So, who is responsible?

[Warrenton]

All his acts are the result of you opening his prison cell and setting him free. You are responsible for what he did. Can you deny it?

Of course not.

Your hypothetical highlights the difference in the way Catholics and non-Catholics reason, and highlights the mystery that we call free will.

In Catholic understanding, free well is fundamentally a mystery. We believe it exists based on revealed truth.

We believe in the existence of God based on revelation as well: He has told us about His existence (e.g., the burning bush).

The ultimate correspondence between God’s infinite power and our free will cannot be fully explained, which is what we mean when we use the word “mystery” (a bit different than the meaning intended by Agatha Christie).

This, of course, will not satisfy someone who denies the existence of God.

However, free will remains something of a conundrum whether we come at from an atheist or deistic standpoint. From an extreme materialist position, which from what I have read, has adopted the “unified theory of physics” idea, everything is a function of the physical chain reactions that commenced at the beginning of time, and have been infolding as they must, according to physical laws, ever since. Hence, our feeling of free will is an illusion, albeit a quite convincing one. Oddly, as Carl Sagan (I think) observed, it does not appear to have any evolutionary advantage. Also oddly, if this is true, it calls into question our ability to accurately observe anything: if we are so fundamentally under an illusion, what else is an illusion?

This is where your philosophy, Spock, gets particularly interesting! Much more so than Catholics’, I might add!

 

[Spock]

Of course not.

Thank you very much

Your hypothetical highlights the difference in the way Catholics and non-Catholics reason, and highlights the mystery that we call free will.

In Catholic understanding, free well is fundamentally a mystery. We believe it exists based on revealed truth.

We believe in the existence of God based on revelation as well: He has told us about His existence (e.g., the burning bush).

The ultimate correspondence between God’s infinite power and our free will cannot be fully explained, which is what we mean when we use the word “mystery” (a bit different than the meaning intended by Agatha Christie).

Indeed, there is a huge difference.

However, free will remains something of a conundrum whether we come at from an atheist or deistic standpoint. From an extreme materialist position, which from what I have read, has adopted the “unified theory of physics” idea, everything is a function of the physical chain reactions that commenced at the beginning of time, and have been infolding as they must, according to physical laws, ever since. Hence, our feeling of free will is an illusion, albeit a quite convincing one. Oddly, as Carl Sagan (I think) observed, it does not appear to have any evolutionary advantage. Also oddly, if this is true, it calls into question our ability to accurately observe anything: if we are so fundamentally under an illusion, what else is an illusion?

Well, we can never affirm or falsify if free will exists, or not. It is a plausible basic assumption. Of course, the laws of the micro-world are non-determisitic, so it may well be that the answer lies within that realm. But that is mere speculation.

This is where your philosophy, Spock, gets particularly interesting! Much more so than Catholics’, I might add!

Very kind of you.

 

[Spock]

Outcome has NOTHING whatsoever to do with whether or not you have the freedom to choose.

I did not say otherwise. The point was that the existence of unbelievers is not relevant to the freedom of believers.

 

[ignatius777]

I did not say otherwise. The point was that the existence of unbelievers is not relevant to the freedom of believers.

Well your equating belief in God to the strongarm tactics of the “mafioso” and use of the phrase “not palatable” lends one to think you did say otherwise. The point is you have the freedom to believe or not to believe and like every other choice there are benefits or consequences. To expect any less of God is unrealistic

 

[ignatius777]

Of course not.

Your hypothetical highlights the difference in the way Catholics and non-Catholics reason, and highlights the mystery that we call free will.

In Catholic understanding, free well is fundamentally a mystery. We believe it exists based on revealed truth.

We believe in the existence of God based on revelation as well: He has told us about His existence (e.g., the burning bush).

The ultimate correspondence between God’s infinite power and our free will cannot be fully explained, which is what we mean when we use the word “mystery” (a bit different than the meaning intended by Agatha Christie).

This, of course, will not satisfy someone who denies the existence of God.

