The Problem of Evil and Free Will Defense

[ateista]

Dodge.

Toyota.

They ate the fruit and they also died, what lie are you talking about?

The text is actually different: Genesis 2:17

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Pain and suffering without reason? Only athiests say it is without reason, I’ve reasserted multiple times in this thread there is reason and gave it.

Not without “reason”. Pain and suffering which is not a logical prerequiste to some greater good.

Sin is a moral evil commited against another person, so I fail to see your distinction. It is not rational to dismiss answers.

Absolutely not. “Sin” is a theological term, and it is “disobeying God”. In a secular environment there is no “sin”… there can be a crime, or a frowned-upon behavior, but no “sin”.

 

[Fran65]

What kind of a negative question is that? There is the overwhelming evidence that our consciousness is the product of the brain. I don’t have to demonstrate that it “cannot” exist outside the biological brain - especially since I don’t agree with that idea.

The evidence is not ‘overwhelming’ that this is the only origin of consciousness. The evidence shows us that there is a correlation between brain activity and concscious experience. We haven’t yet and may never demonstrate that consciousness can exist outside the brain, but as any good scientist will tell you, we have to remain open minded about the possibilities.

There are huge advancements in AI research, even though there is a lot to go. Eventually there will be true artificial intelligence, an entity which will pass the Turing test. Seeing the advancement in information technology it might even be in our lifetime. What will you say then?]

I will say that its impressive that we have created AI. However, it tells us little to nothing about how the brain works. It tells us how software works. Have your read much John Searle?

Also aware of the phrase “post hoc ergo propter hoc”. How many neuroscientists do you know?

It depends on how you define 'know; but I am friends with three and have a passing acquaintance with several more.

Simple curiousity, which part of science are you involved in?

You mean you can’t guess? I’m a psychologist with a background in medicine & nursing. Specifically neurosurgical ITU and general ER.

And since you are a scientist, what kind of evidence can you bring up for your positive claim that the consciousness is somehow “independent” from the infrastructure of the brain. As a scientist, you should have more than simple faith

I don’t have the kind of evidence that you are asking for. I assume that you are not Catholic or a ‘theist’, so we are unlikely to agree on the kind of evidence acceptable to me, in this area, rather than on a scientific materialism forum. However, as a psychologist & a scientist, I remain open minded about many things.

BTW, just for clarity, I’m not stating that consciousness is ‘independent’ from the brain, I’m stating that it may occur independently and further, we don’t when or how. Big difference.

As for ‘simple faith’ -there are overlapping magisteria in my world -to use Stephen Gould’s phrase. I would not accept treatment from my Dr based on ‘faith’, but I do accept teaching from my Church on our nature, morality and God.

I fear that this may be as repetitive as other discussions that I have had on similar topics.

 

[ateista]

The evidence is not ‘overwhelming’ that this is the only origin of consciousness. The evidence shows us that there is a correlation between brain activity and concscious experience. We haven’t yet and may never demonstrate that consciousness can exist outside the brain, but as any good scientist will tell you, we have to remain open minded about the possibilities.

As a general approach I very much agree with you.

Yes, one should stay open minded about other possibiliteis - to a degree. I would like to ask you, do you extend such open-minded approach to the claims of New Agers, who claim that crystals and pyramidal structures have “mystical” curative powers? Or that there “might be” something to psychic powers and auras? Maybe astrology? After all it has never been demonstrated that crystals have no curative powers.

Or, do you draw a line “somewhere” and accept that some views are simply too outrageous to be contemplated in a serious fashion?

I will say that its impressive that we have created AI. However, it tells us little to nothing about how the brain works. It tells us how software works. Have your read much John Searle?

But that is the point: if we can create true consciousness in an “inanimate” environment than the assumption of “immaterial” souls becomes unnecessary. And, no I have not read anything from him.

It depends on how you define 'know; but I am friends with three and have a passing acquaintance with several more.

Cool.

You mean you can’t guess? I’m a psychologist with a background in medicine & nursing. Specifically neurosurgical ITU and general ER.

Thank you. I am not good at guessing. Just to reverse the courtesy, I am a retired math professor, computer programmer and IT professional. My research used to be parallel processing automata.

I don’t have the kind of evidence that you are asking for. I assume that you are not Catholic or a ‘theist’, so we are unlikely to agree on the kind of evidence acceptable to me, in this area, rather than on a scientific materialism forum. However, as a psychologist & a scientist, I remain open minded about many things.

