The Kzinti and the Pierson Puppeteers

[Vera_Ljuba]

It is a different tangent, albeit an interesting one.

Since the original thread is tapering off, it is fine to explore something else.

I think you’re right, partially, without fully recognizing it. If, in asserting the “problem of evil”, one claims that God is evil because he doesn’t prevent us from willing evil, then I agree: that premise fails. (To prevent us from willing to reject Him, he merely creates a race of robots, who are unable to assent and to choose to love Him. That’s not what He has revealed to us that He wants.)

1. “Revelation” is irrelevant here.
2. The problem of evil is not what you assumed. Allowing “gratuitous” evil acts does not make God necessarily “evil”, only not “loving”. It could be either evil or indifferent.
3. One can reject God without committing any evil acts toward others. It is perfectly sufficient to “blaspheme” God, and yet be loving and caring toward humans. That does not make anyone “robot”.

On the other hand, though, if we accept “free will” as addressing “will” but not “act”, then it’s irrelevant to the so-called “problem of evil.” The answer to the problem is found elsewhere. (However, my personal opinion is that restricting “acts” while not restricting “will” leads to the same problem, albeit experienced differently. If you will to beat me over the head with a lead pipe, and find out that – somewhat inexplicably – every time you pick up a lead pipe with the intent to attack me, the pipe turns into a stick of butter… well, it won’t take many iterations for you to realize that you’re being thwarted by some external, powerful, invisible, perhaps transcendent force. And, that will lead to a realization on your part – God won’t stop your thoughts, but He’ll force your actions. In other words, God would still be making you a robot; maybe not internally, in your head, but externally, in your actions.

It would be useful if you would drop this “robot” assertion. Lead pipe turning into butter? This is extremely simplistic. There are zillions of perfectly natural ways to prevent an action, without bringing in something that looks like a supernatural intervention. Think a little deeper.

And therefore, you would reach the same untenable destination: you are unable to choose or reject God, since in all cases, he insures that you do not reject Him. In other words, yet again, this is not what He has created us for – that is, to choose Him, and in doing so, to follow His will for us.)

Just blaspheme a little.

One thing is certain. If you decouple the freedom to act from freedom of will, the “free will” becomes an empty concept.

 

[GEddie]

One thing is certain. If you decouple the freedom to act from freedom of will, the “free will” becomes an empty concept.

Indeed. And freedom of action can be restrained just as much by internal conditioning as by external limits or coercion.

Which is why the classical idea of “free will” as absolute is somewhat of a mirage.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Gorgias]

It would be useful if you would drop this “robot” assertion. Lead pipe turning into butter? This is extremely simplistic. There are zillions of perfectly natural ways to prevent an action, without bringing in something that looks like a supernatural intervention. Think a little deeper.

Of course; but all lead to the same result. I was taught to seek out the boundary cases, in order to expose weaknesses in an argument that was faulty. It makes it easier to see the weaknesses at the extremes.

Still, though, if one finds that it’s impossible to commit sin, then one realizes that he is being prevented from acting as he wishes. And therefore, is being ‘forced’ into a single mode of behavior. In other words… robot.

One thing is certain. If you decouple the freedom to act from freedom of will, the “free will” becomes an empty concept.

How so? There are many things you can will that you cannot do. Try jumping off a cliff and flying recently? Or breathing water in the deep ocean? These do not contradict the notion of your free will, do they?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Of course; but all lead to the same result. I was taught to seek out the boundary cases, in order to expose weaknesses in an argument that was faulty. It makes it easier to see the weaknesses at the extremes.

Still, though, if one finds that it’s impossible to commit sin, then one realizes that he is being prevented from acting as he wishes. And therefore, is being ‘forced’ into a single mode of behavior. In other words… robot.

Sin is permitted. You can curse or blaspheme God as much as you want to. So NO robot. You attempt to kidnap someone… a policeman just happens to show up. Dang! Next time you try, your car does not start. Darn! Next time you get an unexpected phone call on your cell phone… Grrr! Next time the traffic lights just turn red, and you miss your victim. Pisser! All are perfectly normal events. Nothing to suspect.

A “robot” has no freedom AT ALL. You are merely prevented from committing some acts. But since YOU define free will as freedom to “will”, regardless of your ability to act on it… everything is hunky dory. Will is free, action is not. Just as you say in your next paragraph.