However, free will remains something of a conundrum whether we come at from an atheist or deistic standpoint. From an extreme materialist position, which from what I have read, has adopted the “unified theory of physics” idea, everything is a function of the physical chain reactions that commenced at the beginning of time, and have been infolding as they must, according to physical laws, ever since. Hence, our feeling of free will is an illusion, albeit a quite convincing one. Oddly, as Carl Sagan (I think) observed, it does not appear to have any evolutionary advantage. Also oddly, if this is true, it calls into question our ability to accurately observe anything: if we are so fundamentally under an illusion, what else is an illusion?

This is where your philosophy, Spock, gets particularly interesting! Much more so than Catholics’, I might add!

With all due respect free will is no mystery

 

[seagal]

Many errors in this reasoning.

1. What does it mean that “God would not ALLOW atheists to be created?” Isn’t it God who does the creation?
2. You assume that the freedom of the believers would evaporate if there were no unbelievers around. Yes, this is one of the most ridiculous ideas around. Suppose there would be only the two of us. How could the freedom your belief depend on my existence? You would be just as free to believe without my existence.
3. God’s commandment to be loved casts a dubious light on this freedom. It is a carrot and stick setup: “love me and you will get rewarded, or don’t love me and you will get punished for it”. It sure reminds me of a mafioso, who puts a gun to your head, and commands you to “obey me freely”, or else…

1. Quite right, I should have said (given, as butterbattle proposed, “God could keep free will and reduce a lot of sin just by creating people that are more likely to do more good”) God would not create any person who did not believe in him.
2. God would have instilled in us an unquestioning belief in and love for him. That’s not the freedom you now enjoy to believe or not believe.
3. If you choose not to love and obey God here on earth, why would you want to spend eternity with him?

 

[Spock]

1. God would have instilled in us an unquestioning belief in and love for him. That’s not the freedom you now enjoy to believe or not believe.

That simply does not follow. Suppose there are only 2 people keft on Earth: you and I. There is no unquestioning belief instilled in either one of us. You believe in God and you choose to love him. I do not believe in God, so I do not love him. Suppose that I die first. You are alone. Does my death somehow take away your freedom to choose? Obviously not.

If God chooses to create both kinds of people, some who love him and some who do not, both camps have the freedom - you say. If God happens to create only those who choose to love him, you deny that they have freedom? What about the scenario if God only creates those who choose NOT to love him, do they have freedom?

1. If you choose not to love and obey God here on earth, why would you want to spend eternity with him?

Why not, if the choice is either eternal torture or be with God in eternal bliss?

 

[ignatius777]

That simply does not follow. Suppose there are only 2 people keft on Earth: you and I. There is no unquestioning belief instilled in either one of us. You believe in God and you choose to love him. I do not believe in God, so I do not love him. Suppose that I die first. You are alone. Does my death somehow take away your freedom to choose? Obviously not.

If God chooses to create both kinds of people, some who love him and some who do not, both camps have the freedom - you say. If God happens to create only those who choose to love him, you deny that they have freedom? What about the scenario if God only creates those who choose NOT to love him, do they have freedom?

Why not, if the choice is either eternal torture or be with God in eternal bliss?

I must have missed why the existence of non believers has any bearing on this conversation

 

[Spock]

I must have missed why the existence of non believers has any bearing on this conversation

A sidetrack on the bottom of the previous page. Not important, really.

 

[GloriousOrder]

Spock, can you give us a reason why you’d prefer total predestination to free will? You atheists always try to trap us regarding the will, and you seem to get angry at God for being half-boiled about the thing. Either God must be a vile dictator or an unconcerned watchmaker. Since the moderate, sensible thing is always most likely to be true in life, you need to give us more credit. We don’t have total free will, and we’re not totally predestined.

I always think of it as a parent who perfectly knows his own children. When he brings his son to visit family, he says “I know John is going to run for that candy jar!”, whereupon his son John runs for the candy jar. Everyone is amazed at this, and asks how he could have known so perfectly. He says that John is his son, and he knows him. Did the parent predestine John? He did not; he only bothered to learn about his own son’s personality. How much more can we say this for the Being who is infinity, eternity, majesty, wonder, and glory? God is the eternal noun to all our adjectives, and knows each man more perfectly than each man knows himself.