Indeed, so we may have to agree to disagree. You find my evidence non-convicing, which is absolutely fine.

BTW, just for clarity, I’m not stating that consciousness is ‘independent’ from the brain, I’m stating that it may occur independently and further, we don’t when or how. Big difference.

Thank you for the clarification.

As for ‘simple faith’ -there are overlapping magisteria in my world -to use Stephen Gould’s phrase. I would not accept treatment from my Dr based on ‘faith’, but I do accept teaching from my Church on our nature, morality and God.

I respect your stance.

I fear that this may be as repetitive as other discussions that I have had on similar topics.

It may be, and that is for you to decide. Any time you wish to discontinue this line of conversation, I will accpt your decison.

 

[tobias]

Toyota.

:banghead:

The text is actually different: Genesis 2:17

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

If I say ‘In the day the new president is elected the country will surely change’, it does not mean ‘that day’ the country will change, but things will be set in motion in which it will change. It does not say ‘If thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die that day.’

Not without “reason”. Pain and suffering which is not a logical prerequiste to some greater good.

Doesn’t the law of entropy dictate that pain and suffering is logical neccessity in at least the animal world. I realize this is uncomfortable, but if you deny the neccessity of entropy in natural law, you have thrown out reason and rationale with the baby and the bath water.
The greater good is the salvation of a species. You do not accept that answer, fine, but don’t continue to say that no answer is given, rather that you do not accept the answer given.

Absolutely not. “Sin” is a theological term, and it is “disobeying God”. In a secular environment there is no “sin”… there can be a crime, or a frowned-upon behavior, but no “sin”.

Sin is an offense against another person, whether human or divine, when human, also divine. No different in secular reason if you understand sin to be an offense against law, whether human or natural, when human also natural. In both cases cultural misconduct is not defacto a sin.

I guess mercy needs to be added to that which you deny?

 

[ateista]

If I say ‘In the day the new president is elected the country will surely change’, it does not mean ‘that day’ the country will change, but things will be set in motion in which it will change. It does not say ‘If thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die that day.’

Semantics. It can be understood both ways.

Doesn’t the law of entropy dictate that pain and suffering is logical neccessity in at least the animal world. I realize this is uncomfortable, but if you deny the neccessity of entropy in natural law, you have thrown out reason and rationale with the baby and the bath water.

You surprise me. God’s power is curtailed by the law of entropy? You see, I find it inconsistent that you appeal to the laws of nature, which God could change in a heartbeat, if he wanted to.

The greater good is the salvation of a species. You do not accept that answer, fine, but don’t continue to say that no answer is given, rather that you do not accept the answer given.

Well, to be truthful, I found your reasoning different from the usual responses. Let me tell you, how I understand you, just in case we have a misunderstanding:

You seem to say that the pain, misery, suffering are a natural consequence of the “fall of man”. They may not lead to some greater good, and that is fine, since they are simply the way how things work. God is under no obligation (so to speak) to alleviate this pain.

That is not a bad line of reasoning, even though it is not what Christian theologists and philosophers usually say.

I have one problem with it. If one disregards God, and his omnipotent, loving nature (which is the main area of contention) then you are absolutely correct. Things are what they are. Pain and suffering are part of nature.

Now, here is my problem. If one takes the story of Genesis literally, then this is not a “natural” consequence of the “fall”. The disobedience itself had no “natural” consequences, except it angered God, who decided to curse the offenders, their offspring and all of his creation.

Therefore the current state of affairs is the direct consequence of God’s action. God could have instantiated a different outcome, and not curse the innocents, rather only punish the offenders themselves. And that would have been just. Justice does not allow innocents to suffer, and a “loving” being does not actively curse them into suffering.

Sin is an offense against another person, whether human or divine, when human, also divine. No different in secular reason if you understand sin to be an offense against law, whether human or natural, when human also natural. In both cases cultural misconduct is not defacto a sin.

Well, here is a link: Sin defined here. Sometimes it is said that “sin is falling short of the mark”. Be as it may, sin is a theological term, and has no meaning in a secular society.

