Is Free Will Really Worth It?

[Neil_Anthony]

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.

Yes, I agree with this.

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.

Well there are a few key (controversial) points that will always form answers to questions about the problem of evil:

1. Disease and many other bad things were not part of the original plan but due to our choice to rebel against God we are temporarily stuck in this world with death and other serious problems.
2. The joys of eternal life will more than compensate for evil suffered in this world at the hands of others.

These can’t be proven, but we can discuss whether they are real logical solutions to the problems. For example, perhaps we were stuck in this painful world to learn first-hand how bad sin is so we would change our ways.

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”.

Sorry, no. That is not acceptable. The reason is very simple. This kind of argument could be used under any and all circumstances. It is truly a “get out of jail card for free”. Suppose I want to argue that a psychopath committed a horrible crime-spree, killing and raping and I say that his actions cannot be justified. You can counter it with the same “argument”. After all we NEVER have all the information, and it is ALWAYS possible that there is perfectly good, rational justification for ANYTHING.

If you want to argue along these lines, you need to bring up real, actual, rational arguments, not just a nebulous “maybe there is a good explanation”.

continued…

I agree, that particular line of reasoning can’t prove anything, but it can at least demonstrate that something may not be logically impossible. But I see why it wouldn’t be of much use other than to re-assure someone who doesn’t have the answers yet. I don’t think I need to rely on that kind of reasoning here.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

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.

The trouble is here not that there is a logical error in this line of thought, because there is none. However, it is not reasonable. It cannot be used as “just because it seems that the new route (let’s call it God’s solution) was better, therefore in every instance we can surmise that there is a hidden, better solution”. Observe: “in every instance”. You need to bring up actual, real reasons why should we deviate from the “duck principle”. (I hope you know what I mean.)

All I can hope to do is demonstrate that the world as we know it might not be incompatible with the idea of a loving and omnipotent God. I don’t think I can prove it.

I am game. Whatever you consider best.

I was thinking of that link you posted about the soldiers who witnessed a rape and murder but did nothing. I could come up with a scenario based on that where, given a lot of supernatural events and eternal consequences, everyone turned out for the better, and justice was served. But I’m not sure it will be worth my effort. Let me know what you think?

 

[pinay]

I’m in a kind of a hurry, so I didn’t read all the posts in the thread… just want to tell you…

This question is actually addressed in a one-semester Religious Education college course in my University. 4 semesters of Catholic ReEd is required in the Catholic University I went to, to get my Bachelor’s degree.

The entire semester was spent on the study of the fictional god Horgath. He is a god who created an earth out of his love - just like God created our Earth that he may share joy through eternal life.

So, Horgath wanted to make sure everybody is happy, so he created the earth so that the birds sing every time a person passes by and the flowers are always in bloom. After a while, the people prayed to Horgath telling him to stop the birds from singing because they are annoying and to stop the flowers from blooming because they are ugly.

Horgath was so surprised by this and he sadly stopped the birds from singing and the flowers from blooming because he just wanted the people to be happy.

After a while, the people started to miss the birds and the flowers, so they became unhappy. So, Horgath made the birds sing but only in the morning and he made the flowers bloom but only in the spring.

The people experienced such intense joy - more than they ever had before - when they heard the birds sing and the flowers bloom. They became a little sad when it’s not spring anymore, but by springtime, they celebrated!

Horgath gave them basketball. Everytime somebody shoots the ball he scores a basket. 10 shots, 10 baskets. The people were happy but after a while they stopped playing. Horgath asked the people, why don’t you play anymore, doesn’t basketball make you happy? The people said, yes, it makes them happy but it’s boring. So, Horgath adjusted the game so that they can only make a basket if they lined up the shot properly. So, sometimes the people would miss and they would be sad, but when they make the basket then they are intensely happy and they would strive harder and harder to make that shot… so they got stronger and healthier and really happy.

Anyway, this goes on and on until at the end of the semester, Horgath ended up with a world exactly the same as Earth.

So… the lesson for the entire semester is this: One cannot experience pure joy when one doesn’t know sadness. Free will is, therefore, essential for man to be able to learn to understand God’s love.

Yep, one entire semester on that question. Crazy, huh?

 

[Luvya]

Well there are a few key (controversial) points that will always form answers to questions about the problem of evil:

1. Disease and many other bad things were not part of the original plan but due to our choice to rebel against God we are temporarily stuck in this world with death and other serious problems.

I do not want to get into the question of “natural evil”, since it would distract us from the topic of the tread. We are talking here about the ramification of “free will”. My point is that we have far too much ability to cause harm to each other (and to the animals, too) but not enough ability to remedy the harms (be they human-inflicted of naturally caused).

