What do you want?

[Peter_Plato]

Its logically impossible for a perfect God to do that which is fundamentally imperfect. The possibility of sin in God would require the possibility of God taking on potentialities. The possibility of this would conflict with the fact that God is intrinsically a perfect act of reality. God’s act is perfect and therefore has no potential insofar as his being is concerned. God cannot become more or less than what he already is, and therefore God cannot sin.

God is good by nature, not by choice like us.

So doing God’s “will” is what? Does that mean God does not “intend” in any way?

I am not willfully trying to be obtuse, here, it’s just in my nature.

What if it is his pure and perfect will that is identical to his nature? Pure actuality implies something like intentionality unrestrained by any external potentiality, no?

 

[zro_x]

God’s goodness limits his willingness to do evil. That is a self-imposed limitation. However, willing or doing evil would be to make a choice that be contrary to his knowledge of what the best option would be in all circumstances.

My understanding of the will is that it is unaffected by knowledge. It seems like nothing gets said on this forum more often then that mortal sin requires grave matter, full consent, and full knowledge.

So not doing evil is a self-imposed limitation, imposed by the very nature of God on himself.

I think God is perfectly free to commit evil, but since he is omnibonevolent, he chooses not to. This doesn’t mean that God places a limitation on his own ability to do evil.

On the other hand, the limitation may be applied to creatures and not to God. If I have “less than perfect” thoughts, how is that a limitation on God if he does not choose to know about them? That he chooses not to recognize my evil thoughts is not a limitation on him. His goodness refuses to be contaminated by my evil thoughts. His willful not “knowing” of the nonsense going on in my head does not limit him in any way, since nonsense is not a kind of knowledge, but more like the absence of it. If I chose to “be evil” and hence God “ignored” me, that is not a knowledge limitation of his since evil is a privation of goodness or to be in a lessened state of existence. Why would my departing from his goodness be a limitation on him?

This whole idea suggests that God has no knowledge of evil. Assuming this is correct, have you carried out the implications to their logical consequences? It means that God does not know when we sin, or who is in hell. He would be blind about a great deal of goings on in todays world. He would be like a child that had never experienced pain before. I’d say that that’s a pretty big limitation, to not be able to identify with his creations.

Luckily, we know this isn’t the case. God knows of sin. (God’s old testament commands and his threats of what would happen if they weren’t obeyed) God knows of pain (the passion) and he even knows of temptation. (The temptation in the desert).

 

[Linux]

So doing God’s “will” is what? Does that mean God does not “intend” in any way?

I am not willfully trying to be obtuse, here, it’s just in my nature.

What if it is his pure and perfect will that is identical to his nature? Pure actuality implies something like intentionality unrestrained by any external potentiality, no?

My argument stands. God is not potentially good or evil. There is no transcendent law above God that he potentially conforms to. God is “goodness” itself, God is moral law, and that is why when we sin we are sinning against God’s very being and nature; we are sinning against the act of God’s reality in which we participate. God’s intrinsic nature is why there is such a thing as moral truth, as opposed to God merely having a subject preference for some particular act that we are all asked to conform to for fret of hell. You cannot think of God’s freedom in the same respect as “human-will”. God’s freedom is freedom from imperfect acts including Sin; God has the absolute freedom of perfection. Human free-will is a limitation, an imperfection precisely because you can sin. That which is perfection itself, cannot logically be anything other than perfect.

 

[Peter_Plato]

My argument stands. God is not potentially good or evil. There is no transcendent law above God that he potentially conforms to. God is “goodness” itself, God is moral law, and that is why when we sin we are sinning against God’s very being and nature; we are sinning against the act of God’s reality in which we participate. God’s intrinsic nature is why there is such a thing as moral truth, as opposed to God merely having a subject preference for some particular act that we are all asked to conform to for fret of hell. You cannot think of God’s freedom in the same respect as “human-will”. God’s freedom is freedom from imperfect acts including Sin; God has the absolute freedom of perfection. Human free-will is a limitation, an imperfection precisely because you can sin. That which is perfection itself, cannot logically be anything other than perfect.