If you prefer the Webster:

Main Entry: 1sin
Pronunciation: \ˈsin\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English sinne, from Old English synn; akin to Old High German sunta sin and probably to Latin sont-, sons guilty, est is — more at is
Date: before 12th century
1 a: an offense against religious or moral law
1 b: an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible <it’s a sin to waste food>
1 c: an often serious shortcoming : fault
2 a: **transgression of the law of God **
2 b: a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God

I use this word in the meaning of 2a.

I guess mercy needs to be added to that which you deny?

God’s alleged “mercy”? You bet I do deny that.

 

[fhansen]

Semantics. It can be understood both ways.

You surprise me. God’s power is curtailed by the law of entropy? You see, I find it inconsistent that you appeal to the laws of nature, which God could change in a heartbeat, if he wanted to.

Well, to be truthful, I found your reasoning different from the usual responses. Let me tell you, how I understand you, just in case we have a misunderstanding:

You seem to say that the pain, misery, suffering are a natural consequence of the “fall of man”. They may not lead to some greater good, and that is fine, since they are simply the way how things work. God is under no obligation (so to speak) to alleviate this pain.

That is not a bad line of reasoning, even though it is not what Christian theologists and philosophers usually say.

I have one problem with it. If one disregards God, and his omnipotent, loving nature (which is the main area of contention) then you are absolutely correct. Things are what they are. Pain and suffering are part of nature.

Now, here is my problem. If one takes the story of Genesis literally, then this is not a “natural” consequence of the “fall”. The disobedience itself had no “natural” consequences, except it angered God, who decided to curse the offenders, their offspring and all of his creation.

Therefore the current state of affairs is the direct consequence of God’s action. God could have instantiated a different outcome, and not curse the innocents, rather only punish the offenders themselves. And that would have been just. Justice does not allow innocents to suffer, and a “loving” being does not actively curse them into suffering.

Well, here is a link: Sin defined here. Sometimes it is said that “sin is falling short of the mark”. Be as it may, sin is a theological term, and has no meaning in a secular society.

If you prefer the Webster:

Main Entry: 1sin
Pronunciation: \ˈsin\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English sinne, from Old English synn; akin to Old High German sunta sin and probably to Latin sont-, sons guilty, est is — more at is
Date: before 12th century
1 a: an offense against religious or moral law
1 b: an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible <it’s a sin to waste food>
1 c: an often serious shortcoming : fault
2 a: **transgression of the law of God **
2 b: a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God

I use this word in the meaning of 2a.

God’s alleged “mercy”? You bet I do deny that.

Sin, in Catholic theology, is synonymous with moral evil.

The wrath of God may well be a misunderstood term. From the human perspective, God is angry at man for disobedience. If you’ve ever offended someone (and who hasn’t?), you’re probably aware of the sense of guilt that causes us to perceive/sense/ experience their anger even if it isn’t directly expressed to us. The automatic response is to distance or hide ourselves from them. In Catholic teaching, enmity with God was created by man.

From the CCC:
**399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness.280 They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.281

400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.282 Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.283 Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”.284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground”,285 for out of it he was taken. *Death makes its entrance into human history.*286
**
By rejecting Gods’ authority, man rejects God as God, his disobedience automatically and effectively destroying belief, trust, and love. It might be said that man cast *himself *out of the garden and banned himself from eating from the tree of life.

 

[ateista]

Sin, in Catholic theology, is synonymous with moral evil.

And moral evil is defined as disobedience to God’s commands. Any of them. If God commands to obliterate the Amalekites, then it is morally evil NOT to slaughter them. If God commands to keep the virgins for yourself (after you killrd their relatives), that in is a morally evil NOT to keep them. My friend, I cannot accept that.

The wrath of God may well be a misunderstood term. From the human perspective, God is angry at man for disobedience. If you’ve ever offended someone (and who hasn’t?), you’re probably aware of the sense of guilt that causes us to perceive/sense/ experience their anger even if it isn’t directly expressed to us. The automatic response is to distance or hide ourselves from them. In Catholic teaching, enmity with God was created by man.

Oh, come on. In this case it is not a good idea to compare human reaction to God’s. Isn’t God supposed be a little bit beyond these emotions? Show a little forgiveness?

By rejecting Gods’ authority, man rejects God as God, his disobedience automatically and effectively destroying belief, trust, and love. It might be said that man cast *himself *out of the garden and banned himself from eating from the tree of life.

I think you are too harsh. If my child - in ignorace - disobeys me, I would not perceive that as “effectively destroying belief, trust and love”.