Not just that. You are not forced into any specific mode of behavior. You can choose among zillions of other behaviors. So, NO robot.

How so? There are many things you can will that you cannot do. Try jumping off a cliff and flying recently? Or breathing water in the deep ocean? These do not contradict the notion of your free will, do they?

They simply curtail some of the actions that you wish to perform. (Of course only a total idiot would actually “want” to perform these acts.) Free will is always directed to something you wish to achieve. There is no such thing as “free will” in the abstract. Using the old rape scenario, the victim is unable to act on her desire to escape her predicament - so in THAT respect - her free will is nullified. Of course she is always “free” to lay back and enjoy it. But the one and only freedom: “to escape” is not available for her. The only one that actually matters. By the way, that does NOT turn her into a “robot”.

The basic problem is that you view “free will” as a “yes-no” proposition, without taking into account WHAT you wish to perform. In your eyes one is either “totally free”, or a “robot”. You should not go to THIS extreme.

 

[Gorgias]

Sin is permitted.

You can curse or blaspheme God as much as you want to.

No. That’s the whole point. You cannot do harm. If you sin – whether against another or against yourself, you are causing harm. Cursing or blaspheming will cause you to be condemned; the scandal of the sin can cause others harm. So, no. Can’t do it.

You attempt to kidnap someone… a policeman just happens to show up. Dang! Next time you try, your car does not start. Darn! Next time you get an unexpected phone call on your cell phone… Grrr! Next time the traffic lights just turn red, and you miss your victim. Pisser! All are perfectly normal events. Nothing to suspect.

Except that this is the rule, not the exception. Every day. Every attempt. Every thought that enters your head. Except that – as you discover over the course of your life – every good intention isn’t thwarted. Not just to you, but to everyone. Even if it doesn’t occur to you, someone else figures it out. And then, the realization hits you: robot.

A “robot” has no freedom AT ALL. You are merely prevented from committing some acts.

Ahh, but that’s what you want to claim in order to defeat my assertion about free will. And, your example that attempts to defeat my assertion also ruins your assertion about free will.

But since YOU define free will as freedom to “will”, regardless of your ability to act on it… everything is hunky dory. Will is free, action is not. Just as you say in your next paragraph.

Right; in this world of your construction, there is free will but not the opportunity to do good. That was your whole point, after all – that the problem of evil goes away if God allows free ‘will’ but not free ‘action’. Well… it doesn’t. Clearly, freedom of will without freedom of action still leads to the problem of determinism; robots – that is, those whose actions are constrained – are neither able to commit evil nor accept God.

Not just that. You are not forced into any specific mode of behavior. You can choose among zillions of other behaviors. So, NO robot.

No – you are forced into a specific mode of behavior that does no harm; you cannot choose any of the zillions of behaviors that lead to harm. So… yeah. Robot.

They simply curtail some of the actions that you wish to perform. (Of course only a total idiot would actually “want” to perform these acts.)

Nah. Remember – we’re talking about anything even remotely harmful. Normal people, every day, want to perform those acts. Watch the evening news for plenty of examples.

Free will is always directed to something you wish to achieve.

Not ‘achieve’, but ‘do’. I want the Steelers to win the Super Bowl next year; if they don’t, that doesn’t imply that my free will was impinged. That was the invalid argument that GEddie was attemping to assert.

There is no such thing as “free will” in the abstract. Using the old rape scenario, the victim is unable to act on her desire to escape her predicament - so in THAT respect - her free will is nullified.

A couple of thoughts: first of all, you’ll need to identify which definition of free will you’re operating under, in the quest to prove God unloving via the ‘problem of evil’. Your assertion that she’s had her free will denied implies you’re working under the “free will includes action” definition. However, that argument only flies if it’s God who is thwarting free action; if it’s a person, then this is not a free will issue, but a personal sin issue. I’m not disagreeing that, in the case you present, the attacker is sinning. However, that merely highlights that God allows us to make choices; that some choices can be acted on and others not doesn’t impugn God or his goodness.

Of course she is always “free” to lay back and enjoy it. But the one and only freedom: “to escape” is not available for her. The only one that actually matters. By the way, that does NOT turn her into a “robot”.

Agreed – but that’s because you’ve moved the goalposts. We’re not talking about one human taking a course of action that limits one particular action in one particular situation; we’re talking about God disallowing all sinful actions in all situations. Without that, your case doesn’t hold up.

