So, who is responsible?

[Warrenton]

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?

Certainly our free will allows us to exercise either justice and mercy.

But when we come to final judgment, we will be receiving justice and mercy from God. What we receive then will not be based on our free will, but on God’s will.

As we understand it, what we receive will be related to how we exercised our free will during life.

I hope I understood your question correctly!

 

[Warrenton]

We can easily imagine systems that do not have these gaps, so we wonder why a perfect deity would fail to do the same.

You will have to lead me a little here.

I can understand a godless world, thanks to Lucretius.

But I cannot understand a different world other than what exists.

Help!

 

[mellestad]

You will have to lead me a little here.

I can understand a godless world, thanks to Lucretius.

But I cannot understand a different world other than what exists.

Help!

Both butterbattle and Spock have been laying out the system for a while now. I can easily conceive of a world where theological free will exists and where human evil does not take place. (Well, I can’t really imagine theological free will, but that’s a bit picky and I don’t think it matters to the argument)

Perhaps you are being more philosophical than I am, but imagining a world other than what is does not seem like a difficult concept to me unless we are being asked to imagine an illogical concept…and I don’t think that is the case here.

So, that is the point. I don’t need to speak for them though, I am sure they can defend themselves adequately.

It looked like no-one had responded to Glorious though, so I interjected in case he/she felt left out.

Also, if you read what you wrote carefully I’m pretty sure that means God does not exist in your world.

 

[ignatius777]

Certainly our free will allows us to exercise either justice and mercy.

But when we come to final judgment, we will be receiving justice and mercy from God. What we receive then will not be based on our free will, but on God’s will.

As we understand it, what we receive will be related to how we exercised our free will during life.

I hope I understood your question correctly!

I dont believe you did. I didnt say our free wills allow us to exercise justice and mercy. Please re-read.

 

[Spock]

Spock, can you give us a reason why you’d prefer total predestination to free will?

That will require a whole new thread. We can do it a bit later, right now I am overwhelmed.

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.

Where hell does this “angry” thing come from? I don’t believe in God, so I am not “angry” at God. I am not angry at anyone.

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.

Yes, this parable is not bad, but it not deep enough. John may try to get to the candy jar, if it is available. But it is the parent who placed the candy jar where it is. If the parent would not want the child to get to the candy jar, all he has to do is to place it to some inaccessible place. It is the parent’s responsibility to make sure that the candy jar is unreachable, if he does wants to prevent the kid’s tooth decay. If he does not care, well…???

Even if one assumes that free will is a good thing, it does not mean every option must always be there. A responisble parent assures that only the sensible options are available at every point of time. It does not mean constant “pampering”, it means that the child will have the all necessary options to learn and grow, but will not have those options which are fatal. Just replace the candy jar with a loaded gun in your parable.

 

[Spock]

One of us is missing the point here.

I certainly missed your point. You say that if someone does not get created, then his free will is curtailed, because he does not exist.

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.

Yes.

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

The idea of free willl cannot be applied to those who do not exist. It point is that all the created people would have their freedom to choose God. Their freedom would not evaporate because there are no “others”.

 

[Spock]

I notice how you didnt say that you chose not to love God.

Correct. I was careful in my selection of words.

I undersand you would say you cant love that which you dont believe in …

Yes, so far it is true.

…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.

The highlighted part is in error. Beliefs are not under volitional control. They reside in the sub-conscious part of the brain. Can you make a volitional decision to “start to believe” in the Loch Ness monster? The “love part” could be volitional, the “believe part” cannot be.

Its also just as likely I could believe in God and choose not to love Him.

This is true again.

 

[seagal]

It point is that all the created people would have their freedom to choose God. Their freedom would not evaporate because there are no “others”.

And what I’m saying is that freedom to choose when there is only 1 choice is not freedom.

 

[Spock]

And what I’m saying is that freedom to choose when there is only 1 choice is not freedom.

Whom are you talking about?

 

[seagal]

Whom are you talking about?

You mean of whom am I speaking? In general, my statement is true about anyone. Specifically I mean the same people of whom you are speaking, namely those people God creates given the conditions outlined previously.

 

[frankblahnik]

Forgive me for not reading through the thread and such and such, but I would like to comment on the post.

God created us to know what is right, but with the freedom to do what we please. With this in mind, I see no guilt on Gods side when we do what is not right. The guilt is all on us, because we know what we ought to have done. Or to put it another way, we know what God created us to do.

Does this make sense?

Thanks

 

[Spock]

You mean of whom am I speaking? In general, my statement is true about anyone. Specifically I mean the same people of whom you are speaking, namely those people God creates given the conditions outlined previously.

