers he got are the sum total or what science has to offer on the subject.
It’s not hidden knowledge or something only a believer can understand. You just honestly appear to not grasp what we’re talking about when it comes to God, though you certainly have the capacity to do so. You seem content with a “if humans evolved from monkeys, why are monkeys still around” understanding of the concept and believe yourself to have already grasped it.
That’s an interesting point. There’s an assumption that theists have the drop on atheists by virtue of the fact that they believe. That this belief somehow gives them insight into the nature of God that is unavailable to the atheist.
That’s a crock, of course, unless for some reason this deep insight also comes with the caveat that you’re not allowed to explain it. And all the explanations I’ve heard/read come down to this: an assertion that God is x, y and/or z.
Easy to swallow if you already believe that God is the perfect being etc. But if you invoke bare assertion in your defence/explanation of what you believe, then you have to acknowledge that people will challenge those assertions.
There is also, of course, still a wide range of beliefs amongst Christians about what God is. People used to believe he was a bearded man in the sky. Science disproved that (yay science!) and now he’s a far more abstract proposition (but yet somehow still a “he”)… Now “God is love” (a nebulous description if ever there was one), or “God is perfection” and so on.
It’s interesting that you say yay science. I love science. Perhaps you’ve heard of the theory of General Relativity. A theory of course but it does strongly suggest that the universe did have a beginning and a creator. Who do you suppose initiated the big bang. Just lucky I guess?
Anyway, it really is interesting that atheists can never really explain these observations very well, just like I have yet to hear a clear and concise definition from them of what exactly it means to be “good”. How odd.