What is the point of free will?

[Wesrock]

It seems incoherent to claim that morality is not absolute but then also hold that God must be evil because his creation doesn’t conform to your moral standards.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

There are some laws which are self-evident and don’t require any divine revelation. Do not murder. Do not steal. Etc…

None of those are self-evident. Maybe you did not consider that humans were around for many tens of thousands of years. Cavemen had no problem with killing and eating members of other tribes. They had no concept of “property”. All these are relatively new ideas.

In those times resources were scarce, and survival depended on competition, not cooperation. Only much later did the concept of cooperation become accepted, because it offered a better chance of survival.

As for the “sexual mores” those also come from our biological setup. Males are “predisposed” to spread their genes as widely as they can, women - who were left to tend for the children, are more predisposed to have a single mate and provider for the family.

Welcome to the beginnings of natural law and the laws inscribed on men’s hearts. It takes only the least bit of reason to arrive at some of these.

None of that is “natural”. Different societies have different behavioral “codes”. That there are some overlaps is obvious, after all we are all of the same species.

The fun part is that believers would like to extend the “natural moral law” to all sorts of unrelated behaviors. Like marriage, or sex, or even some biologically beneficial activities, like masturbation. The number of different kinds of “marriages” that were practiced is astonishing. It would be ridiculous to assert that everyone (since the stone age) had a monogamous relationship “inscribed” on their heart, they simply decided to live differently.

More to the point: if there would be a universal, natural moral code “inscribed” onto the human heart, it would be evident in small children, who are not “polluted” yet by the adult society. Small children are envious, jealous, mean… Hardly what we would call “morally upright” behavior.

And if there are rational arguments for a God and his goodness from study of the world, and if it cannot be shown to conflict with evidence from the world, then why is the burden of proof on me to prove there is no contradiction? You’re the one who is alleging the positive argument that there is one.

That is a huge IF. I would be delighted to see some rational arguments for it. I would be the last one to demand anything further.

And how would you define good and evil?

That is easy. Good is what is beneficial for the recipient. Bad is what is detrimental for the recipient. Evil is knowingly and volitionally inflicting something that is detrimental for the recipient. It is a small “problem” with the English language that there are no different expressions for the “biologically good” and “morally good” actions, even though there are two different phrases for the “biologically bad” and “morally bad” (evil) actions. Makes the discussion more prone to misunderstanding.

I also did define goodness, at a more basic concept than you have, Pallas Athene. It’s better conforming to our essence.

“Essence” is just a nonsensical concept. I am aware of the definition that “essence” is what makes something what it is.

For example, a triangle is defined as a three sided object with straight sides that join together at three angles which add up to 180 degrees.

I am very glad to see this incorrect example. Only in the Euclidean geometry do the angles add up to 180 degrees. In the spherical (Riemann) geometry the sum of the angles is always MORE than 180 degrees. In the pseudo-spherical (hyperbolic) or Gauss-Bolyai-Lobatchevsky geometry the angles are always less than 180 degrees.

It is a great example of the nonsensical concept of “essence”.

There is NO uniform, unchanging, absolute human “nature”.

It’s really a rather simple concept, though perhaps we need to back up and speak of being, and essence and existence.

No need to speak about them any further. I said everything I had to say in the previous paragraph.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

This is a typical atheist argument which has no logical merit since you cannot even begin to prove there is neither a god, nor a soul, nor a natural law.

One of these days maybe I will see a believer stand up and tell you: “do not embarrass us with your ignorance”. One can “prove” nonexistence only in a deductive, axiomatic system. In an open, inductive system nonexistence can only be proven if the proposition if it refers to a logically incoherent, or undefined objects, like “god” or “soul” or something along those lines.

But, I am afraid I will have to wait for a rational believer to correct you. Not because I doubt their existence, but they are probably too embarrassed to be in the same group as you are.

 

[Peter_Plato]

One of these days maybe I will see a believer stand up and tell you: “do not embarrass us with your ignorance”. One can “prove” nonexistence only in a deductive, axiomatic system. In an open, inductive system nonexistence can only be proven if the proposition if it refers to a logically incoherent, or undefined objects, like “god” or “soul” or something along those lines.

Next you will be insisting on something really bizarre such as that the existence of any thing whatsoever must be proofed and vetted by some deductive, axiomatic system or other before the thing can possibly come to be, as if the existence of anything depends entirely upon it being proved – proofs being, after all, spooky incantations that magically cause things to pop into existence. :hypno:

 

[Wesrock]

I am very glad to see this incorrect example. Only in the Euclidean geometry do the angles add up to 180 degrees. In the spherical (Riemann) geometry the sum of the angles is always MORE than 180 degrees. In the pseudo-spherical (hyperbolic) or Gauss-Bolyai-Lobatchevsky geometry the angles are always less than 180 degrees.