Even if I explained him that pulling the trigger on the handgun while peeking into the barrel is lethal, I would not expect him to realize what I am talking about. He may very well be tempted to try it, especially if I left that handgun in plain sight, unprotected, cocked and loaded. As a parent it is my responsibility to protect him from doing harm to himself.

But, just for the argument’s sake, even if I accepted your analysis, I would never extend the punishment (and the active curse of God is precisely that) to his brothers and sisters.

And this is the problem I am talking about. Even if the punishment to the actual offenders were just and proper, it is not just (or merciful) to extend it to anyone else. Insofar this question was left unanswered.

 

[fhansen]

And moral evil is defined as disobedience to God’s commands. Any of them. If God commands to obliterate the Amalekites, then it is morally evil NOT to slaughter them. If God commands to keep the virgins for yourself (after you killrd their relatives), that in is a morally evil NOT to keep them. My friend, I cannot accept that.

Sin is a disruption of the natural order. The identity of basic moral evil is addressed by the Law, summed up for man by the commandment to love.

Oh, come on. In this case it is not a good idea to compare human reaction to God’s. Isn’t God supposed be a little bit beyond these emotions? Show a little forgiveness?

That’s my point. God never ceased to love man-man ceased to love God. Man’s perception of God was distorted; perceiving God as reacting the way he might’ve.

I think you are too harsh. If my child - in ignorace - disobeys me, I would not perceive that as “effectively destroying belief, trust and love”.

I don’t follow. Man did the disbelieving, mistrusting, non-loving. Man distanced himself from nature when he distanced himself from God. And for man, distance from God is harsh. But we believe man wasn’t left alone and that God entered human history at one point, living and identifying with our suffering in the ways we all suffer as well as suffering physically to an extent that most of us probably won’t.

Even if I explained him that pulling the trigger on the handgun while peeking into the barrel is lethal, I would not expect him to realize what I am talking about. He may very well be tempted to try it, especially if I left that handgun in plain sight, unprotected, cocked and loaded. As a parent it is my responsibility to protect him from doing harm to himself.

But, just for the argument’s sake, even if I accepted your analysis, I would never extend the punishment (and the active curse of God is precisely that) to his brothers and sisters.

And this is the problem I am talking about. Even if the punishment to the actual offenders were just and proper, it is not just (or merciful) to extend it to anyone else. Insofar this question was left unanswered.

As far as the justice or lack of it in punishing all mankind for the sin of one, my belief is that the fall-mans’ disobedience- was inevitable, i.e., any of us would’ve done the same eventually, given eternity to do it, and so man’s fallen state was not so much a punishment as the experience of just how bad things are when God’s effectively left out of the picture.

 

[Fran65]

…do you draw a line “somewhere” and accept that some views are simply too outrageous to be contemplated in a serious fashion?

I don’t think that we should dismiss anything without serious investigation (funding and utility aside!) However, I am of the personal opinion that psychological factors have a big role to play in many of the areas that you list. I also, to be fair, think that there are psychological factors (how could I not?) in faith and belief too.

The other point that I would make is that pyramids, crystals and astrology do not have the weight of evidence, tradition and teaching. I am convinced by the arguments and my faith of the existence of God, and for Catholicism in particular. There is nothing similar existing for the ‘new age’ ideas referred to.

But that is the point: if we can create true consciousness in an “inanimate” environment than the assumption of “immaterial” souls becomes unnecessary. And, no I have not read anything from him.

I’m sorry, I don’t follow your point here.
Searle’s argument in a very short book called Minds, Brains and Programs was that just because you can programme it to walk like a duck and quack like a duck doesn’t mean it is a duck. His formulation was far more elegant than mine and would take longer to explain - but is known as The Chinese Room analogy.

As you might guess, I’m optimistic that we will programme computers to behave intelligently, but pessimistic that we will ever produce anything as intelligent, flexible, complex or creative as the human mind. Call it the ‘soul factor’

I am a retired math professor, computer programmer and IT professional. My research used to be parallel processing automata.

That is interesting. Parallel processing is a huge breakthrough I believe, although it is something that brains have been doing for many millenia. I sometimes think of AI as a kind of God complex

Is your approach to regrard humans as biological ‘machines’ or automata driven by genes, instinct, brute ‘aliveness’ ? I guess I’m asking do you think that humans have freewill or that we are ‘programmed’ to behave as we do; and that free will is an illusion?