Accept that it is not a place of extremes. This universe is a workable place. Thanks be to God!

 

[seagal]

That simply does not follow. Suppose there are only 2 people keft on Earth: you and I. There is no unquestioning belief instilled in either one of us. You believe in God and you choose to love him. I do not believe in God, so I do not love him. Suppose that I die first. You are alone. Does my death somehow take away your freedom to choose? Obviously not.

If God chooses to create both kinds of people, some who love him and some who do not, both camps have the freedom - you say. If God happens to create only those who choose to love him, you deny that they have freedom? What about the scenario if God only creates those who choose NOT to love him, do they have freedom?

Why not, if the choice is either eternal torture or be with God in eternal bliss?

One of us is missing the point here. In my previous posts I was responding to butterbattle’s premise that God could have, if he had wished, to create people who would be less likely to commit evil. My position is that there would be no atheists in that case. The freedom that they wouldn’t have that you now have is to freely choose to obey God. And yes, the opposite would also be true. Although why God would create people who would choose not to love him I have no idea.

If you believe heaven would be eternal bliss, why would you not try to get there?

 

[ignatius777]

That simply does not follow. Suppose there are only 2 people keft on Earth: you and I. There is no unquestioning belief instilled in either one of us. You believe in God and you choose to love him. I do not believe in God, so I do not love him. Suppose that I die first. You are alone. Does my death somehow take away your freedom to choose? Obviously not.

If God chooses to create both kinds of people, some who love him and some who do not, both camps have the freedom - you say. If God happens to create only those who choose to love him, you deny that they have freedom? What about the scenario if God only creates those who choose NOT to love him, do they have freedom?

Why not, if the choice is either eternal torture or be with God in eternal bliss?

I notice how you didnt say that you chose not to love God. I undersand you would say you cant love that which you dont believe in but God may exist seperate and apart from your believing in Him or loving Him so it could be accurate to say you choose not to love Him as well as choose not to believe in Him. Its also just as likely I could believe in God and choose not to love Him.

 

[butterbattle]

seagal:

What you aren’t seeing is that what you suggest is not free will, no matter how you phrase it.

Why not? Do you agree that people are already predisposed to do things? If so, then what I’m suggesting is no different than the way it is now.

seagal:

So to follow your thought, God would not allow atheists to be created, which would mean that you would have to believe in him whether you thought it was logical or the most ridiculous thing you ever heard. You would not have the freedom of making up your own mind.

No, again, that’s not that’s not what I’m saying. Hypothetically, nobody has to believe in him. They do have the freedom to make up their own mind. They simply do think that it is logical! Nobody would think it is ridiculous at all. Again, hypothetically.

I mean, you worship God, right? But, you have free will too. So, instead of making me, why doesn’t God just make another person like you?

 

[seagal]

Why not? Do you agree that people are already predisposed to do things? If so, then what I’m suggesting is no different than the way it is now.

No, again, that’s not that’s not what I’m saying. Hypothetically, nobody has to believe in him. They do have the freedom to make up their own mind. They simply do think that it is logical! Nobody would think it is ridiculous at all. Again, hypothetically.

I mean, you worship God, right? But, you have free will too.** So, instead of making me, why doesn’t God just make another person like you?**

You realize what you just said there right? In order to rid the world of evil you would prefer not to have been born?

 

[butterbattle]

Spock:

Suppose there are only 2 people keft on Earth: you and I. There is no unquestioning belief instilled in either one of us. You believe in God and you choose to love him. I do not believe in God, so I do not love him. Suppose that I die first. You are alone. Does my death somehow take away your freedom to choose? Obviously not.

Ooohh, that is a more intuitive way to think about about. I had not thought of this.

Seagal:

The freedom that they wouldn’t have that you now have is to freely choose to obey God.

Ah, but those atheists wouldn’t exist.