The basic problem is that you view “free will” as a “yes-no” proposition, without taking into account WHAT you wish to perform. In your eyes one is either “totally free”, or a “robot”. You should not go to THIS extreme.

You would still need to demonstrate why your distinction is valid. You haven’t done that, so far. At this point, you’ve just demonstrated that when people’s wills conflict, some actions aren’t possible. That doesn’t prove God is unloving.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

No. That’s the whole point. You cannot do harm. If you sin – whether against another or against yourself, you are causing harm. Cursing or blaspheming will cause you to be condemned; the scandal of the sin can cause others harm. So, no. Can’t do it.

That is sheer baloney. If I blaspheme, it does not affect anyone else. Whatever I do “against” myself is my own business - since I have full dominion over myself.

Nah. Remember – we’re talking about anything even remotely harmful. Normal people, every day, want to perform those acts. Watch the evening news for plenty of examples.

There are a lot of murders, rapes, atrocities every day… but they are less than a handful among all the actions. (Of course for the victims that is no consolation). The overwhelming percentage of the actions are either benevolent or neutral.

Not ‘achieve’, but ‘do’. I want the Steelers to win the Super Bowl next year; if they don’t, that doesn’t imply that my free will was impinged.

You can “will” anything, but as long as you have no control over it, it does not mater. The sequence is always:

1. you intend to achieve something.
2. you act to achieve it.

Right; in this world of your construction, there is free will but not the opportunity to do good. That was your whole point, after all – that the problem of evil goes away if God allows free ‘will’ but not free ‘action’.

The opportunity to do good is there, only the ability to do harm is missing.

A couple of thoughts: first of all, you’ll need to identify which definition of free will you’re operating under, in the quest to prove God unloving via the ‘problem of evil’. Your assertion that she’s had her free will denied implies you’re working under the “free will includes action” definition. However, that argument only flies if it’s God who is thwarting free action; if it’s a person, then this is not a free will issue, but a personal sin issue. I’m not disagreeing that, in the case you present, the attacker is sinning. However, that merely highlights that God allows us to make choices; that some choices can be acted on and others not doesn’t impugn God or his goodness.

First of all, I deny the validity of this “sin” you talk about. Second, whether a human, or God interferes when some harm is intended, is irrelevant. Third, I subscribe to the libertarian concept of free will, which entails:

1. the agent intends to achieve some goal.
2. there are at least two different ways to achieve it.
3. the locus of decision is with the agent.

If any of these is missing, there is no “free will” in THAT respect.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

No. That’s the whole point. You cannot do harm. If you sin – whether against another or against yourself, you are causing harm. Cursing or blaspheming will cause you to be condemned; the scandal of the sin can cause others harm. So, no. Can’t do it.

That is sheer baloney. If I blaspheme, it does not affect anyone else. Whatever I do “against” myself is my own business - since I have full dominion over myself. The reason I brought this up is simple. As far as I am concerned to have free will it is sufficient to be able to choose whether one wishes to eat chocolate ice cream over vanilla. But some people consider this choice to be insufficiently “mild”, since there is no “morally significant” choice. So, I include the most important moral choice, the blasphemy against God. So we have a morally significant choice - WITHOUT hurting any human being.

Nah. Remember – we’re talking about anything even remotely harmful. Normal people, every day, want to perform those acts. Watch the evening news for plenty of examples.

There are a lot of murders, rapes, atrocities every day… but they are less than a handful among all the actions. (Of course for the victims that is no consolation). The overwhelming percentage of the actions are either benevolent or neutral.

Not ‘achieve’, but ‘do’. I want the Steelers to win the Super Bowl next year; if they don’t, that doesn’t imply that my free will was impinged.

You can “will” anything, but as long as you have no control over it, it does not mater. The sequence is always:

1. you intend to achieve something.
2. you act to achieve it.

Right; in this world of your construction, there is free will but not the opportunity to do good. That was your whole point, after all – that the problem of evil goes away if God allows free ‘will’ but not free ‘action’.

The opportunity to do good is there, only the ability to do harm is missing.