1. The joys of eternal life will more than compensate for evil suffered in this world at the hands of others.

Not a good argument. First, there is no proof for this eternal bliss. Second, not everyone will enjoy that “bliss”. Third, if the bliss is not logically connected to the suffering here, then the suffering here was still gratuitous. And a benevolent deity can allow or cause all the suffering he wishes as long as all those suffering LOGICALLY lead to some greater good, which greater good cannot be achieved without that suffering or by lessening that suffering. A benevolent deity can NEVER, under any circumstances allow or cause gratuitous, unnecessary suffering. That would be a contradiction to benevolence.

These can’t be proven, but we can discuss whether they are real logical solutions to the problems. For example, perhaps we were stuck in this painful world to learn first-hand how bad sin is so we would change our ways.

Nothing wrong with this - IN PRINCIPLE. But you run into the problem of the extent of suffering again. A father might punish his child for educational purposes, to tech the child to “mend his ways”. That is perfectly compatible with benevolence. But excessive, unnecessary punishment cannot be justified.

I agree, that particular line of reasoning can’t prove anything, but it can at least demonstrate that something may not be logically impossible. But I see why it wouldn’t be of much use other than to re-assure someone who doesn’t have the answers yet. I don’t think I need to rely on that kind of reasoning here.

Wonderful. If you make a slip, I hope you will not mind if I point it out… (not that I expect you to slip)

All I can hope to do is demonstrate that the world as we know it might not be incompatible with the idea of a loving and omnipotent God. I don’t think I can prove it.

There are levels of demonstration. A total “proof” is not possible not it is necessary.

I was thinking of that link you posted about the soldiers who witnessed a rape and murder but did nothing. I could come up with a scenario based on that where, given a lot of supernatural events and eternal consequences, everyone turned out for the better, and justice was served. But I’m not sure it will be worth my effort. Let me know what you think?

Go for it.

 

[Luvya]

I’m in a kind of a hurry, so I didn’t read all the posts in the thread… just want to tell you…

This question is actually addressed in a one-semester Religious Education college course in my University. 4 semesters of Catholic ReEd is required in the Catholic University I went to, to get my Bachelor’s degree.

The entire semester was spent on the study of the fictional god Horgath. He is a god who created an earth out of his love - just like God created our Earth that he may share joy through eternal life.

So, Horgath wanted to make sure everybody is happy, so he created the earth so that the birds sing every time a person passes by and the flowers are always in bloom. After a while, the people prayed to Horgath telling him to stop the birds from singing because they are annoying and to stop the flowers from blooming because they are ugly.

Horgath was so surprised by this and he sadly stopped the birds from singing and the flowers from blooming because he just wanted the people to be happy.

After a while, the people started to miss the birds and the flowers, so they became unhappy. So, Horgath made the birds sing but only in the morning and he made the flowers bloom but only in the spring.

The people experienced such intense joy - more than they ever had before - when they heard the birds sing and the flowers bloom. They became a little sad when it’s not spring anymore, but by springtime, they celebrated!

Horgath gave them basketball. Everytime somebody shoots the ball he scores a basket. 10 shots, 10 baskets. The people were happy but after a while they stopped playing. Horgath asked the people, why don’t you play anymore, doesn’t basketball make you happy? The people said, yes, it makes them happy but it’s boring. So, Horgath adjusted the game so that they can only make a basket if they lined up the shot properly. So, sometimes the people would miss and they would be sad, but when they make the basket then they are intensely happy and they would strive harder and harder to make that shot… so they got stronger and healthier and really happy.

Anyway, this goes on and on until at the end of the semester, Horgath ended up with a world exactly the same as Earth.

So… the lesson for the entire semester is this: One cannot experience pure joy when one doesn’t know sadness. Free will is, therefore, essential for man to be able to learn to understand God’s love.

Yep, one entire semester on that question. Crazy, huh?

Oh, brother, that must have been a truckload of fun. I wish I could participate. I am wondering however, how did you get to the point when those hypothetical people demanded leprosy, random Earthquakes, black plague, HIV, progeria (premature aging) and other “niceties”.

But I have a serious question here, too. Effectively you say that being sick and then recuperate is preferable to uninterrupted good health. Starving first and then being able to eat is better than having good diet all the time. Being beaten up and then enjoying a peaceful existence is preferable to being left in peace all the time.

In other words you say that constant, uninterrupted “good” is “boring”, while living on a roller-coaster is better. Sorry, I simply do not accept that. To have good teeth (for example) and no cavities is far preferable to having your teeth drilled, having root-canals, and other “enjoyable” procedures.

I give you one thing. You appreciate the good much more after having experienced the bad. That goes without saying. I simply deny that this “extra” enjoyment is preferable.

 

[JDaniel]

Sounds good. One remark is due. If someone has absolutely no need, why do anything? Totally against logic.

Luvya:

Whose law is it that God must be totally logical?

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.

On the contrary. God is fecundity. Fecundity creates.

