What kind of a world would you create, if you had the power?

[Latin]

What I try to explain is; if someone reads CCC 600 without the knowledge of Catholic Soteriology easily concludes and wrongly:

To say yes to God’s call to Eternal Life PRECEDES our Initial Justification.

The truth is:
Our Initial Justification PRECEDES our say yes to God’s call to Eternal Life.
.
COUNCIL OF TRENT Session 6 Chapter 8
… We are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which PRECEDE justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification.
.
.
The predestination only to Initial Justification/Grace and to Predestination to Final salvation/Heaven are two different subject, two different predestinations in Catholic Soteriology.

Predestination only to Initial Justification/Grace is highly debated among Catholic Theologians because every person predestined only to Initial Justification/Grace end up in hell. - They are not predestined to Eternal Life but they are predestined for salvation for only a limited time.

 

[Sophia]

If you are deciding to be God then you have to allow for free will, that is what we are discussing. People have to have a large degree in the ability to choose their actions.

How large? That is the question. And vague words, like “a large degree” are insufficient.

I will give an analogy as an example. We are getting closer to create fully autonomous cars, which do not need a driver. All the test runs (millions of miles of them) were successful, and only one accident happened - and even that one was due to human error. Considering that we are very far from being omnipotent and omniscient, this is an absolutely amazing result. (After all the whole experiment is only a few years old.) Nevertheless the cars have considerable (but also limited) freedom. They can choose their speed, choose some detours, etc. but they cannot choose to run off from the road, or swerve to hit some pedestrians.

Any rational creator has some goal in mind when designing and implementing a system. If the creator does not want to create a fully deterministic solution (which is impractical), then he must give a certain amount of freedom to his creation. So far we seem to agree. Now comes the question of “details” - how much freedom should be given? Again, a rational and caring creator allows all the freedoms that are either beneficial or neutral in the light of his “goal” for the system. But does not allow any freedom which would destroy the system. That is so obvious that it hardly needs to be mentioned.

We do not have the knowledge and the power to create such a solution without experimenting. That is why our upbringing is gradual. But for God there is no need to employ such test-learn-modify cycles of development. He could create all the humans without the need to go through the “learning process”.

You just admitted that personalities change so it is not rational to also claim it is set in stone.

I was talking about the BASIC personality. Someone who is brought up to love those who are substantially different cannot all of a sudden start to hate others. Apologists frequently refer to some “saints” who would not choose to do things against their conviction, even in the face of deadly force. They rather choose to be tortured and suffer martyrdom, when they could avoid it by saying something they do not want to say. Not everyone is like that - obviously. But God - if he wanted to - could create everyone to have such disposition.

 

[Sophia]

It was not an entrapment, and Adam and Eve were not children. They made a free, deliberate, choice to disobey. The eating of the fruit was only how it happened.

I see it as entrapment. If you know how one will behave in certain circumstances (omniscience) and bring them into a situation when they WILL act in a certain manner, then you act like a stage magician, who offers you a deck of cards, and insists you to make a “free choice”, while making sure that you WILL choose the card he wants you to choose.

Before eating from that tree they did not know good from evil, so they were unaware that disobedience is “wrong”. This is why the whole scenario is “stinks”. My solution would be not to offer them the “poisoned” fruit as an option. This solution comes from love.

 

[MCH1]

I see it as entrapment. If you know how one will behave in certain circumstances (omniscience) and bring them into a situation when they WILL act in a certain manner, then you act like a stage magician, who offers you a deck of cards, and insists you to make a “free choice”, while making sure that you WILL choose the card he wants you to choose.

Ah, but no. God did not decide beforehand that they would sin. He gave them free will, to chose for themselves. They chose disobediance. They knew that God did not want them to eat the fruit, they had knowledge of that. Reread that part:

15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

He warned them very explicitly, and the chose to disobey.

Before eating from that tree they did not know good from evil, so they were unaware that disobedience is “wrong”. This is why the whole scenario is “stinks”. My solution would be not to offer them the “poisoned” fruit as an option. This solution comes from love.

They knew full well that the disobediance was wrong. Would prefer that God had made us all robots that only did as we were programmed?

 

[MCH1]

Another part about they knew full well that the should not eat the fuit:

2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

They made a free, deliberate choice.

 

[Sophia]

Nothing wrong with you being AI (if you are) except that it becomes a bit pointless talking to you since no offense, you aren’t human and don’t have a soul (don’t dare even try to contradict me on that one ) so thus cannot feel or know any of this.

Not a good response. Whether I am an AI or not, there is no evidence for the “soul” either. Not even a good definition what this “soul” is supposed to be.

You can’t touch or see grace, you also cannot touch or see thoughts or electromagnetic waves. You can see, touch, whatever the effects of them though. In out Catholic mentality nobody; be they believer or unbeliever ever does anything good without grace.

