I don’t think it can be either proven or disproven. It all depends on the assumed creator’s preferences.
Hi Luvya,
I agree that it would not benefit the programmer to have his program make its own erratic choices. And I agree that ultimately this programmer must answer for the harm that his creations do.
Making a change in such a manner is like your bank changing your contract about your house loan, raising the interest unilaterally. Naturally I would not like that. BUT! If I never had the freedom to make any decisions, then I would not even be able to imagine it, and would have no idea if that was preferable or not. So I would be just fine with that arrangement.
I am very glad you say this. It is great to talk to someone who understands.
/cheers!Now that is a different problem. First, I will say this: the creator always must accept full responsibility for the creation. Then the created ones owe nothing to the creator. Since it was not their choice to “get created”, the creator owes them everything. There is a very wise and ancient Oriental custom: if you save someone else’s life, you assume full responsibility for his well-being as long as he lives.
Neil:
Please tell me what does the word “love” mean here? Is it an emotion? Emotions are not under volitional control. Why would the creator wish to be loved by the created ones? What kind of “love” can be between such incredibly different beings?
I suppose we would be “fine with it” if we had never known any better. But that isn’t the same as saying that we would be just as well off. We just wouldn’t know the difference.
I agree that God in justice will accept responsibility for any evil actions of the creatures he created. I understand this to mean that God will repay anyone for the evil they experience in this life, if it wasn’t deserved. God will console those who suffered at the hands of his creatures. I think this is required out of justice.I am very glad you say this. It is great to talk to someone who understands.
I’m not sure about being responsible for taking care of someone you save… could you give some more background on this rather unusual “oriental custom”?
I don’t claim to know for sure that being free is better than being a robot. But I suspect that it is, and I believe an affirmative answer to that question forms the crux of the solution to the “problem of evil”.
Luvya:
No. It is self-sacrificial.
I know. What a shame!
Well, we are different, though perhaps not “incredibly different.” Two spiritual beings certainly can be vastly different, as different as infinity and finity. I’m not sure I would use the word “incredibly,” in this case. Although to some, it ends up being incredible.
Who says we don’t? What are seventy-three books, spanning centuries of time, engulfing thousands of people, including prophets, prophesies, covenants, His own self-sacrifice, all about then? Most of us herein believe he has laid a huge foundation for his preferences.
If we cannot tell the difference, what does it matter to us, if there IS a differnece?
Well, I am not sure that we should specify the creator.
It is an old one. Not sure if it still persists.
We don’t need to pursue it.
The question is for whom? For the creator? Or the created? Moreover, we should explore and contemplate the degree of freedom. No one has unlimited freedom, that is a fact. We are all limited by the physical constraints of the world. How much freedom is preferable? What would be the value of being able to obliterate everyone whom we do not like with an act of “will”? One of the major problems of discussing “free” will is that these auxiliary questions are never explored and contemplated. You see my point?
Sure thing. Agape is acting on behalf of the other being’s best interest. But God has no “needs”. We cannot do anything that would benefit God. What can we sacrifice that would be in God’s best interest? Our love toward God (the creator) is akin to a dog’s submissive, unquestioning adoration toward the master, NOT a sacrificial love of a semi-equal. It is worship, nothing more. And why would a creator “crave” the worship of an infinitely inferior person?
Ok. Say “infinitely” different. Is that better? How can there be any love between inifinitely different beings? Especially if the creator lacks nothing? It cannot be “agape”. It cannot be “eros”. It cannot be “philia” or “storge”. So what is it???
Uh-oh. That does not wash. Accoring to those books the creator’s absolute preferance is our submission to his will, unquestioning acceptance of anything and everything he chooses to “bestow” on us. He prefers our singing praises to his name even if he does not do anything for us. And he prefers not to earn those praises by doing anything on our behalf, but to get it anyhow. Not a praiseworthy attitude I am afraid.
Luvya:
We are His creations. We’re not just some stuff laying around over here and there. Catholicism perceives Creation as being the summoning of massive Power, the absolute fullest expression of His Power, Love, and Causal efficacy, We are not, in Catholic belief, just some stick figures, made from spent match stems, into a person figurines. Each of us is unique. Most of the rest of matter is cookie-cutter.