If the constructor wants the created “world” to perform some tasks, without any deviation, then he much choose the fully deterministic model. The world will perform exactly as planned and expected. This is the way how human constructors work - at least for the time being. No one would dream of giving “free will” to a car, so that it could override the drivers and drive off from the road. Now the new cars have a very well-defined freedom of action, they can override the driver to prevent accidents. But any unplanned deviation is a “bug”.

Apples and oranges.

The creation of a fully determisitic “world” is a very hard task. The designer must foresee all the possible scenarios, which is next to impossible for us (limited beings). An easier method is to build in some inviolable limits that the creator wants to enforce each and every time, and also build in generic guidelines and allow the world to “learn”.

Yes, he could, couldn’t he?

This solution is elegant and simpler than the fully deterministic model. But the creator must build a fully deterministic “internal core”, which allows deviation from the desire parameters, but only as much as the constructor deems it allowable.

I’m not sure I would agree with “must.”

Finally the creator can neglect to create a deterministic “internal core”, allows the beings to do pretty much what they want to do. The beings are still limited by the physical characteristics of the world. To “make up” for lack of proper design, the creator can issue “commandments” and “tells” the beings what are the allowable and non-allowable actions. This is what a lazy constructor does, who does not care about the creation.

That is your prejudice.

If you think that there is a resemblance to our actual existence, then you are right. If you think that this little essay shows “flagrant unintelligence”, the you are welcome to your opinion. Also I have to point out that criticism and lack of “charity” are not interchangable. I call things as I see them. If I happen to see a human father who neglects to take care of his children, but nevertheless proclaims how much he loves them, then this father will not earn any respect from me… Your milage may vary.

In general, you would be correct. But, you assume too much, IMHO. You assume that you are uniquely assured of full possession of the truth. That any coloration of the exigencies is perfect because it is you uttering them. The thread is: Is Free Will Really Worth It?. From our POV, perhaps not. From God’s, perhaps it is. We surmise that it is from Revelation which is not about God acting like an evil tyrant. He is acting like a father. Do you have kids?

God bless,
jd

 

[Luvya]

Whose law is it that God must be totally logical?

If God is not logical, then he is not rational. Christians say that God is perfect in every respect. An illogical God is not perfect in that respect.

On the contrary. God is fecundity. Fecundity creates.

For no reason whatsoever? That is again illogical. Also, if what you say is true, then God has a need to express his fecundity. For a completely, perfectly self-sufficient being any action is illogical. You cannot get around that. No action can make perfection even more “perfect”. Perfection can be lessened or destroyed, however, by adding something less perfect to it. And that is illogical.

Apples and oranges.

No. It is very simple and obvious. I am enumerating the three possible approaches to creating a system.

Yes, he could, couldn’t he?

Sure he could have, but he did not. If there are irreversible consequences to an action, then there is no possibility of learning. In the second scenario there is a properly limited freedom, which allows mistakes to learn from, but not mistakes with irreversible consequences.

I’m not sure I would agree with “must.”

“Must” means that the creator cannot avoid to hard-wire certain limitations on freedom.

That is your prejudice.

Empty answer. I don’t expect you to agree with me, but I would expect to see a meaningful analysis about the reasons for disagreement. It is a fact that we have almost no “built-in” ruleset (please do not mention that “natural law” inscribed unto our “heart”, because that is getting boring) which would disallow us to make unwanted actions. It is the Christian assumption that God issued some commands instead to keep us on the straight and narrow path. From these it follows that God does not care ENOUGH to make sure that we “work as intended”. That could be a sign of “laziness” or a sign of “lack of care”. Your one-liner about my “prejudice” is meaningless.

In general, you would be correct. But, you assume too much, IMHO. You assume that you are uniquely assured of full possession of the truth.

I assume that I have enough knowledge to make a logical assessment of what I see. There is no assumption of “full possession” of “the” truth.

That any coloration of the exigencies is perfect because it is you uttering them. The thread is: Is Free Will Really Worth It?. From our POV, perhaps not. From God’s, perhaps it is.

By the analysis I offered the amount of freedome we have to cause harm is unwarranted and too much. On the other hand, our freedom to remedy harms is far too little. You cannot just talk about “free will” without analyzing the amount of freedom. This is also logical, since our freedom is not absolute, it is always limited by the environment.

We surmise that it is from Revelation which is not about God acting like an evil tyrant. He is acting like a father. Do you have kids?

He most certainly does not act like I acted when my kid was still small.

Now, obviously it is your prerogative to form you asnwers as you wish. I ask you, however, to refrain from uttering one-liners. One-liners have absolutely no informational value. And they are pretty annoying.

 

[pinay]

Oh, brother, that must have been a truckload of fun. I wish I could participate. I am wondering however, how did you get to the point when those hypothetical people demanded leprosy, random Earthquakes, black plague, HIV, progeria (premature aging) and other “niceties”.