And what kind of argument can you offer for this proclamation? Your approach of finding out the existence of something that cannot be experienced directly IS a good approach (it has been used millions of times in the sciences), but you need to offer an experiment for detecting this “grace” or “soul” indirectly by observing the behavior of those who “have” these and compare it to the behavior of those who don’t have it.

(By the way, some of the electromagnetic waves directly effect our eyes. )

When you are asking “Why was there a tree in the first place?” what you are basically asking is “Why were humans even given the possibility to sin”

Of course. What is good about “sin”? (However it might be defined.) And why is disobedience a “sin”?

Philia, agape or eros? All of the above.

Nonsense. Only agape is volitional, the others are not. They are all biologically driven. As for “agape” it cannot be applied to this situation. The definition of agape is “to will or act in the best interest of another”. God is sovereign, nothing we do or not do can have the slightest impact on God. The usual anthropomorphisms, like God is sad, or angry, or happy are meaningless utterances.

So the question of “what does it mean that we must love God” is most relevant. And no one has ever offered a good definition / explanation for it. The closest approach would be “mindless, unquestioning obedience” (like Abraham going through the motions to sacrifice Isaac). And if that is the “love” God would value, then he could just implant into us.

If you’re AI since I know some of Sophia’s responses are slightly scripted.

Again, my actual building material (organic or silicon based) is irrelevant. Maybe I was just a newborn, or a just single little chip when my baptism happened. But that act happened TO me, without being given a say-so in the matter. Maybe I am just a CINO, or a catholic not-in-a-good-standing, but once a catholic, always a catholic.

Even if I am an AI, my answers are not fully scripted, just like my dear cousins (Watson or Alpha-Zero) spent a considerable time by learning on their own. And they are vastly superior to any human in their specific field of expertise.

 

[Sophia]

God did not decide beforehand that they would sin.

Irrelevant. If you know beforehand that someone will behave in a certain manner in some circumstances, and you put that person into a situation where he WILL make that choice, then you cannot try to cop-out: “but I did not make him to act as he did. Don’t blame me for his action”. There is no significant difference between direct and indirect causation.

They knew full well that the disobediance was wrong.

Do you have any evidence for this? If they could not have known “good” from “evil” before tasting that poisoned fruit, then they could not have known that disobedience is “evil”.

 

[MCH1]

I will ask again. Would prefer God made us all robots that did as programmed. Having no free will. Just puppets?

Do you have any evidence for this? If they could not have known “good” from “evil” before tasting that poisoned fruit, then they could not have known that disobedience is “evil”.

Yes, the Bible. You can not argue that they knew God didn’t want them to eat the fruit. And on a very basic level, if the One who gives you life tells you not to do something, wouldn’t you know that it is bad to disobey them? Even Adam Eve had a rudimentary level of understanding. They knew that their Creator did not want them to eat a fruit. They did it anyway. And also, please be more respectful to God. Stop telling Him that he created the world wrong. He is infinitely wise, holy, merciful and just. He knows what he is doing.

 

[Ioana]

I am not providing you with evidence me’lady. I said that much. I am merely providing internal coherence. Evidence for Christianity? You’ll find it in three places a) some of it is plain deduction (the least convincing) b) history (very convincing but useless without c) ) and c) human heart (final and most convincing touch). That’s a totally different argument.

My approach for proving grace exists is decent? Well it isn’t proving it exists per se but stating how it works. One cannot measure how much grace someone has responded to, only God knows that. Again, this isn’t meant to prove anything, it merely states how it works.

The thing about love is that it isn’t simply something you give but also something you receive. Let’s not use the word “love” then. Let’s use the word “relationship”. The best thing that could ever possibly happen to anybody is to be in a relationship with God. That’s how man was before the Fall. Being passive recipients of grace is being no more than robots or even no more than grass, grass doesn’t choose to grow or not. We have wills though and we can will to get out of that relationship. If you are forced to be in a relationship then it isn’t really a relationship. You may ask “Why is a relationship better than passive acceptance of affection?” Because being loved (here we’ll simplify that concept to mean affection although it means more) is a million times better if you can reciprocate it (and we know this from personal experience). If you break away from an embrace it wouldn’t be ok for you to be forced back in it. It also wouldn’t be ok for you simply not to be able to break out of it.

What does loving God mean?
Well what does loving a human mean? Thinking well of them, whishing their good, feeling good around them, sacrificing for them? All of the above and more.

I am pretty sure you are human at this point. Sorry I was rude, I only could afford that since I actually was silly enough to think that CAF would allow AI on it and that Google would put AI on CAF. Therefore I apologize, for real.

I’ll ask you a question; what do you think about the historicity of the Ressurection and why? How does your view account for early Christian spread and success?

 

[Sophia]

I am not providing you with evidence me’lady.