A couple of thoughts: first of all, you’ll need to identify which definition of free will you’re operating under, in the quest to prove God unloving via the ‘problem of evil’. Your assertion that she’s had her free will denied implies you’re working under the “free will includes action” definition. However, that argument only flies if it’s God who is thwarting free action; if it’s a person, then this is not a free will issue, but a personal sin issue. I’m not disagreeing that, in the case you present, the attacker is sinning. However, that merely highlights that God allows us to make choices; that some choices can be acted on and others not doesn’t impugn God or his goodness.

First of all, I deny the validity of this “sin” you talk about. Second, whether a human, or God interferes when some harm is intended, is irrelevant. Third, I subscribe to the libertarian concept of free will, which entails:

1. the agent intends to achieve some goal.
2. there are at least two different ways to achieve it.
3. the locus of decision is with the agent.

If any of these is missing, there is no “free will” in THAT respect.

 

[Gorgias]

That is sheer baloney. If I blaspheme, it does not affect anyone else.

Other atheists on the board have had a problem with that notion as well, I’ve noticed. Are you saying that your actions are not noticed by others? That they have no effect on others? That others aren’t swayed by your example, whether toward doing the good or doing evil? That’s the claim that ‘scandal’ makes: when we do evil that others witness, they are affected by it – and negatively!

Whatever I do “against” myself is my own business - since I have full dominion over myself.

Yet another mantra of postmodern society: “I own my body.” In Catholic theology, we admit that we neither create nor sustain ourselves, and therefore, it is to God that we owe existence – not to mention an account for how we act! That being the case, a sin against oneself is also a sin against the Creator who brought us into existence.

The reason I brought this up is simple. As far as I am concerned to have free will it is sufficient to be able to choose whether one wishes to eat chocolate ice cream over vanilla. But some people consider this choice to be insufficiently “mild”, since there is no “morally significant” choice. So, I include the most important moral choice, the blasphemy against God. So we have a morally significant choice - WITHOUT hurting any human being.

OK: so, you’re IDing blasphemy (for the sake of argument) as an (im-)moral action? So, when an impressionable proto-atheist sees you blaspheme against God, and not get instantly turned into a puff of smoke, he isn’t emboldened to do the same? And thereby, take an immoral action himself? (Oh, sure, he enters into a personal decision, but it’s your action that helps him reach that decision, too…)

You can “will” anything, but as long as you have no control over it, it does not mater. The sequence is always:

1. you intend to achieve something.
2. you act to achieve it.

Right – it’s a personal action, not a personally held desire for an event to occur.

The opportunity to do good is there, only the ability to do harm is missing.

Which is what people would pick up on, and therefore, realize that they’re being constrained.

First of all, I deny the validity of this “sin” you talk about.

I’m talking about the aggressive act of a rapist. You’re saying that’s not sinful or evil?

Second, whether a human, or God interferes when some harm is intended, is irrelevant.

It comes down to whether the interference is occasional or systematic, in the context of this discussion. There’s a big difference between “every time a person steps off this cliff, he dies” and “sometimes, when people step off this cliff, there’s someone to stop them.”

Third, I subscribe to the libertarian concept of free will, which entails:

1. the agent intends to achieve some goal.
2. there are at least two different ways to achieve it.
3. the locus of decision is with the agent.

If any of these is missing, there is no “free will” in THAT respect.

That seems fair enough, on the surface. Sounds a lot like what I’m saying, though: it’s the intent, not the action, that determines the free will.

(Not quite sure what #2 has to do with the issue, though. It seems that you’re trying to say that it’s not a forced action; but, even if there’s only one way to achieve it, the choice between ‘action’ and ‘inaction’ still exists, which would seem to be sufficient for free will.)

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Other atheists on the board have had a problem with that notion as well, I’ve noticed. Are you saying that your actions are not noticed by others?

Are they? Even if they occur behind closed doors?

Yet another mantra of postmodern society: “I own my body.”

Who else? My neighbor?

That being the case, a sin against oneself is also a sin against the Creator who brought us into existence.

No problem. The whole line of thought is based upon the idea that “sin” does not have to involve violent actions against other humans. Since some people insist that “real” freedom must include “morally significant” problems, here it is. People all are kind, loving, helpful toward others, they can make all the “positive” decisions, but they are also free to curse God. So you have both, peaceful existence, and occasional “sin” - and not just any ho-hum type of sin, but the ultimate sin - blasphemy against God. (Which is the only sin that cannot be forgiven - or so they say. )

That seems fair enough, on the surface. Sounds a lot like what I’m saying, though: it’s the intent, not the action, that determines the free will.