But I have a serious question here, too. Effectively you say that being sick and then recuperate is preferable to uninterrupted good health. Starving first and then being able to eat is better than having good diet all the time. Being beaten up and then enjoying a peaceful existence is preferable to being left in peace all the time.

In other words you say that constant, uninterrupted “good” is “boring”, while living on a roller-coaster is better. Sorry, I simply do not accept that. To have good teeth (for example) and no cavities is far preferable to having your teeth drilled, having root-canals, and other “enjoyable” procedures.

I give you one thing. You appreciate the good much more after having experienced the bad. That goes without saying. I simply deny that this “extra” enjoyment is preferable.

Yes, it was one of my favorite classes in all of my years of ReEd classes…

How do you know you are living a life of good health if bad health does not exist on earth?

How do you know that eating candy every morning (which, I can say with confidence brings happiness to people) is bad for you, if cavities don’t exist?

But really… the million dollar question is - how do you exercise charity if there’s nobody to be charitable to?

I look at my neighbor who lost both legs recently and she asks me - Why did God punish me? And my honest answer (that I learned from Horgath) is - I don’t think God intended to punish you. He is giving you the opportunity to see if you trust God enough to put your troubles in His hands. But, more importantly, He is testing ME to see if I love God enough to serve my neighbor in her time of need.

Man, I wish I could remember what that textbook was! I googled all over the place for it and I just can’t find it!

 

[Sair]

How do you know you are living a life of good health if bad health does not exist on earth?

As Luvya has intimated, some things are a matter of degree. The fact that we have more ability to do harm than to prevent or correct it seems to suggest a serious flaw in the original creation - our free will apparently extends too far in what seems to be the wrong direction if God is indeed acting in our interests. Here again, the degree of illness that exists in the world is well in excess of that which would be necessary for us to appreciate good health - I feel great after a week or two of being down with a bad cold. I felt fabulous after getting over two weeks of severe glandular fever - but that was sufficient. Why diseases that are fatal, crippling or disfiguring?

How do you know that eating candy every morning (which, I can say with confidence brings happiness to people) is bad for you, if cavities don’t exist?

That’s an easy one - resultant stomach cramps from excess sugar. They’ll go away after a while, though, without painful intervention.

But really… the million dollar question is - how do you exercise charity if there’s nobody to be charitable to?

I look at my neighbor who lost both legs recently and she asks me - Why did God punish me? And my honest answer (that I learned from Horgath) is - I don’t think God intended to punish you. He is giving you the opportunity to see if you trust God enough to put your troubles in His hands. But, more importantly, He is testing ME to see if I love God enough to serve my neighbor in her time of need.

That seems a little unfair that you’re benefiting more than your injured friend from this event. One is tempted to ask, why is it necessary to love God enough in this case, rather than loving your neighbour enough, or empathising enough to know that you would wish to be cared for if you were in your neighbour’s position? It is perhaps the case that if no-one suffered at all, no-one would have any reason or opportunity to demonstrate that they were more than a fair-weather friend. But again, it’s a question of degree.

To get to the guts of the original question, consider all your friends. I would hazard a guess that none of them are perfectly charitable, perfectly selfless, or morally perfect in any way. But I’d also bet that pretty much none of them would choose to commit rape, murder, or any other violent assault just because the opportunity arose. I doubt this is only because they have religious faith (assuming they do) - it’s because they have basic human fellow-feeling, and don’t enjoy watching other sentient beings suffer. Thus, through their own free will, they choose to indulge their preference for not inflicting gratuitous harm. Could God not have seen to it that all people are like this, without violating or unnecessarily inhibiting free will? Thus, I don’t think the question is really whether having free will is worth all the misery that humans inflict on each other (because not all of this is a result of freely chosen action) - it’s whether the existence of free will in and of itself can cut it as a defence against the obvious existence of evil in a world supposed to have been created by a benevolent God.

 

[Luvya]

How do you know you are living a life of good health if bad health does not exist on earth?

How do you know that eating candy every morning (which, I can say with confidence brings happiness to people) is bad for you, if cavities don’t exist?

But really… the million dollar question is - how do you exercise charity if there’s nobody to be charitable to?

You don’t… you don’t… you don’t… and in my opinion you don’t lose anything.

I look at my neighbor who lost both legs recently and she asks me - Why did God punish me? And my honest answer (that I learned from Horgath) is - I don’t think God intended to punish you. He is giving you the opportunity to see if you trust God enough to put your troubles in His hands. But, more importantly, He is testing ME to see if I love God enough to serve my neighbor in her time of need.

I am sorry… God does not need to “test” you. And to allow your neighbor to lose his legs, just to see if you are a good person - amounts to degrading that guy to the role of a “tool” which definitely robs him of his dignity. Is it worth to condemn someone to a wheelchair just to see that you will do what he already knew you will do? And also, you don’t need God to be kind, helpful and loving toward your neighbor.