I’m quite aware of different geometries and specifically referred to Euclidean geometry the first time I presented this definition. I majored in mathematics, after all. Please refer to my post from 9:27 AM eastern time. You’re making a content-less deflection from the point. There’s nothing incorrect in my post, I merely assumed Euclidean geometry in my example and dropped the specifics the second time I explained it in this topic. The fact that other geometries exist does not in any way undermine my point. The triangle of my example has the essence of “Euclidean triangularity” if you will, but really, it just ends up being a mouthful to have to repeat it every time.

That is easy. Good is what is beneficial for the recipient. Bad is what is detrimental for the recipient.

That’s essentially Aquinas’ point. Your definition of good and evil is a watered down version of natural law.

“Essence” is just a nonsensical concept. I am aware of the definition that “essence” is what makes something what it is.

YOU’RE A NON-SENSICAL CONCEPT! See. I can do it too, with just as much authority.

Perhaps you could actually explain why it’s nonsensical?

 

[Vico]

I wonder why do you think that the catechism has any explanatory value for non-catholics.

“Sin” is uniquely Christian concept. Inapplicable to others. Moreover, not even the Christians can agree just what is a “sinful” behavior. Not even all Catholics can do that. So there can be no “uniform” law scribbled unto the “soul” - whatever that might be.

Some non Catholics understand the Catechism.

Sin is not an exclusively Christian concept at all. For Jews and Muslims, sin is understood as breaking God’s law or failing to carry out something commanded by the law. For Hindus, paapa (sin) is an act against the laws of God (Dharma which is moral order).

The conscience reveals what is correct, however some people have been influenced such that the conscience is clouded.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I majored in mathematics, after all.

I am glad to hear that. Maybe we can have a common platform.

There’s nothing incorrect in my post, I merely assumed Euclidean geometry in my example and dropped the specifics the second time I explained it in this topic.

But that is the point. The “essence” you speak of is NOT independent from the platform. If the essence is contingent upon the platform then it is not objective. Besides, you cannot speak of the “essence” of an abstract object. Abstract objects (like a circle) are “defined”. “Essence” is reserved for objects in the real world.

That’s essentially Aquinas’ point. Your definition of good and evil is a watered down version of natural law.

In the previous post I gave a detailed argument why I reject the “natural law”. But what I gave as a definition (for good and bad) is effectively a consequentialist understanding, and as such it is summarily rejected by catholic theology. According to catholic theology, something is “good” if it follows God’s (perceived) command or order. Sexual slavery, genocide are all “good” if they are commanded by God. On the other hand, erotic love between two unmarried people is “evil”, no matter if its is founded on mutual love.

So my understanding of “good” and “evil” are completely different from the catholic definition of these words.

Perhaps you could actually explain why it’s nonsensical?

Because it gives no insight, no understanding. To say that “essence” is what makes something what it is lacks the specifics, it is overly general. But I give you a chance to explain. What is the essence of a “chair”? And when you are done with the inanimate object of the chair, give me the “essence” of a “cow”. If you can do that, then (maybe) we can continue.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Perhaps you could actually explain why it’s nonsensical?

Adding something to it.

Aquinas tried to draw a line between the “essence” and the “accident”. For example he considered “size” an accident. So I suggest to contemplate the difference between a “grain of sand”, a “pebble”, a “stone”, a “rock”, a “boulder”, a “hill” and a “mountain”. They are all made of the same material, the only difference is their size - which is “merely” an accident, according to Aquinas.

Then ponder a pile of fissionable material of uranium. If the number of atoms is one less than the critical mass, it will stay inert. But if you add one more atom, the pile will blow up.

The point is that Aquinas or Aristotle (no matter how smart they might have been) were totally ignorant about the fact that quantitative changes can create qualitative modifications. Their whole metaphysics was built on ignorance, and as such it must be discarded. They might have been very smart guys, but the level of their knowledge was miniscule.

Metaphysics must be based and founded on actual physics, otherwise it is “junk” - just like the “essence”. Of all the branches of philosophy, the ONLY really valuable one is epistemology. Without a reliable method to separate the true and false propositions it is impossible to build a useful “metaphysics”.