Makes no sense at all. One more time I will explain. God creates a whole bunch of people, amoung them there are many believers, and many unbelievers. God knows who will turn out to be a believer and who will turn out to be an unbeliever. I presume you don’t argue that those people are somehow deprived of their free will, just because God volitionally creates them and because God knows who will choose to be a believer.

If God chooses not to create the unbelievers, that has absolutely no bearing of the free will of the believers. Do you understand this? If you do, what is your problem? If you do not understand, then what don’t you understand?

 

[Spock]

Forgive me for not reading through the thread and such and such, but I would like to comment on the post.

God created us to know what is right, but with the freedom to do what we please. With this in mind, I see no guilt on Gods side when we do what is not right. The guilt is all on us, because we know what we ought to have done. Or to put it another way, we know what God created us to do.

Does this make sense?

No, it does not. One parable will be sufficient (now repeated the umpteenth time). A parent leaves a loaded gun available to the child. The child grabs it and kills someone. The parent is always responsible, because he did not hide the gun. The parent cannot argue: "But I TOLD him to leave that gun alone. HE is guilty of disobedience. I am innocent! ". No court would accept such a “defense”.

 

[frankblahnik]

Excuse my intervention Mr. Spock, but I am sitting here at my computer, and I received an email saying someone replied to a thread I am subscribed to(note to self: shut off email notifications), and I can’t help myself.

You seem to be under the impression that God lives in time as our material selves do. This is not the case.

Thank you.

 

[fhansen]

No, it does not. One parable will be sufficient (now repeated the umpteenth time). A parent leaves a loaded gun available to the child. The child grabs it and kills someone. The parent is always responsible, because he did not hide the gun. The parent cannot argue: "But I TOLD him to leave that gun alone. HE is guilty of disobedience. I am innocent! ". No court would accept such a “defense”.

But in Catholic teaching, people are culpable for sin only to the degree they’re capable of being responsible for it themselves.

 

[frankblahnik]

No, it does not. One parable will be sufficient (now repeated the umpteenth time). A parent leaves a loaded gun available to the child. The child grabs it and kills someone. The parent is always responsible, because he did not hide the gun. The parent cannot argue: "But I TOLD him to leave that gun alone. HE is guilty of disobedience. I am innocent! ". No court would accept such a “defense”.

Take it easy Mr. Spock, it is hard to understand you when you are so emotional. (Isn’t Spock suppose to have little emotions on the T.V. show?) Anyway, please excuse my joking, I mean no disrespect to you personally. Yes, the parent would definitely be responsible in the case you speak of. God on the other hand, does not leave any loaded guns laying around. Wouldn’t you agree?

Thank you.

 

[ignatius777]

No, it does not. One parable will be sufficient (now repeated the umpteenth time). A parent leaves a loaded gun available to the child. The child grabs it and kills someone. The parent is always responsible, because he did not hide the gun. The parent cannot argue: "But I TOLD him to leave that gun alone. HE is guilty of disobedience. I am innocent! ". No court would accept such a “defense”.

Your “parable” assumes that leaving the gun around DEMANDS that the other person pick it up and use it. Thats faulty reasoning.

 

[ignatius777]

No, it does not. One parable will be sufficient (now repeated the umpteenth time). A parent leaves a loaded gun available to the child. The child grabs it and kills someone. The parent is always responsible, because he did not hide the gun. The parent cannot argue: "But I TOLD him to leave that gun alone. HE is guilty of disobedience. I am innocent! ". No court would accept such a “defense”.

Certainly you could say if you left the gun available and someone then picked it up and shot someone then that action led to a shooting but the responsibility only applies once someone else free chooses to pick up the gun and act independently of the action of leaving the gun unattended. Leaving a gun unattended while dangerous is not in itself a crime or a problem. The actions of another make it dangerous. An unattended gun with an un pulled trigger is not dangerous. My leaving it unattended does make it more dangerous but by itself it creates no harm to another.

 

[Warrenton]

Also, if you read what you wrote carefully I’m pretty sure that means God does not exist in your world.

Yes, I didn’t phrase that very well!

What I meant was that I could not imagine a world with free will but without evil.

Maybe the best analogy is to imagininag a two dimensional world, complete insofar as the good dimension goes, just lacking evil.

Still, thanks for your help on the question.

 

[Warrenton]

I dont believe you did. I didnt say our free wills allow us to exercise justice and mercy. Please re-read.

Sorry - evidently I just came a cropper on that fence. I’m just mentally blocked on it.

It’s probably beside the main point anyway. I’ll go into observe mode.