Man, I wish I could remember what that textbook was! I googled all over the place for it and I just can’t find it!

If you find it, let us know… I would like to read it.

Going back to my previous question. You said that by the end of the semester the hypothetical world was just like our existence here… how come that those hypothetical people “demanded” wars, holocausts, genocides and all the natural disasters we have here? I hope you can remeber at least to some of that.

 

[Spirithound]

Solutions to the “problem of evil” always includes the premise that:

“This world with human beings free to choose between good and evil is better than a world with humans who did not have free will but always did good”.

Can anyone prove or disprove this?

Free will is the thing that literally separates us from the animals. It goes along inextricably with self-reflection and language, and therefore the immortal soul. If we did not have free will, we could never get to Heaven.

 

[Spirithound]

To have good teeth (for example) and no cavities is far preferable to having your teeth drilled, having root-canals, and other “enjoyable” procedures.

I agree it’s far better to have good teeth than to have your teeth drilled, but I don’t think that was exactly the point of the story. I would say that it is sufficient that the possibility of the bad exist, rather than the actuality of it existing. For example, it is enough for me to know that gingivitis exists for me to take pleasure in not having that condition.

 

[JDaniel]

If God is not logical, then he is not rational. Christians say that God is perfect in every respect. An illogical God is not perfect in that respect.

Luvya:

But, what is logical to us may not be logical to God. He is also Love. He doesn’t merely contain love: he IS love. As we know, love is not always logical. If you believe that it is, or that it should be, then that is your prejudice - that is a matter of sheer choice. Your above statement is a naked assertion. It is accompanied by no facts, nor by any axioms. How else am I to classify it? I really am trying to be as Christian as I can be.

For no reason whatsoever? That is again illogical. Also, if what you say is true, then God has a need to express his fecundity. For a completely, perfectly self-sufficient being any action is illogical. You cannot get around that. No action can make perfection even more “perfect”. Perfection can be lessened or destroyed, however, by adding something less perfect to it. And that is illogical.

I agree that it seems that way. But, it can’t be that way. God shares Being, existence. He has no need. I desire to share my thoughts here with you, but, I have no pressing demand to do so. I could have gone to bed and sent your post into the ether.

No. It is very simple and obvious. I am enumerating the three possible approaches to creating a system.

Why must God do everything precisely the way you and I would do it? Sorry - that’s personal prejudice rearing its darn head again.

Sure he could have, but he did not. If there are irreversible consequences to an action, then there is no possibility of learning. In the second scenario there is a properly limited freedom, which allows mistakes to learn from, but not mistakes with irreversible consequences.

We are made of matter/energy. We are not made of the same stuff a spiritual being would be made of. Free matter has the inescapable power to impress its mass.

“Must” means that the creator cannot avoid to hard-wire certain limitations on freedom.

That is done - to a large extent. We can’t get away with everything. And, we can’t get away with a great deal for very long. Sooner or later, all things come to an end.

Empty answer. I don’t expect you to agree with me, but I would expect to see a meaningful analysis about the reasons for disagreement. It is a fact that we have almost no “built-in” ruleset (please do not mention that “natural law” inscribed unto our “heart”, because that is getting boring) which would disallow us to make unwanted actions.

And, that’s an area of free will that we should all abhor. (Can you imagine if the majority of us didn’t?) But, your assertion is naked. Again: it is your prejudice. You offer no facts, no theory, no axioms. Just a blatant statement (actually two). Not that your ‘models’ would be facticals either, any more than a model of the solar system is the solar system. But, I’m sure you can see that!

It is the Christian assumption that God issued some commands instead to keep us on the straight and narrow path. From these it follows that God does not care ENOUGH to make sure that we “work as intended”. That could be a sign of “laziness” or a sign of “lack of care”. Your one-liner about my “prejudice” is meaningless.

I am a man of few words. My one-liners are very meaningful - to me.

I don’t think he intended that. Especially after the Fall. I think Creation is still rolling out and, like a great painter, there will always be a part of the picture that is yet undone. When it is done, I think it’ll be a masterpiece.

I assume that I have enough knowledge to make a logical assessment of what I see. There is no assumption of “full possession” of “the” truth.

Yes you can. But, what is interesting is that what you keep calling “logical” is not logical to me. And, I’ll bet it’s not logical to many others herein as well. Your logic presumes you can know the mind (analogically) of God. Logic should tell you that you can’t possibly know His ‘mind’. You and I can only surmise. But, you and I can make great models. And “models,” as we know, can be offered as statements of fact. As M. O’C. Drury once said, “… a ‘hypothesis’ (or ‘theory’) is simply a statement – or a collection of statements – of fact that has yet to be tested for its (/their) truth or falsity.”

By the analysis I offered the amount of freedome we have to cause harm is unwarranted and too much. On the other hand, our freedom to remedy harms is far too little. You cannot just talk about “free will” without analyzing the amount of freedom.