I respect your stance.

Thank you and I return your respect.

 

[tobias]

Semantics. It can be understood both ways.

That is my point, your interpretation is not the Jewish or Catholic interpretation which have been the only 2 scriptural authorities.

You surprise me. God’s power is curtailed by the law of entropy? You see, I find it inconsistent that you appeal to the laws of nature, which God could change in a heartbeat, if he wanted to.

No, I mean that the universe is subject to the law of entropy, were it changed, would mean a completely static universe. Correct me if I’m wrong, but without entropy there is no energy, without energy no expansion of universe so no time (movement), mererly the plank of space and matter in suspension. I really do not believe that physical beings could inhabit a physical universe without entropy. To me it is the same as saying God could have created movement of matter without time. It’s a logical impossibility.
As I’ve stated earlier in this thread, it’s not logical to say that an omnipotent being can do that which no power can do.

Well, to be truthful, I found your reasoning different from the usual responses. Let me tell you, how I understand you, just in case we have a misunderstanding:

You seem to say that the pain, misery, suffering are a natural consequence of the “fall of man”. They may not lead to some greater good, and that is fine, since they are simply the way how things work. God is under no obligation (so to speak) to alleviate this pain.

Good, with 1 caviate. God makes a greater good in spite of the natural consequences (enter mercy).

That is not a bad line of reasoning, even though it is not what Christian theologists and philosophers usually say.

I have one problem with it. If one disregards God, and his omnipotent, loving nature (which is the main area of contention) then you are absolutely correct. Things are what they are. Pain and suffering are part of nature.

Now, here is my problem. If one takes the story of Genesis literally, then this is not a “natural” consequence of the “fall”. The disobedience itself had no “natural” consequences, except it angered God, who decided to curse the offenders, their offspring and all of his creation.

First God creates and declares ‘it is good,’ man performs an act that is not good, something other than how God had made things. The act was an inversion of the natural. I would hope you would agree that acting volitionally contrary to nature has con-sequences. It is perfectly logical to assert this. Furthermore, it would not be contrary to benevolence to add to the consequences in order to instantiate mercy, that the consequence of action could be nullified by another action. The mercy in that man could not nullify the consequences on his own, lacking perfection, but God takes the consequence upon Himself.
In the classical sense, His passive will to allow the consequence, His active will to provide for nullification of said consequences.

Therefore the current state of affairs is the direct consequence of God’s action. God could have instantiated a different outcome, and not curse the innocents, rather only punish the offenders themselves. And that would have been just. Justice does not allow innocents to suffer, and a “loving” being does not actively curse them into suffering.

The direct consequence of creating imperfect beings’ You seem to be troubled at the notion that a perfect being could not create other perfect beings.

Well, here is a link: Sin defined here. Sometimes it is said that “sin is falling short of the mark”. Be as it may, sin is a theological term, and has no meaning in a secular society.

If you prefer the Webster:

Main Entry: 1sin

Pronunciation: \ˈsin\

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English sinne, from Old English synn; akin to Old High German sunta sin and probably to Latin sont-, sons guilty, est is — more at is

Date: before 12th century

1 a: an offense against religious or moral law

1 b: an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible <it’s a sin to waste food>

1 c: an often serious shortcoming : fault

2 a: **transgression of the law of God **

2 b: a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God
I use this word in the meaning of 2a.

Exactly, your use is narrow. It reminds me of 14 and 12 year old laughing at me recently because I told the 12 year old not to be so obtuse, and he said ‘Dad, I’m not an angle.’ He was right, so far as that goes, but our usage of the word was not in sinc.

God’s alleged “mercy”? You bet I do deny that.

Is your position that mercy would have been annihilation rather than to allow suffering?

 

[Fran65]

Show a little forgiveness…

Which is why God became incarnate and took our sins on Himself.

If my child - in ignorance - disobeys me,

As a parent it is my responsibility to protect him from doing harm to himself. .

Which is why we have the scriptures, commandments and teachings of the Church. But because we are human and will fail, because of original sin, He gave us the route back - Christ’s sacrifice and resurrection and our faith.

I would never extend the punishment (and the active curse of God is precisely that) to his brothers and sisters.

And this is the problem I am talking about. Even if the punishment to the actual offenders were just and proper, it is not just (or merciful) to extend it to anyone else. Insofar this question was left unanswered.