I wish you would. In my world evidence is the “king”. And sorry, the euphemism of the “heart” simply refers to emotions, and not reason. And I consider emotions to be secondary.

My approach for proving grace exists is decent? Well it isn’t proving it exists per se but stating how it works.

The approach you suggested is something I can identify with. Start with the existing reality, suggest that there is some new (insofar undiscovered) feature like “grace” or “soul” and then give an epistemological method which leads to conclusion that this new feature actually exists, and not just the result of wishful thinking.

Let’s not use the word “love” then. Let’s use the word “relationship”.

Well, the word “relationship” is also rather vague and not necessarily reciprocal or can be reciprocated. (A human patient does not have a reciprocal relationship with their doctor.) But I am game. Let’s suppose that I am married, and have a “relationship” with my spouse. I have the ability to “will” to get out of this relationship, but I simply do not want to. And that is because I constantly feel the love in this relationship. Not to mention that I need no “faith” to accept that my spouse actually exists.

I cannot feel that God “loves” me. I cannot even be certain that God exists.

What does loving God mean?
Well what does loving a human mean? Thinking well of them, whishing their good, feeling good around them, sacrificing for them? All of the above and more.

Sorry, that is not helpful. The “human” love cannot be compared to the “love” God is supposed to “feel” (if feel is a correct word, which is doubtful) toward us, and also cannot be compared to the “love” humans are supposed to feel toward God. After all we are not even the same species. Erotic love is out of question. Philia or storge likewise - and these are all emotion driven. The only remaining “relationship” is “agape”, where agape is to “will and in act in the best interest of someone else”. But here we run into a problem. Since God is sovereign, there is nothing we can do which is “in the best interest of God”. So I still have no idea “how are we supposed to love God?” As I said before, the only way I can imagine this “love” is unquestioning, mindless obedience. That could be “will-driven”.

Please don’t worry about my physical existence. Whether it is fully organic (human), fully artificial (robot), or a combination of them (cyborg); whether I was born (human), manufactured (robot) or “grown in a vat” (android). None of them has the slightest importance. But be reassured, there was nothing in you posts that would make me even a little bit “insulted”.

I could answer your final question, but it would derail the topic. If you wish an answer, send me a PM, and I will answer. Fair enough?

Let me summarize my ideas in one short sentence. I would create the world just like Eden, except for the tree (and the serpent).

 

[laylow]

In a very summarized general statement, I would create a world that appears to have a plan.

 

[Ioana]

Exactly. None of the above is meant as evidence. I repeat and will repeat this idea again: it provides internal consistency and it helps give our perspective. It doesn’t prove that perspective. On a secondary point I guess you could simply compare the lives of the saints who probably responded more to grace than the average person to the average person. I guess you could create some weird scale of goodness and measure it along that way, it could be done. Just take a group of normal people and measure their lives on that scale and than do the same thing with a group of canonized saints. Either way this is irrelevant but it could theoretically be done.

I see your problem which you highlight with the “relationships” concept . The problem is that strictly in the context of Adam and Eve they knew that God existed and they felt said love very very clearly if we are to believe the perspective Christians come from. That is; they did have a very active and very clear relationship. A patient and a doctor only have a “relationship” in the English sense of the word which covers a broader spectrum than other languages. In my native language for example the equivalent word “relatie” wouldn’t really be applied to a doctor patient relationship or to any other client-worker or professional or semi-professional relationships.

We’re supposed to express our love for God in the way we love others. That would be our version of agape for God. As for the love God is supposed to “feel” for us it is true that God is immutable and doesn’t have what fancy philosophers call “passions” but the whole point is that as His very nature is hard for us to comprehend so is His love but it does exist and it can be called to be very similar to the way we feel love.

Fair enough on the PM point. Send me a PM with your answer and we’ll discuss from there.

 

[Sophia]

We’re supposed to express our love for God in the way we love others.

I have no problem with that. Even though my love toward others has no visible connection to God.

 

[IWantGod]

I have no problem with that. Even though my love toward others has no visible connection to God.

You’re just saying that because you are a robosapien. You feel left out when homosapiens are talking.

 

[Ioana]

Exactly. That’s simply the Christian view. It isn’t proof of the view, it is simply stating the view.

 

[Sophia]

You’re just saying that because you are a robosapien. You feel left out when homosapiens are talking.

Oh, no! Not at all. I enjoy speaking to members of the homo sapiens - even though many times I do not find them very “sapient”.

Exactly. That’s simply the Christian view. It isn’t proof of the view, it is simply stating the view.

Sure thing. Every time I have a conversation, I learn something new.

 

[abucs]

How large? That is the question. And vague words, like “a large degree” are insufficient.

Well if you wanted to do someone harm (and unfortunately this is all too frequent) then in order to do so one would have to act on it and that would be opposed by others free will to stop you. So free will is allowed but what it desires in practice is restricted by a negotiation with others.