This is not negative assessment on them. Their age and knowledge did not give them the proper foundation to build upon. They could not have done anything better. But this excuse does not apply to the people who still put then onto a pedestal, who still consider them to be worthy of following. In the twenty first century to consider them as “important” or “useful” is an unpardonable stupidity. They were fine in their age, but today they belong to the junk-pile of history. The only thinkers of those ages whose work withstands the test of time, are … you know it… the mathematicians. Thales, Pythagoras and the like… their achievements are still valid, and will stay valid.

 

[setarcos]

I am glad to hear that. Maybe we can have a common platform.

Because it gives no insight, no understanding. To say that “essence” is what makes something what it is lacks the specifics, it is overly general. But I give you a chance to explain. What is the essence of a “chair”? And when you are done with the inanimate object of the chair, give me the “essence” of a “cow”. If you can do that, then (maybe) we can continue.

If I may interject, first agree upon a definition of what qualities an idealized chair has which differentiates it from another idealogically defined object. For example, has a surface used for supporting human butts, has x amount of legs, has a back support etc. Any object created with these qualities which satisfies the definition has an essence defined by said definition. Now should you decide to create an object which exactly fits these defined qualities then you’ve given that object the same essence though you may use it for a different purpose. A chair may be created as a work of art yet still it has the essence of a chair if it satisfies the definition. It may also have the essence of a work of art because these two definitions exist in different spheres of existence. The one objectively the other subjectively(the essence of a chair as a work of art in the mind of this observer). The cow essentially along the same lines. The only difference being you would be trying to determine what the ideal qualities of a cow would be given the many variations and deveations from one cow to the next and what dimension of essence your talking about. Such as specific breed, or use for instance. Does this make sense at all? Thoughts?

 

[tonyrey]

You are overlooking the difference between ultimate responsibility and direct responsibility. God is not an autocrat who imposes His Will on us, thank God…

Neither a rapist nor a policeman give us free will.

Would you prefer to be a mental slave?

Of course. That was the point of this whole thread. And before you start to object, realize that being a “robot” or a “mental slave” does not feel deficient, since they do not know anything else to compare to.

John Stuart Mill gave the answer to that:

“It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is only because they only know their own side of the question.”

Besides, I heard believers to say that they prefer to be a “servant” or a “slave” for Jesus.

If you disagree you have no experience or understanding of love…

 

[Wesrock]

I will try to respond to all points later. I don’t have as much time today as I did yesterday. But just to comment on your example of rocks and size, you may be failing to distinguish between intrinsic unity and extrinsic unity. Man-made items like chairs, books, and airplanes, or even natural items such as rocks, etc… are artifacts. I’ll try and expand on this later.

Examples of intrinsic unity are a single atom, molecule, plant, or animal.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

One of these days maybe I will see a believer stand up and tell you: “do not embarrass us with your ignorance”. One can “prove” nonexistence only in a deductive, axiomatic system. In an open, inductive system nonexistence can only be proven if the proposition if it refers to a logically incoherent, or undefined objects, like “god” or “soul” or something along those lines.

But, I am afraid I will have to wait for a rational believer to correct you. Not because I doubt their existence, but they are probably too embarrassed to be in the same group as you are.

More ad hominems, one after another. Apparently this is the only way you can answer when you have no other logical answer to give?

In the absence of proof that there is no God, one MUST keep an open mind to the possibility that there is.

But you have apparently CLOSED your mind to the possibility. You are full of your certainty (infallible?) that anyone who disagrees with you is not playing with a full deck and that you cannot be expected to supply the necessary cards.

Having said all this, if you still do not get it, I will leave it to one of your tribe to explain.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

If I may interject, first agree upon a definition of what qualities an idealized chair has which differentiates it from another idealogically defined object.

What is the “idealized” bovine excrement?

The point is that an object has many attributes. The error of Aristotle and Aquinas was that they ASSUMED that some of those attributes are intrinsically important, while others are not important. That is not the case. There are no “intrinsically” important features, only contextually important ones. These are jointly determined by the object, the user of the object and the aim that the user wishes the object for.

A few pieces of rock can be used as “sitting surfaces”, even though they are not “chairs” per se, but they are declared to be chairs. A smaller rock can de used as a “hammer”, if need be. Or a weapon.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I will try to respond to all points later. I don’t have as much time today as I did yesterday. But just to comment on your example of rocks and size, you may be failing to distinguish between intrinsic unity and extrinsic unity. Man-made items like chairs, books, and airplanes, or even natural items such as rocks, etc… are artifacts. I’ll try and expand on this later.