The answer (imho) is that it is just because we are all sinners. We can’t help ourselves.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If god is omni… whatever…strong and omni…smart. what makes any one think he is constricted by any logic or order of thinking?

My cat does things completely illogical all the time, and i can guarantee you that he is not whats that thingy … um, oh! supersmart

Further, i can be sure that my cat has no clue as to why i don’t act catlike.

maybe in its little mind it believes i am somehow restrained by its ideas of right/wrong, good/bad, logical/illogical.

it must be very confused as too why my behavior differs from its expectation.

That must be why it hasn’t set up an altar yet and began sacrificing mice in my honor

Seriously, Reason is unable to even prove the existence of G-d, how can one expect Reason alone to give an accurate representation of His motives or His modes of operation?

Faith is the method by which we can best understand him, He does not care if you are “intellectual honest” in fact your intellect is of no value to him by itself. just like i couldn’t care less if my cat was a retard or a supergenius,

its value is not in its head, its value is its companionship, in its version of “love”, purring, cuddling,etc.

so these arguments about the nature of G-d might be great fun to have, but as to a useful understanding of G-d, apart from faith, they are just so much smoke in the air. and i quit smoking

 

[ateista]

That’s my point. God never ceased to love man-man ceased to love God. Man’s perception of God was distorted; perceiving God as reacting the way he might’ve.

My friend, I don’t have a lot of time these days, and soon I will leave for a very long vacation, where I may not even have access to a computer. So, let me just make a few remarks.

You say that God never ceased to love us. Nice statement, but I don’t see any corroborating evidence. God certainly does not “love” us in any way, shape of form we can recognize. He does not come to rescue when someone is being raped, tortured of murdered. He does not come to the rescue, when thousands starve due to the lack of rain.

Furthermore, not all humans distance themselves form God. There are millions, who worship, love and cherish him. However, in this existence there is no difference. The believers are exposed to the same pains and sufferings as the atheists.

But the real problem is not this. The synopsys of the story in Genesis is that God (a loving and knowledgable being) allows humans (ignorant beings) to follow their own inclination and put themselves in mortal peril. God simply commands them not to do something and expects them to blindly trust and follow his order. You say that this is enough, God did all he “had” to do.

I say that it is irresponsible. A person who loves someone else, and who is knowledgable, does not merely warn the ignorant other, and then washes his hands of the consequences. The appeal to free will is nonsense. We habitually and regularly violate the free actions of others who are ignorant of the outcome of their actions - precisely becase we love them. A simple warning to a child is not enough to protect him from playing with a loaded gun.

Furthermore, to “distance” himself from the others, who did not violate any commands is cruel. So is allowing the effect of one being’s incorrect behavior cascade into a snowball, and let others be punished, who did nothing wrong. And let’s not forget, God cursed man and all his creation. That is not the sign of a loving being.

As far as the justice or lack of it in punishing all mankind for the sin of one, my belief is that the fall-mans’ disobedience- was inevitable, i.e., any of us would’ve done the same eventually, given eternity to do it, and so man’s fallen state was not so much a punishment as the experience of just how bad things are when God’s effectively left out of the picture.

No, not inevitable, just very unlikely. And there is a world of difference between the two. I know this is a very long thread, but this point was addressed and solved in the first few pages.

 

[ateista]

I don’t think that we should dismiss anything without serious investigation (funding and utility aside!)

But resorces and funding are the cruical factors here. How much time and effort sould be invested in clearly farfetched ideas?

The other point that I would make is that pyramids, crystals and astrology do not have the weight of evidence, tradition and teaching. I am convinced by the arguments and my faith of the existence of God, and for Catholicism in particular. There is nothing similar existing for the ‘new age’ ideas referred to.

True. Unfortunately the basis you refer to requires the a-priori acceptance of your cited evidence.

I’m sorry, I don’t follow your point here.
Searle’s argument in a very short book called Minds, Brains and Programs was that just because you can programme it to walk like a duck and quack like a duck doesn’t mean it is a duck. His formulation was far more elegant than mine and would take longer to explain - but is known as The Chinese Room analogy.

Yes, thank you. I know the Chinese Room problem. The problem is that the complexity in that idea is still very low. We are all aware of the fact that quantitative changes can result in qualitative differences. And the complexity of brain (I don’t have to tell you that) is simply staggering. As a matter of fact, there is a mathematical theorem which proves that a finite automaton (and that is exactly what the brain is) can vever fully describe (understand) its own “transition function”.