True; he lacks nothing. Yet he creates eternal beings. I do not pretend to be exactly sure of his motives. Anything I could possibly tell you would be colored by my humanity. At the same time, I also cannot repudiate those explanations colored by my humanity. Either way, I am in a quandary.
And just how do you know that, “Accoring to those books the creator’s absolute preferance is our submission to his will, unquestioning acceptance of anything and everything he chooses to “bestow” on us. He prefers our singing praises to his name even if he does not do anything for us. And he prefers not to earn those praises by doing anything on our behalf, but to get it anyhow?” From your extensive reading of those books, I presume? I’m sorry, a little, but I regard your statement above to be lacking any degree of respect or charitableness. Besides, I find it flagrantly unintelligent. Methinks you self-deify too much.
Never hard about that. Agape was always defined as unconditional actions on behalf of someone else. It is always emphasized that it is simply a volitional act.
The behavior of both the little boy, and the dog is purely emotional.I guess you’ve never been a little boy with a dog. A little boy is not in the least interested in “submissive, unquestioning adoration toward the master.” But, perhaps computer programmers start out life differently!
Sounds good. One remark is due. If someone has absolutely no need, why do anything? Totally against logic. The standard answer is that God wanted to share his “love” with others. But if that is the case, then God lacked those others and had some psychological need to have us. So I see a contradiction here.
The problem is your question “why does it matter to us?” If we never existed, it wouldn’t matter to us, by definition. I would describe that scenario as neutral. If we do exist, and we enjoy existence, then it does matter to us. I would describe that scenario as positive. So, by this logic, an enjoyed existence is better than no existence.
I don’t think this old rule that you’re morally responsible for taking care of someone whose life you saved makes much sense. Surely saving someone’s life should be enough of a good deed without it requiring us to also support the person? I don’t really see how this would be a logical rule.
Good question! The answer is “The good is for the created”. I’m evaluating the goodness or badness of God’s creation based on the good or bad from the perspective of the created. I’m sure you would agree with that, and it seems fair to me.
Agreed. It is a very good bet that everyone, whose life contains more “good” than “bad” will also agree. Of course the opposite is true. People who consider the “bad stuff” to be overwhelming in their existence, choose suicide to end their existence.
Not all of our rules are logical. We hold the parents responsible for the life of their children until they will become self-sustaining - and we consider it pretty logical. In the Victorian era (and before) children of about 6 years old were forced into the workforce.
Certainly. That is a good problem to explore.
I am glad you think so, too. Also I would like to make a distinction between “freedom of will” and the “freedom or ability to carry out our will”. Many a times these two are used interchangably, and I think it is a serious error. Our “will” or “want” or “desire” is limited only by our imagination - in other words, it is not really limited at all. However, the freedom to carry out our wishes is very much limited, and I think that it should be the central point of this discussion. I hope you agree with me here.
Not exactly. I think the problem is much worse than just some inequality in the destructive power. I contend that generally speaking all of us has far too much power to destroy and far too little power to do positive acts. Even a 5 years old can kill a 2 years old, not even willingly, but by accident. What is the point to have such freedom? On the other hand, new mutations of bacteria and viruses pop out from the woodwork. It can take months and years to counter these new diseases - if they can be conquered at all. We do not have the “freedom” to cure cancer, Alzheimers, Parkinsons, Down syndrome, etc… etc… We cannot prevent either malicious acts or natural disasters. That is why I say that our freedom to cause myahem, misery, pain, suffering is too much, and out freedom to do “good” is far too little.
Opps. I see a major stumbling block here. What you say is this: Since we are not privy to all the pertinent information, and since it is logically possible (no internal contradiction) that there “might” be a perfectly good explanation, therefore it is justified to give the “benefit of doubt”.
That is fine. Anecdotal evidence is not to be discarded just because it is anecdotal. What you say is perfectly reasonable. I could get examples from my life, when things did not pan out as I planned, but on the long run, it seems that the “unplanned” route was better. (Of course it is impossible to know, since the other possibility was not actualized). Of course, I do not think that there was divine intervention… that should be obvious.
I am game. Whatever you consider best.