Okay, but how do you represent “Persons” in God? A person is a being that has intention on some level. Your rendition of God seems to be very, forgive the term, “substance-like” rather than “living” and “active.” How is God pure act if he just passively IS perfect?

 

[Peter_Plato]

This whole idea suggests that God has no knowledge of evil. Assuming this is correct, have you carried out the implications to their logical consequences? It means that God does not know when we sin, or who is in hell. He would be blind about a great deal of goings on in todays world. He would be like a child that had never experienced pain before. I’d say that that’s a pretty big limitation, to not be able to identify with his creations.

Luckily, we know this isn’t the case. God knows of sin. (God’s old testament commands and his threats of what would happen if they weren’t obeyed) God knows of pain (the passion) and he even knows of temptation. (The temptation in the desert).

No, the effects of evil would be quite visible, but effects are not the evil, our will is. The implication would be that God “leaves us” to deliberate in our own “space” but is very much aware of the “negative” side, just not a part of it. A kind of existential bubble, perhaps.

You do realize this is all speculative because I just don’t know, but I am tying to make sense of what might be involved. God is very real to me, but as the hidden, omnipresent reality that enables existence.

 

[zro_x]

Dagny (such a horrible, disgusting name )

Amen to that!

would have been exposed to such torture.

ah yes, I chose a remarkably poor example. I believe that John actually said that he would commit suicide if Dagny were caught and tortured.

Well, let’s not put this to test. The concept is that for everyone there is something totally impossible to endure, and I find it very plausible. Some super-heros might take longer to “fold”, but reality shows that “everyone confesses at the end”. And not all tortures are physical… Those examples are not “empirical”, just like Winston Smith or John Galt are not empirical either. I would think that some people did endure torture up until death, but all it means is that the torturers were amateurish. But I suggest that we do not go into the details of “how to torture people efficiently”.

As far as I know, reality does not show this; the only evidence of this seems to be pessimistic and cynical novels. From an eimpirical standpoint, it seems to me that the idea that all people would fold under efficient torture seems just as plausible as that there are some people who would not.

Of course, if there would be any other way to escape their predicament, they would choose that. I met many old people, who felt that life is just a pain, and all they wanted was to have it over with. My wife’s aunt is 84 years old. She lost her only daughter 10 years ago. She is akin to the vet’s horse, she has so many health problems. All she wants is to die. But her instinct to cling on to life is strong, she cannot wish to commit suicide. But her wish is still to end it all.

The wish to die is her conscious wish, but, as you yourself point out, it is not her basic, subconscious one.

Undoubtedly. But their desire to “escape” definitely conquered their “assumed” fear of nonexistence.

What I’m saying is that most people who take their own lives probably never fully consider actually being non-existent. They aren’t exactly in their most rational state. If they did consider the consequenses, the innate fear of non-existence (or death, in the secular sense) would probably rise and trump the desire to escape.

That is just empty speculation.

Just about all of my ideas here are “empty speculation”. A lot of theology is “empty speculation”. What you’ve been doing (at least on this thread) is finding the inconsistencies in those speculations.

But this does not belong to this thread.

Somewhat true. I was trying to show that I Think that the tortures of hell are so subtle that the souls may not even recognise that they are in serious pain, but I guess I ranted a bit.

If you say: “incredibly unfair”, you are very right, or it might even be an understatement. To punish some innocent for the misdeeds of someone else is the antithesis of “justice”.

just another empty speculation here, and I don’t mean to be all “mystical”, but maybe we are not completely autonomous. Maybe our relation to the human race is something akin to federalism. Some sovereignty is held by the human race in general, but most of our soverienty is ours alone. We would be like cells in the human body, but with much more individual freedom. If you look at it that way, then the misdeeds of one person are to a limited degree, the misdeeds of another. This is actually a speculation held by some theologians.

Interesting observation, but there is a problem with it. If some agents are able to do “good deeds”, if there are other agents, who do “bad deeds”, then those “good deeds” are contingent upon the “bad deeds”, and as such they are not really free.