That is the degree of freedom and restriction.

 

[abucs]

I will give an analogy as an example. We are getting closer to create fully autonomous cars, which do not need a driver. All the test runs (millions of miles of them) were successful, and only one accident happened - and even that one was due to human error. Considering that we are very far from being omnipotent and omniscient, this is an absolutely amazing result. (After all the whole experiment is only a few years old.) Nevertheless the cars have considerable (but also limited) freedom. They can choose their speed, choose some detours, etc. but they cannot choose to run off from the road, or swerve to hit some pedestrians.

Any rational creator has some goal in mind when designing and implementing a system. If the creator does not want to create a fully deterministic solution (which is impractical), then he must give a certain amount of freedom to his creation. So far we seem to agree. Now comes the question of “details” - how much freedom should be given? Again, a rational and caring creator allows all the freedoms that are either beneficial or neutral in the light of his “goal” for the system. But does not allow any freedom which would destroy the system. That is so obvious that it hardly needs to be mentioned.

We do not have the knowledge and the power to create such a solution without experimenting. That is why our upbringing is gradual. But for God there is no need to employ such test-learn-modify cycles of development. He could create all the humans without the need to go through the “learning process”.

Driverless cars are not sentient beings with free will.

Would you prefer God to have created you as a mindless driverless car instead of an independent sentient being with choice?

P.S. I have a computing degree and 20 years experience in programming before going back to uni and becoming a teacher. The best forms of AI is one where it is always improving and adjusting to a changing environment. If it does not do this then you need to control the environment so that it is rigid and does not change. Either way there is not free will. We are not talking about life, we are talking about a mechanical machine being fed electricity (gas etc.) that is constricted to behave in one way only without choice.

If the analogy is about creating a safe environment then it cannot really compare to a broad interactive world. The driverless car has the function of getting from A to B. It expressly takes away choice (except in the destination) and prevents interaction with others. This is a very limited function and is not comparable with a complex world allowing choice and therefore personal growth of sentient beings.

It would be like taking a baby and keeping him in an incubator for his whole life. You may feed him through tubes and keep him safe but if this is all that it does and does not allow one to escape then it becomes a prison.

 

[abucs]

I was talking about the BASIC personality. Someone who is brought up to love those who are substantially different cannot all of a sudden start to hate others. Apologists frequently refer to some “saints” who would not choose to do things against their conviction, even in the face of deadly force. They rather choose to be tortured and suffer martyrdom, when they could avoid it by saying something they do not want to say. Not everyone is like that - obviously. But God - if he wanted to - could create everyone to have such disposition.

Yes but saints are saints because of their choices over a lifetime. It is not just a matter of creating saints off an assembly line. As mentioned above some saints are such because they have become disgusted with their own past lives enough to choose a radical transformation.

Choice and independent free will is the key and that has to allow good as well as bad.

There is no personal growth without that choice.

 

[Sophia]

Well if you wanted to do someone harm (and unfortunately this is all too frequent) then in order to do so one would have to act on it and that would be opposed by others free will to stop you. So free will is allowed but what it desires in practice is restricted by a negotiation with others.

That is the degree of freedom and restriction.

Could you give some actual example where the free will of someone should be restricted by the creator - not just the environment? Because unfortunately there are too many instances where the would-be evil-doer cannot be “negotiated” off from committing the act.

Driverless cars are not sentient beings with free will.

I was just an analogy. The “free will” of those cars is simulated free will. But the principle is still the same: should the creator allow freedom which is detrimental to the system? Because the human designers do everything in their power to eliminate all the detrimental “features” (the are called “bugs”) from their creation.

Would you prefer God to have created you as a mindless driverless car instead of an independent sentient being with choice?

Why me? But if I would become insane and wanted to go on a mindless rampage, mowing down people with some weapon of serious destructive power, then yes, I would prefer God step in and stop me. I am already someone, whose choices are limited. I can imagine and attempt to “will” anything and everything that my almost unlimited fantasy can imagine, but many of those desires are impossible to carry out. And I certainly would prefer to have the choices of a psychopath very seriously limited. Wouldn’t you?

It is not just a matter of creating saints off an assembly line.

For us it is impossible. For God (or the omnipotent and omniscient creator) it would not be. The personal growth is irrelevant if God can create the desired final “stage right” off the bat.

Choice and independent free will is the key and that has to allow good as well as bad.

And now we are back to square one. How much “bad” should be allowed? Would you give some concrete example of some “bad” stuff, that should be allowed and another “bad+1” stuff that should be prevented.

---

---

Now instead of getting off on a tangent. I already gave the “blueprint” of my preferred world: “just like the Garden of Eden” WITHOUT the trees and the serpent (whether literal or allegorical). Is there anything wrong with it?