Actually, I see us all as rather limited. Occasionally a few of us break the norm. Occasionally we do something bad. I hear about it but, I never see it. I have, on occasion, been witness to something that I thought very bad. Later upon talking to the victim(s), I discovered that “bad” is more often than not, in the eye of the beholder.

He most certainly does not act like I acted when my kid was still small.

Hmmm. Interesting qualifier.

Now, obviously it is your prerogative to form you asnwers as you wish. I ask you, however, to refrain from uttering one-liners. One-liners have absolutely no informational value. And they are pretty annoying.

Well, I did the best I could to not be annoying. Don’t know if I succeeded though.

 

[Luvya]

But, what is logical to us may not be logical to God.

Here is our exchange:
Luvya: If someone has absolutely no need, why do anything? Totally against logic.
JD: Whose law is it that God must be totally logical?
Luvya: If God is not logical, then he is not rational. Christians say that God is perfect in every respect. An illogical God is not perfect in that respect.
JD: But, what is logical to us may not be logical to God.
There is only one logic, there is no such thing as “human” logic and “divine” logic.

He is also Love. He doesn’t merely contain love: he IS love. As we know, love is not always logical. If you believe that it is, or that it should be, then that is your prejudice - that is a matter of sheer choice.

Agape had better be logical. To act in someone’s best interest had better be logical - otherwise it will be a mess. (Is this also a “naked” assertion?) Emotion based love is not logical. But God’s love is not emotion driven.

Your above statement is a naked assertion. It is accompanied by no facts, nor by any axioms. How else am I to classify it? I really am trying to be as Christian as I can be.

Sorry, what is a “naked” assertion about those 3 sentences? Quoting them to spare you the need to go back:

If God is not logical, then he is not rational.
Christians say that God is perfect in every respect.
An illogical God is not perfect in that respect.

I agree that it seems that way. But, it can’t be that way. God shares Being, existence. He has no need. I desire to share my thoughts here with you, but, I have no pressing demand to do so. I could have gone to bed and sent your post into the ether.

Sure, and the fact that you did not send it to the bit-bucket, shows your internal need to send it. If not for anything else, but for the sake of politeness. Any action either fulfills some “need”, or it is totally pointless. That dichotomy is obvious (and a “naked” assertion? ). If the action is totally pointless, then it was illogical.

Why must God do everything precisely the way you and I would do it? Sorry - that’s personal prejudice rearing its darn head again.

Now, this is the kind of one-liner I was talking about, and it is a “naked” assertion. If you have a good, solid reason for dismissing what I said, then why don’t you share it? Bring out the details. What I said was again a logical breakdown of system design, on a very high level: 1) fully deterministic, 2) partially free and 3) totally free. There are no other methods, even for God.

(This is quite like this hypothetical conversation: “Luvya: if God tosses a coin, it will be either heads, or tails, or the coin will land on its circumference, or someone snatches the coin in mid-air. JD: this is just a naked assertion, why should God be constrained like we are? You only show your prejudice.”)

We are made of matter/energy. We are not made of the same stuff a spiritual being would be made of. Free matter has the inescapable power to impress its mass.

I have absolutely no idea what you try to say here. I was talking about a world, where the beings have a well defined “freedom to act”. Next to the physical constraints they are also limited by a conscience, which cannot be volitionally overruled. These psychological constrants are imposed by God, and they are very well chosen: he makes sure that we are unable to do something that he MOST definitely does not want us to do.

God already made sure that there are certain things we are unable to do, the physical constraints are the limiting factors. What would be problematic about extending those physical constraints? Or make sure that we never even think about doing “bad stuff”. No need to limit our freedom to do what think we can do, prevent the thought itself.

That is done - to a large extent. We can’t get away with everything. And, we can’t get away with a great deal for very long. Sooner or later, all things come to an end.

We can get away with too many things for too long. But that is not the point again. Let’s remember that an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure. (Yup, another naked assertion. Or is it?) It is much more logical, rational and reasonable to prevent an unwanted action, than to allow it and then apply retribution. (Oops, naked assertion, again?)

And, that’s an area of free will that we should all abhor. (Can you imagine if the majority of us didn’t?) But, your assertion is naked. Again: it is your prejudice.

What are you talking about? To make sure that people are unable to do something that God really does not want us to do? What is so problematic about that? We do it all the time (in our imperfect way, of course.) We put criminals into jail, and make sure that they will not go out and kill, maim, torture other people.

If it is my “prejudice” that I would prefer a world where there are no wars, no tortures, no genocides, BECAUSE people simply never even consider such action, then I will happily and proudly wear my “prejudice” around my neck. And I “abhor” the concept of “unlimited freedom”, where people are allowed to do ALMOST anything HARMFUL they want to do.