If you adopt the position I stated above, then individuals would not be completely free, but the human race as a whole would be. Now that I think of it, I believe that we actually have two “judgements” on the last day. One is where the human race as a whole decides to accept or reject God. We know how that will turn out. Jesus’s sacrifice on the cross has had such a big impact on humanity that it will, as a whole, accept God in the end. whether we end up in hell or heaven would remain entirely up to us as individuals.

But this is not the point. With the “contemplation” mentioned before, God can choose those agents and moral dilemmas, which do not presuppose some other agent to do those “bad deeds”. I promised to give you a mathematical proof that there is a possible world, where the number of moral agents is NOT limited, where the number of morally significant problems is also unlimited - and no one makes an immoral choice. As such the number of “savable souls” is also unlimited. I did that. Since there is a universal assumption that God “wishes” to maximize the “heaven-bound souls”, and now it is proven that it can be done without anyone being “hell-bound”, what else is there to say?

If there are an infinite number of possible souls, and there is no reason to think that there aren’t, then you’re right, I have nothing left to say. One of the questions I posted in a different thread is, “Why didn’t God create an infinite number of people?” I honestly have no idea, nor do I have any speculations, as to why God would create only a finite number if he could have created an infinite number. However, maybe there are only finite number of possible people. In which case, the possibility that some people are created in order to affect the decisions of others still holds.

 

[Trurl]

As far as I know, reality does not show this; the only evidence of this seems to be pessimistic and cynical novels. From an eimpirical standpoint, it seems to me that the idea that all people would fold under efficient torture seems just as plausible as that there are some people who would not.

Since it is impossible to submit everyone to to the most efficient and personally designed torture (and there would be no reason even if we could ), I guess we can drop this question.

The wish to die is her conscious wish, but, as you yourself point out, it is not her basic, subconscious one.

How could we guess what someone’s subconscious desire could be?

What I’m saying is that most people who take their own lives probably never fully consider actually being non-existent. They aren’t exactly in their most rational state. If they did consider the consequenses, the innate fear of non-existence (or death, in the secular sense) would probably rise and trump the desire to escape.

But there is no innate fear of death. We all know that we shall die eventually. Also we “experience” non-existence every night in very deep sleep. We (as thinking beings) simply cease to exist for a considerable period of time. If one thinks that non-existence is simply a very deep “sleep” without waking up, there is nothing frightening about it. Mostly we wish to postpone it as long as possible, but when the “bad part” (a lot of pain with little or no hope to end that pain) overwhelmes the “good part”, it is quite reasonable to wish to end it all.

Just about all of my ideas here are “empty speculation”. A lot of theology is “empty speculation”. What you’ve been doing (at least on this thread) is finding the inconsistencies in those speculations.

Yes, and I do the same. As long as we do not take them too seriously, we are fine.

 

[Linux]

Okay, but how do you represent “Persons” in God? A person is a being that has intention on some level. Your rendition of God seems to be very, forgive the term, “substance-like” rather than “living” and “active.” How is God pure act if he just passively IS perfect?

God eternally wills perfect things becuase he is perfection.

 

[zro_x]

No, the effects of evil would be quite visible, but effects are not the evil, our will is. The implication would be that God “leaves us” to deliberate in our own “space” but is very much aware of the “negative” side, just not a part of it. A kind of existential bubble, perhaps.

If God can see the effects of our sins from eternity, I’m sure he would be able to know exactly where our hearts are from our actions, psychology, etc. If he could do that, then he would know from eternity exactly where we would end up when we die before creating us.

 

[zro_x]

How could we guess what someone’s subconscious desire could be?

You told me yourself that her instinct to cling to life is strong enough that she can’t wish to commit suicide.

But there is no innate fear of death.

What?! Do you actually hold this position? Look at it from an evolutionary perspective: How could any instinct be more fundamental than the instinct to stay alive?

We all know that we shall die eventually.

I don’t think that many people acknowledge that fact. We “know” it, but we keep it in the back of our minds as much as possible in order to avoid the terror that comes with meditating about it for long periods of time. Or else we believe that death does not necessarily mean our non-existence, as in religious beliefs.