Post #57: It’s a fallacy to argue that the people who wouldn’t have obeyed him now lose their free will because they don’t exist because…they don’t exist; that would be question begging. If that were a sound argument, I could argue that God is preventing the free will of many people right now by not creating them."

 

[butterbattle]

seagal:

You realize what you just said there right? In order to rid the world of evil you would prefer not to have been born?

Well, it’s not what I prefer. It’s what I think logically follows from the theology i.e. what God should be doing if he intended on maximizing good, under all our working assumptions. I mean, heck, I’m a nonbeliever, so of course I don’t actually think that not believing is a sin. I don’t even like the concept to begin with.

What I would prefer is the existence of some God that has nothing whatsoever to do with the Christian God. That God unambiguously reveals to the world that he exists on a daily basis, allows people live at least thousands of years, prevents all disease and natural disasters, divides all the mean people from the nice people, and hands out six packs of dark brazilian beer, hah.

 

[Warrenton]

With all due respect free will is no mystery

True, we take free will as a fact, not in itself a mystery.

However, the manner in which the omnipotence of God relates to human free will in justice and in mercy is a mystery.

I am sorry if this was unclear. Hopefully, I did not mislead Spock on this. He seems pretty well versed to surive my imprecision.

 

[mellestad]

Spock, can you give us a reason why you’d prefer total predestination to free will? You atheists always try to trap us regarding the will, and you seem to get angry at God for being half-boiled about the thing. Either God must be a vile dictator or an unconcerned watchmaker. Since the moderate, sensible thing is always most likely to be true in life, you need to give us more credit. We don’t have total free will, and we’re not totally predestined.

I always think of it as a parent who perfectly knows his own children. When he brings his son to visit family, he says “I know John is going to run for that candy jar!”, whereupon his son John runs for the candy jar. Everyone is amazed at this, and asks how he could have known so perfectly. He says that John is his son, and he knows him. Did the parent predestine John? He did not; he only bothered to learn about his own son’s personality. How much more can we say this for the Being who is infinity, eternity, majesty, wonder, and glory? God is the eternal noun to all our adjectives, and knows each man more perfectly than each man knows himself.

Accept that it is not a place of extremes. This universe is a workable place. Thanks be to God!

1. If someone is mad at a god they aren’t an atheist, obviously.
2. It isn’t that we think your god is a vile dictator or a hands-off kind of deity. Rather, within the confines of your theology there are obvious flaws when matching dogma to the reality of this world. We can easily imagine systems that do not have these gaps, so we wonder why a perfect deity would fail to do the same.
3. Your point about the son is spot on. And if that perfectly knowing parent said, “Look at Jimmy, in ten seconds he’s going to grab grandma’s knitting needles and kill his little sister.” and then sit back and watch it happen, something is rather wrong.

It is even worse because this parental concept could have willfully chosen to not create ‘Jimmy’ before he was even conceived and instead chosen to create the next Pope.

 

[ignatius777]

True, we take free will as a fact, not in itself a mystery.

However, the manner in which the omnipotence of God relates to human free will in justice and in mercy is a mystery.

I am sorry if this was unclear. Hopefully, I did not mislead Spock on this. He seems pretty well versed to surive my imprecision.

I suspect you are right on your last point. As to free will and justice and mercy the degree to which we experience either is based on the exercise of our free will, wouldnt you say?

 

[seagal]

Well, it’s not what I prefer. It’s what I think logically follows from the theology i.e. what God should be doing if he intended on maximizing good, under all our working assumptions. I mean, heck, I’m a nonbeliever, so of course I don’t actually think that not believing is a sin. I don’t even like the concept to begin with.

What I would prefer is the existence of some God that has nothing whatsoever to do with the Christian God. That God unambiguously reveals to the world that he exists on a daily basis, allows people live at least thousands of years, prevents all disease and natural disasters, divides all the mean people from the nice people, and hands out six packs of dark brazilian beer, hah.

Well that would all be nice I have to admit. But I have to go along with Dr. William Lane Craig on this one (and I may have quoted him already on this thread) God didn’t create us to be his pets. He has a higher purpose for us, but that’s for another thread [love the name btw]