It is my prejudice that I would prefer to be able to heal a broken leg, just by putting my hand onto it (as Jesus promised) or bring back the victim of a random accident from the dead just by willing it (as Jesus promised). And I “abhor” my lack of freedom to do it, my lack of ability to express my love and caring to the victims of accidents, disasters.

Wait a second… who is the “Christian” here?

 

[Luvya]

I agree it’s far better to have good teeth than to have your teeth drilled, but I don’t think that was exactly the point of the story. I would say that it is sufficient that the possibility of the bad exist, rather than the actuality of it existing. For example, it is enough for me to know that gingivitis exists for me to take pleasure in not having that condition.

I see what you mean, but there are other people who suffer from these conditions, so there are examples that you are aware of. And you are happy that you don’t have it. For you it is a possibility only. For others it is reality (actuality). If no one ever had these problems, then you could not even imagine it. As such you would not know what you are “missing”.

But the lack of problems is still preferable than having those problems for a while and not having them later. Would you grab a hammer, and beat your own thumb, just because it feels sooo good when you stop doing it? I should hope not. Only a total idiot would do such a thing. And if you do not want it to happen for yourself, then … (I hope you can finish the sentence).

 

[Luvya]

And, that’s an area of free will that we should all abhor. (Can you imagine if the majority of us didn’t?)

Do you “abhor” the Garden of Eden? Or heaven?

Yes, I can imagine it. And I very much like it. This thread reminds me of a great sci-fi novel written by Stanislaw Lem, its title is “Return from the stars”.

The hero is an astronaut, who got back to Earth after a long trip. During his absence there was a huge change on Earth. The whole society discarded violence. There are no violent actions of any kind, at all. When people have a disagreement, they sit down and compromize. The change was achieved by introducing new chemicals into the brain, which “decoupled” disagreement from violence. The people still can imagine violent actions, but simply do not want to do them. They feel enormous “reluctance” to kill or commit any other kind of violence. Their freedom is still there. There are antidotes which will “suspend” this reluctance - if the people want to take it - but they simply do not want to do it.

This is just a very short synopsys of the book. There are many other things in it. But this is the “gist” of it.

What is “abhorrent” about this picture? I would seriously like to hear your detailed reasoning.

 

[JDaniel]

Here is our exchange:
Luvya: If someone has absolutely no need, why do anything? Totally against logic.
JD: Whose law is it that God must be totally logical?
Luvya: If God is not logical, then he is not rational. Christians say that God is perfect in every respect. An illogical God is not perfect in that respect.
JD: But, what is logical to us may not be logical to God.
There is only one logic, there is no such thing as “human” logic and “divine” logic.

Luvya:

“There is only one logic, there is no such thing as “human” logic and “divine” logic.” Are you really sure you want to say this?

My question would be: And you know this how?

Agape had better be logical. To act in someone’s best interest had better be logical - otherwise it will be a mess.

I don’t know where you get the idea of agape that you continue to promulgate. Here’s agape from Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agape

(Is this also a “naked” assertion?)

On your part.

Emotion based love is not logical. But God’s love is not emotion driven.

Where did I say that it was?

Sorry, what is a “naked” assertion about those 3 sentences? Quoting them to spare you the need to go back:

Where’s the evidence?

If God is not logical, then he is not rational.

I surmise that he is supremely logical and rational - quite often, beyond our human comprehension.

Christians say that God is perfect in every respect.

True.

An illogical God is not perfect in that respect.

True. But, what does this have to do with the God of whom we are speaking?

Sure, and the fact that you did not send it to the bit-bucket, shows your internal need to send it. If not for anything else, but for the sake of politeness.

(This is becoming almost unbearable.) It never dawned on you that I might just want to reply to you to show off? Or, that I had nothing better to do and believed I had an answer that might be elucidative to others reading these posts?

Any action either fulfills some “need”, or it is totally pointless.

And, so, there are no ‘pointless acts’? And your evidence for this unfounded (naked) assertion: where might it be?

That dichotomy is obvious (and a “naked” assertion? ). If the action is totally pointless, then it was illogical.

Why do you think you must be in complete apprehension of every single reason for every single act ever performed, being now performed, or, ever to be performed? Why did that lady just blow her horn on the street below? How do you even know it was a lady? Why did that guy spit on the sidewalk? He seems to do that a lot. The point is: many pointless acts are performed without a moment’s thought. When no logical syllogism, or dialectic, is even being considered, what logical precept are they violating. That is the absence of logic not illogic.

Now, this is the kind of one-liner I was talking about, and it is a “naked” assertion. If you have a good, solid reason for dismissing what I said, then why don’t you share it? Bring out the details. What I said was again a logical breakdown of system design, on a very high level: 1) fully deterministic, 2) partially free and 3) totally free. There are no other methods, even for God.

I’m very sorry, I have no desire to further this discussion. Again, I ask: WHAT IS YOUR EVIDENCE? WHERE ARE YOUR PROOFS? You really don’t see your sentences as unfounded, naked assertions?