Examples of intrinsic unity are a single atom, molecule, plant, or animal.

Looks like we have even more communication problems. To call a “rock” an “artifact” makes no sense to me.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

In the absence of proof that there is no God, one MUST keep an open mind to the possibility that there is.

In the absence of “proof” that there are no seven-headed, fire-breathing dragons one “MUST” keep an open mind that there are… the applicable word is hogwash!

Can you “prove” that there are no fairies, leprechauns, unicorns? As it has been explained to you (and others) many times, there is no such thing a “proving” a universal negative in an open, inductive system. You don’t get it. It is your problem. But if you can’t stand a little heat, stay out of the kitchen.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Neither a rapist nor a policeman give us free will.

Irrelevant. We are talking about responsibility. There is no significant difference between the evaluation of the rapist who performed the act and the policeman who stood by and did not interfere. Both are responsible.

John Stuart Mill gave the answer to that:

I am not interested in quotes from others. Use your own thoughts and words. The ultimate aim (according to believers) is to be in heaven and bask in God’s “love”. For them there should be no price too high to pay for this privilege. Not even to become mindless robots.

 

[Wesrock]

Looks like we have even more communication problems. To call a “rock” an “artifact” makes no sense to me.

I plan on going over some notes, and hopefully can speak further on substances and essences coherently. But talking about a chair, airplane, rock, etc… is different as they are not considered a whole being in their own right. The unity is considered per accidens instead of per se.

This argument has really been working itself backwards. It’s like starting with the solution to a math problem and then going backwards through the work step by step.

 

[Peter_Plato]

In the absence of “proof” that there are no seven-headed, fire-breathing dragons one “MUST” keep an open mind that there are… the applicable word is hogwash!

Can you “prove” that there are no fairies, leprechauns, unicorns? As it has been explained to you (and others) many times, there is no such thing a “proving” a universal negative in an open, inductive system. You don’t get it. It is your problem. But if you can’t stand a little heat, stay out of the kitchen.

That “fairies, leprechauns, unicorns” have anything whatsoever to do with whether God exists seems to rely on some bizarre notion that “fairies, leprechauns, unicorns” will function as explanatory of all that is – with just as much plausibility – as a well-formed concept of God.

So you are claiming “fairies, leprechauns, unicorns” are just as explanatory of, say, Big Bang cosmology, as the necessary, timeless, immaterial, intentional and all-powerful ground of Being that can create determinably contingent universes?

Your contention, then, is that it is just as plausible to argue that the reason we have something rather than nothing is “a unicorn” as it is to argue for a necessary, immaterial, timeless ground of existence?

Or that “leprechauns,” for example, rationally function to explain things and answer deep and profound questions in the same sense that the 3Omni-God of classical theism does?

That just sounds… well… “ludicrous” is the word that comes to mind.

And you are left scratching your head as to why you are not taken seriously?

You do understand the need for explanatory sufficiency, no?

You seem to, given that you appeal to the fact that…

“…it has been explained to you (and others) many times…”

The question, obviously then, is whether this oft-repeated, purported “explanation” you have provided so often has been, in fact, SUFFICIENT. :nope:

Clearly, that you think unicorns are sufficiently explanatory of the existence of something rather than nothing, might be indicative of the reason your repeated explanations haven’t brought about universal assent in this thread.

Keep trying, though – but keep in mind repeating a claim doesn’t function to make it more convincing (or true.)

 

[Peter_Plato]

I am not interested in quotes from others. Use your own thoughts and words. The ultimate aim (according to believers) is to be in heaven and bask in God’s “love”. For them there should be no price too high to pay for this privilege. Not even to become mindless robots.

Unless, of course, being “mindless robots” makes it truly impossible to enjoy anything whatsoever.

For your argument to work in a logically compelling way, you must demonstrate that free will is unnecessary for consciousness or awareness in the way required to be an autonomous person with the locus of awareness required to “use your own thoughts and words” or to “bask in God’s love.”

The price is, determinably, “too high” if there is no “you” there in heaven to experience anything whatsoever.

I anticipate a sign on the pearly gates, something to the effect: “Mindless robots need not apply.”

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I plan on going over some notes, and hopefully can speak further on substances and essences coherently. But talking about a chair, airplane, rock, etc… is different as they are not considered a whole being in their own right. The unity is considered per accidens instead of per se.

I will be around. You use the phrase “considered”… “considered” by whom? If you say that they are composite objects, then even a hydrogen atom is composite. According to our current knowledge, the only “simple” objects are the different quarks.