Also we “experience” non-existence every night in very deep sleep. We (as thinking beings) simply cease to exist for a considerable period of time.

Non-existence for a finite time is different from a non-existence that lasts forever. If you don’t exist for a short time, you are just jumping forward in time a bit. non-existence that is forever, however, is much more frightening.

If one thinks that non-existence is simply a very deep “sleep” without waking up, there is nothing frightening about it.

I find that idea extremely frightening.

Mostly we wish to postpone it as long as possible, but when the “bad part” (a lot of pain with little or no hope to end that pain) overwhelmes the “good part”, it is quite reasonable to wish to end it all.

As I said before, This is a plausible way to look at things. It is also equally plausible that in a state of fear, people irrationally choose to take their own lives in order to escape the problems immediately present to them, without letting the reality of their future non-existence sink in.

 

[Trurl]

You told me yourself that her instinct to cling to life is strong enough that she can’t wish to commit suicide.

Yes, but I was only talking about ONE person. Her physical predicament is pretty bad, but not unendurable. Also there is no “easy” way out. When my mother was at the end of her life, her only concern was not to be a burden on us - since she KNEW that her system is winding down, and there is no recovery. For us it was not a burden, but she did not see it the way we did. She refused to take nutrition to hasten up the process of dying. She explicitly asked us to help her to pass away. If only there would have been a legal and painless way to do it, I would have complied. But there was none. Shame… when one can be more compassionate toward one’s pet, then toward one’s very much loved mother… that is a crying shame.

What?! Do you actually hold this position? Look at it from an evolutionary perspective: How could any instinct be more fundamental than the instinct to stay alive?

That instinct is definitely very strong. But when people see no reason to stay alive (and old people simply get too “tired” to stay alive) then nonexistence is not “frightening” at all.

I don’t think that many people acknowledge that fact. We “know” it, but we keep it in the back of our minds as much as possible in order to avoid the terror that comes with meditating about it for long periods of time. Or else we believe that death does not necessarily mean our non-existence, as in religious beliefs.

We are not all the “same”. For me any kind of “eternal” existence is much more repulsive than simple lack of existence.

Non-existence for a finite time is different from a non-existence that lasts forever. If you don’t exist for a short time, you are just jumping forward in time a bit. non-existence that is forever, however, is much more frightening.

I find that idea extremely frightening.

Why so? If you do not exist, nothing can touch you. No pain, to suffering, no feelings… nothing. Does it fill you with “fright” that you did not exist before you were born?

As I said before, This is a plausible way to look at things. It is also equally plausible that in a state of fear, people irrationally choose to take their own lives in order to escape the problems immediately present to them, without letting the reality of their future non-existence sink in.

I guess, we need to agree to disagree here. Each 'is own.

 

[Linux]

That instinct is definitely very strong. But when people see no reason to stay alive (and old people simply get too “tired” to stay alive) then nonexistence is not “frightening” at all.

Everybody, that doesn’t have brain damage of some kind, has a natural fear of death. Its just sometimes the desire to stop “suffering” outweighs your fear of death. Nobody wants to die.

 

[Trurl]

Everybody, that doesn’t have brain damage of some kind, has a natural fear of death. Its just sometimes the desire to stop “suffering” outweighs your fear of death. Nobody wants to die.

Everybody, huh? Must be nice to speak for “everybody”.

 

[Linux]

Everybody, huh? Must be nice to speak for “everybody”.

I am talking about human beings. Are you not one of them?

 

[fred_conty]

The first choice would vote myself out of existence or at best, to be a pure animal, such as a spider.

The second choice is what it is now.

My real choice is the way Adam had it in the Garden before his bad choice.

Just a thought.

 

[Trurl]

I am talking about human beings. Are you not one of them?

I do, too. You are NOT in the position to speak for ALL human beings. No, not everyone has a “natural fear of death”. Generally, people do not “cherish” the thought of death, but it does not translate to “fear”. As long as people have a healthy and happy life, they wish to extend it as long as possible. However, if the life is filled with pain and misery - and if there is no hope to have it reversed, people - sensibly - prefer nonexistence to a painful and miserable existence.