(This is quite like this hypothetical conversation: “Luvya: if God tosses a coin, it will be either heads, or tails, or the coin will land on its circumference, or someone snatches the coin in mid-air. JD: this is just a naked assertion, why should God be constrained like we are? You only show your prejudice.”)

Actually, here you have at least inserted some parameters here that the rest of us can grab hold of. Even so, it is unfounded, naked assertion: there are many more things that God can do with and to that coin, either in mid-air, or before it rises, or after it lands. You delineate merely a few, and voilà! they are definitive. You are completely wrong, can’t you see that?

I have absolutely no idea what you try to say here. I was talking about a world, where the beings have a well defined “freedom to act”. Next to the physical constraints they are also limited by a conscience, which cannot be volitionally overruled. These psychological constrants are imposed by God, and they are very well chosen: he makes sure that we are unable to do something that he MOST definitely does not want us to do.

Try out a couple of examples, even if you refuse to give proper evidence.

God already made sure that there are certain things we are unable to do, the physical constraints are the limiting factors. What would be problematic about extending those physical constraints?

Oh, I have an example of this: men don’t have wings! So, they can’t fly!

Or make sure that we never even think about doing “bad stuff”. No need to limit our freedom to do what think we can do, prevent the thought itself.

I suppose that this makes some sense to you.

continued . . .

 

[JDaniel]

continuation . . .

We can get away with too many things for too long.

For example?

But that is not the point again. Let’s remember that an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure. (Yup, another naked assertion. Or is it?) It is much more logical, rational and reasonable to prevent an unwanted action, than to allow it and then apply retribution. (Oops, naked assertion, again?)

Hmmm. Yes, they are. By the way, did it ever dawn on you that you would be unable to promote your ideas, or this conversation, had God imposed what you suggest? Sedition, I tell you, unadulterated sedition!

What are you talking about? To make sure that people are unable to do something that God really does not want us to do? What is so problematic about that?

I haven’t thought about it too much recently, but, there probable are many things we are kept from doing - by hard-wire, so to speak. But, to impose that absolutely is not a granting of freedom, it is a a restriction on freedom.

We do it all the time (in our imperfect way, of course.) We put criminals into jail, and make sure that they will not go out and kill, maim, torture other people.

(I just love your flowery descriptions!)

If it is my “prejudice” that I would prefer a world where there are no wars, no tortures, no genocides, BECAUSE people simply never even consider such action, then I will happily and proudly wear my “prejudice” around my neck.

Why? How would you even know that you had such a prejudice?

And I “abhor” the concept of “unlimited freedom”, where people are allowed to do ALMOST anything HARMFUL they want to do.

Good! You had me worried there.

It is my prejudice that I would prefer to be able to heal a broken leg, just by putting my hand onto it (as Jesus promised) or bring back the victim of a random accident from the dead just by willing it (as Jesus promised).

Please! Evidence! Please!

Wait a second… who is the “Christian” here?

Not you.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Do you “abhor” the Garden of Eden? Or heaven?

Luvya:

You DO understand that this has a name? “Straw man” comes to mind. Or, maybe even (shall I say it?) “Red Herring?”

The hero is an astronaut, who got back to Earth after a long trip. During his absence there was a huge change on Earth. The whole society discarded violence. There are no violent actions of any kind, at all. When people have a disagreement, they sit down and compromize. The change was achieved by introducing new chemicals into the brain, which “decoupled” disagreement from violence. The people still can imagine violent actions, but simply do not want to do them. They feel enormous “reluctance” to kill or commit any other kind of violence. Their freedom is still there. There are antidotes which will “suspend” this reluctance - if the people want to take it - but they simply do not want to do it.

Find that drug.

What is “abhorrent” about this picture? I would seriously like to hear your detailed reasoning.

Why would you think that I would have a problem with this? After all, we can “fly!”

God bless,
jd

 

[Luvya]

By the way, did it ever dawn on you that you would be unable to promote your ideas, or this conversation, had God imposed what you suggest? Sedition, I tell you, unadulterated sedition!

Sheer nonsense. Ideas do not cause harm to anyone. However, if the world would be as I suggest, there would be no NEED for such a discussion.

Please! Evidence! Please!

Evidence of what? I presented my opinion that I would prefer to have more freedom to help the ones in need. And that I would prefer less freedom to harm others. Why do you think that I need to provide evidence for an opinion??? (If you wish to see evidence of the part in parentheses, consult your Bible.)

Not you.

I know that, and I am proud of it. But my attitude toward others is MORE Christian than yours. And I am proud of that, too… even if pride is one of the 7 deadly sins (murder and rape are not… hmm? Interesting priorities.)

I’m very sorry, I have no desire to further this discussion.

At least we agree on something. Nor am I. Good bye.