All are important. The intent, the choice and the ability to carry out the intent. Let me repeat: the freedom to will something without the ability to act on it is about as useful as giving a kiss to a corpse.

 

[goout]

I own my own body

Who else? My neighbor?

The point is not who has ownership of a body, it’s that a body is not something to be owned, as if just another possession subject to property rights, to be disposed as whim sees fit. Whether the whim of the individual or the neighbor takes precedence is not the point.

A person cannot be an object. A person is not merely a physical lump of matter. But rather a unified body and soul, un-created by the person himself (and so, by common sense extension, necessarily created by “other”).

this is basic Christian thought, which you are assuming to refute ( :nope: )

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

The point is not who has ownership of a body, it’s that a body is not something to be owned, as if just another possession subject to property rights, to be disposed as whim sees fit.

Of course it is. If I feel like, I can sacrifice part of my body - by offering up some of my blood for transfusion. Or I can throw myself on a grenade to save some fellow humans. Even my death does not prevent me from owning my body. Without a permission my organs cannot be harvested for the benefit of others. Of course that has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

 

[goout]

Of course it is. If I feel like, I can sacrifice part of my body - by offering up some of my blood for transfusion. Or I can throw myself on a grenade to save some fellow humans. Even my death does not prevent me from owning my body. Without a permission my organs cannot be harvested for the benefit of others. Of course that has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

You were addressing the topic. I didn’t bring it up. I addressed your reply to another poster on the issue. so

So when you say “of course it is”, are you meaning that a person is subject to ownership?
Or are you asserting free will to act as you determine?
(two different things)
Perhaps you can clarify

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

So when you say “of course it is”, are you meaning that a person is subject to ownership?

I only said that I have dominion over my own body. Not yours, or anyone else’s.

 

[goout]

I only said that I have dominion over my own body. Not yours, or anyone else’s.

Ok. Your free will determines how you act for sure. Physically and otherwise.

What do you mean by dominion? Curious word.
Do you bring your own body into being by dominion?
If not, who really has dominion over your body?
Is dominion given to you?

If you have dominion over your own body, how will you dispose of it when you are “dead”?

If you can’t answer either of these questions with self sufficiency, then maybe you don’t really have dominion over your own body. Perhaps you are merely exercising your free will to act with your body.

 

[DaveBj]

I only said that I have dominion over my own body. Not yours, or anyone else’s.

Ok. Your free will determines how you act for sure. Physically and otherwise.

What do you mean by dominion? Curious word.
Do you bring your own body into being by dominion?
If not, who really has dominion over your body?
Is dominion given to you?

If you have dominion over your own body, how will you dispose of it when you are “dead”?

If you can’t answer either of these questions with self sufficiency, then maybe you don’t really have dominion over your own body. Perhaps you are merely exercising your free will to act with your body.

Just ask someone with a really strong addiction how much dominion he has over his/her own body. Turns out that sometimes it’s not very much.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Ok. Your free will determines how you act for sure. Physically and otherwise.

What do you mean by dominion? Curious word.

I am the “boss” who decides what shall I do with my own body.

 

[GEddie]

How so? There are many things you can will that you cannot do. Try jumping off a cliff and flying recently? Or breathing water in the deep ocean? These do not contradict the notion of your free will, do they?

Of course it doesn’t (and I am not someone who holds to the primacy of free will, by the way).

Free will means that we are free to choose to act within limits that are available to us. Your examples fall egregiously outside those limits. So for example, would my desire to live without death, or a desire to run for politics in a nation where one does not hold citizenship.

Human life in its natural embodiment is all about limits: we are limited by the weight of our bodies, by the surface of our skin, by the weakness of our senses and by our susceptibility to death. That does not mean that there is no freedom of action within those limits.

ICXC NIKA

 

[goout]

I am the “boss” who decides what shall I do with my own body.

Free will. Freely chosen actions.


Dominion might imply that you have full control of your being, including coming into being. Which of course cannot be the case.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Free will. Freely chosen actions.


Dominion might imply that you have full control of your being, including coming into being. Which of course cannot be the case.

Might? It does NOT.

 

[goout]

Might? It does NOT.

oh, ok.

bigger point is, do you agree that you didn’t create yourself? Seems to be an elusive question.