As you might guess, I’m optimistic that we will programme computers to behave intelligently, but pessimistic that we will ever produce anything as intelligent, flexible, complex or creative as the human mind. Call it the ‘soul factor’

It remains to be seen. I wish I would still be around when that problem will need to be addressed.

That is interesting. Parallel processing is a huge breakthrough I believe, although it is something that brains have been doing for many millenia. I sometimes think of AI as a kind of God complex

Correct. Now, there is another mathematical theorem, which proves that the most complex paraller processing computer cannot do anything different, than a simple Turing machine can do. Of course the Turing machine will need much more time to do it.

Is your approach to regrard humans as biological ‘machines’ or automata driven by genes, instinct, brute ‘aliveness’ ? I guess I’m asking do you think that humans have freewill or that we are ‘programmed’ to behave as we do; and that free will is an illusion?

Yes, that is what believe. Let me point out that we are not deterministic automata, rather stochastic ones. As for free will is a reality or an illusion - we shall never know. It cannot proven.

As I said in my previous post I will not be in the postion to be around for a long time (months). So please forgive me if I (probably) cannot answer your reflection in a timely manner.

Best wishes to you and all.

 

[ateista]

If god is omni… whatever…strong and omni…smart. what makes any one think he is constricted by any logic or order of thinking?

My cat does things completely illogical all the time, and i can guarantee you that he is not whats that thingy … um, oh! supersmart

Further, i can be sure that my cat has no clue as to why i don’t act catlike.

maybe in its little mind it believes i am somehow restrained by its ideas of right/wrong, good/bad, logical/illogical.

it must be very confused as too why my behavior differs from its expectation.

That must be why it hasn’t set up an altar yet and began sacrificing mice in my honor

Well said. Now you know the difference and you do not expect the cat behave in a certain manner, and you do not command it to avoid poisonous food. You simply remave the poison from it vicinity, and make sure it will never accidently eat it.

And that is precisely what I would do, if I were a “god”.

 

[ateista]

As I said, I am going to be away for quite a long time, visiting our grandchild in Europe. I may have access to a computer over there, but it will not be my priority to browse the net - as you can probably imagine.

So I want to wish you all the very best. Have fun! Will see you later.

 

[fhansen]

My friend, I don’t have a lot of time these days, and soon I will leave for a very long vacation, where I may not even have access to a computer. So, let me just make a few remarks.

You say that God never ceased to love us. Nice statement, but I don’t see any corroborating evidence. God certainly does not “love” us in any way, shape of form we can recognize. He does not come to rescue when someone is being raped, tortured of murdered. He does not come to the rescue, when thousands starve due to the lack of rain.

Furthermore, not all humans distance themselves form God. There are millions, who worship, love and cherish him. However, in this existence there is no difference. The believers are exposed to the same pains and sufferings as the atheists.

But the real problem is not this. The synopsys of the story in Genesis is that God (a loving and knowledgable being) allows humans (ignorant beings) to follow their own inclination and put themselves in mortal peril. God simply commands them not to do something and expects them to blindly trust and follow his order. You say that this is enough, God did all he “had” to do.

I say that it is irresponsible. A person who loves someone else, and who is knowledgable, does not merely warn the ignorant other, and then washes his hands of the consequences. The appeal to free will is nonsense. We habitually and regularly violate the free actions of others who are ignorant of the outcome of their actions - precisely becase we love them. A simple warning to a child is not enough to protect him from playing with a loaded gun.

Furthermore, to “distance” himself from the others, who did not violate any commands is cruel. So is allowing the effect of one being’s incorrect behavior cascade into a snowball, and let others be punished, who did nothing wrong. And let’s not forget, God cursed man and all his creation. That is not the sign of a loving being.

No, not inevitable, just very unlikely. And there is a world of difference between the two. I know this is a very long thread, but this point was addressed and solved in the first few pages.

Well, it’s reassuring to know it’s been solved.

 

[Dan86]

God does not see anybody’s actions “before” they occur. That would be irrational. God dwells outside of time and sees what we call past, present, and future all at once. Just because God observes everybody’s actions does not mean he controls or anticipates them. I know the actions of people who lived in the past, but that doesn’t mean that I can control or anticipate their actions. The future is not set. Fate does not exist. It is impossible to say what somebody’s actions will be.