 

[Linux]

I do, too. You are NOT in the position to speak for ALL human beings.

I am a human being. Therefore I know what it means to be one. Any normal person with a gun to their face will be in fear about the fact that their life is going to end if that trigger is pulled. Everybody is trying to avoid deaf by the mere fact that they are trying to survive and tend to avoid circumstances that bring certain death unless they perceive a real possibility of survival. This much is evident. Only people with psychological problems lose that natural fear. Fear is a natural response to life threatening circumstances. Its a fundamental part of our survival instinct.

I don’t know why you would want to pretend as if this wasn’t the case.

No, not everyone has a “natural fear of death”.

Yes they do.

As long as people have a healthy and happy life, they wish to extend it as long as possible.

Nobody wants to die, regardless of whether they have a happy life or not; and they experience fear when a real possibility of death is presented. Honest people will admit that.

However, if the life is filled with pain and misery - and if there is no hope to have it reversed, people - sensibly - prefer non-existence to a painful and miserable existence.

They do not prefer non-existence. They want to put an end to suffering rather than their life, but feel death is the only option. That does not translate to not having a natural fear of death. It merely means they are desperate to stop the pain, and they get so desperate that it overrides their fear of death. That’s a more sensible evaluation.

 

[Trurl]

I am a human being. Therefore I know what it means to be one.

How arrogant can you be? How dare you to declare that you are in the position to speak for everyone else?

Any normal person with a gun to their face will be in fear about the fact that their life is going to end if that trigger is pulled.

Possibly the worst argument ever. We are talking about people whose body is slowly winding down, who find even breathing a chore. Who do not wish to keep on living. I knew such people, several of them. They were of “compos mentis”, actually sharp as a razor blade. They knew what they they were talking about.

Everybody is trying to avoid deaf by the mere fact that they are trying to survive and tend to avoid circumstances that bring certain death unless they perceive a real possibility of survival. This much is evident. Only people with psychological problems lose that natural fear. Fear is a natural response to life threatening circumstances. Its a fundamental part of our survival instinct.

No, it is NOT evident. And you are just as lousy, incompetent (are these adjectives allowed??? ) “psychologist” as you are the “mouthpiece” of ALL humans. “Phychological problems”… sheesh… what a joke…

On that happy note I say good-bye to you. I am not interested in your response either.

 

[Linux]

On that happy note I say good-bye to you. I am not interested in your response either.

Well, you gave no rebuttal, just a bunch of assertions and insults that don’t reflect reality. Goodbye.

 

[zro_x]

Yes, but I was only talking about ONE person. Her physical predicament is pretty bad, but not unendurable. Also there is no “easy” way out. When my mother was at the end of her life, her only concern was not to be a burden on us - since she KNEW that her system is winding down, and there is no recovery. For us it was not a burden, but she did not see it the way we did. She refused to take nutrition to hasten up the process of dying. She explicitly asked us to help her to pass away.

Did your mother believe in the afterlife? If she believed that she would continue to exist even after her death, she would not actually be wishing her own non-existence.

That instinct is definitely very strong. But when people see no reason to stay alive (and old people simply get too “tired” to stay alive) then nonexistence is not “frightening” at all.

nonexistence may not be consciously frightening, but is still probably subconsciously frightening all the same. This view may be hard to swallow, but it just doesn’t make evolutionary sense that people would lose their ultimate fear of death.

We are not all the “same”. For me any kind of “eternal” existence is much more repulsive than simple lack of existence.

I have days when I feel the same way. Still, I, like you, find it difficult to immagine getting tired of endless exploration.

Why so? If you do not exist, nothing can touch you. No pain, to suffering, no feelings… nothing. Does it fill you with “fright” that you did not exist before you were born?

If you never existed in the first place, it doesn’t matter to you that you don’t exist. It is the end of existence after already having existed that is fearful. But in general, yes, I do beleive that even those on Earth in the worst possible conditions are better off than those who were never born and never will be born.