J
joshrp
Guest
Well, why did you choose to go to Hell if that is the case?
Why did God create me if he knew I would spend an eternity in hell?
- Status
C
Candide_West
Guest
The objective of the analogy above was to explain to Rinnie how free will could be illusory. The issues (mostly misunderstandings) you raised previously with it have nothing to do with that.*
So it seems sensible to see if the analogy is helpful to Rinnie as opposed to going back over old ground between you and me.*
B
benedictus2
Guest
And here is the glaring problem with that**. You keep using the term “free will” when you have already expressed that your point is NOT** about the “free” part of the term “free will” but the “will” part.
Please get that simple fact into your head because you are the one who made that distinction not me.
So clearly it is you who are obtuse to the point of being obtuse even about your own expressed point. Or are you just suffering from memory lapse?
You stressed several times that you are not stressing the “constraint” but the “ability to choose”. Okay? Can you at least understand that part or is even that too difficult?
You are the one who pointed that out, not me. Okay?
If there is no will, no abilitty to choose, what sort of being is that? Plainly a robot. Even animals have some semblance of ability to choose.
I am really finding it incomprehensible that you cannot even understand your own position.
A being that cannot choose at all** IS a robot. T**hat means all its actions have been pre-programmed just like a robot’s program.
A robot moves according to the way it has been programmed. You are saying that our choices have been pre-programmed into us so therefore we are unable to choose.
**And in the meantime you have still not addressed the absolute conundrum you have thrown yourself into when you said that a 4A God can make more than robots because we are not robots.
How do you extricate yourself out of that one?**
So here it is again:
You said several posts ago that the reason you believe you have free will is because you do not believe in a COOI God, that a COOI God could not possibly have created you!
Now you are saying that since we aren’t robots, obviously a COOI God can create things other than robots? So let me get this straight, you are now saying that you believe that a COOI God created us?
Do you realize that you have just done a 180 degree turn there?Not only that, do you realize that with your above quote, not only have you acknowledged that:
1) God is COOI
2) God created us
3) We have the ability to choose (since as you say we are not robots);
but you have also debunked your own argument because you have just stated that a COOI God can logically create beings with the ability to choose.
But you said that a COOI God cannot logically create beings with the ability to choose!!!
So pay attention: **we are not discussing “free will” now but only “will” **the ability to choose. If you are still unable to grasp that fact this late in this discussion then there just is no hope.
Surely, that is a concept you are able to grasp considering that you are the one who brought that up.
B
benedictus2
Guest
The example was flawed so it is unable to show that free will is illusory. I debunked that whole scenario several posts ago.
B
benedictus2
Guest
Candide,
I am just letting you know that I am not responding anymore to your posts.
I am finding your replies just frustrating so I am done with this thread.
Peace!
Cory
I am just letting you know that I am not responding anymore to your posts.
I am finding your replies just frustrating so I am done with this thread.
Peace!
Cory
C
Candide_West
Guest
That would be rather strange, but I can assure you that I do indeed understand my position. The problem you seem to have in fact is (as I noted in my previous post) that I am unwilling to misuse terms the way you do.
How do I extricate myself from what I can only assume is your deliberate misunderstanding of what I wrote?*
What happened is that I said a COOI god can make things other than robots. You applied your incorrect assumption that “robot = anything without free will” therefore “non-robot = being with free will” and decided I had said a COOI God can make beings with free will.*
Obviously this is incorrect because it is based on your incorrect assumption.
**You said several posts ago that the reason you believe you have free will is because you do not believe in a COOI God,
Correct. If I believed in a COOI God then I’d be forced to consider my free will to be an illusion.*
Incorrect, I said nothing of the sort. Obviously the correct statement is that if a COOI God exists then my free will is an illusion.*
*
Now you are saying that since we aren’t robots, obviously a COOI God can create things other than robots?
Indeed, I have never said that a COOI God can only create robots, that’s patently silly. Again this comes down to the problem of your assumption that everything that is either a robot or a being with free will. So stars, tables, trees, etc must all be robots by that strange definition.
saying that you believe that a COOI God created us?benedictus2;8283910 said:
Of course not. Again it’s down to your erroneous assumptions.
*
No, no and no. Again I’ve been very clear about this.*
*
No, I’ve said he can make things which are not robots, you have added your assumption that non-robot = being with free will. Obviously that is silly.*
Right… and why are you struggling with this again? If there is no ability to make choices then there is no free will. We don’t seem to disagree here.*
C
Candide_West
Guest
Well that’s your choice of course. I wish I could say I’m surprised but I’ve noticed that you seem to be being deliberately obtuse recently. I suspected that you might be doing so to prevent the conversation progressing towards a conclusion.*
I have to say I’m somewhat disappointed though as I have invested quite a lot of time and effort into the conversation.
B
benedictus2
Guest
After reading this post I thought I should give this conversation another shot.
Then I read your post 326 and I thought continuing is totally pointless because it has become even clearer that you do not know your own position. It is wearying having to type:” but you said this, but you said this, but you said this.” I have found it extremely tiresome having to remind you of what you said and having to explain all the time the implications of your own statements to you.
But let me highlight something and then perhaps you will understand why I have decided to hang up my gloves.
First Point
Candide on 25th Aug 2011 at 3:38 AM (Post 327)
Really? Well over a month ago you wrote:
Candide on Jul 12 2011 at 10:26 pm (post 177)
But then on 24th of Aug 2011 8:18 am ( post 315)
On 17th of Jul you didn’t believe in God let alone a 4A God, but come 24th Aug not only do you believe that a 4A God created you, but that He is 4A.
If you can’t see backflip, about face, somersault, 180degree turn in that, then you will never get it.
Second point.
In post 326 you replied to my comment about your persistence in using the term free will when in actual fact your arguing against will with this:
You obviously do not see how utterly, utterly, utterly, stupid that statement is.
You are giving an attribute (free) to something you are saying is non-existent - a free nothing.
It is like saying using the term a “free three-sided square”. Since according to you (and this time correctly) there is no such thing as a three sided square, how can you use the term a “free three sided square”?
You have already said there is no such thing as a will so how can you use the term free will? Totally, incredibly absurd.
And I bet you, even with that explanation, you will still not get it.
So yes, Ciao.
But I do wish you well and it was fun debating with you. God bless.
T
tonyrey
Guest
The OP implies that hell has no compensations - which is absurd. Why would anyone reject God if there were nothing to gain? For some individuals the prospect of **total power **and absolute independence is a sufficient motive to forgo heaven. They enjoy being **complete masters **of their own kingdom and owing allegiance to no one. In a word they become rival gods who abuse their free will to make themselves supreme and “liberate” themselves from all duties or obligations. If Hamlet had been evil he would have said “It is a consummation diabolically to be wished!” 
The only problem is that their satisfaction and pleasure are poisoned by their slavery to themselves. Self-love can never be a source of peace, joy and fulfilment because we are not made to live just for ourselves but also for others. Egolatry inevitably leads to misery, frustration and isolation. The damned have everything they want but not everything they need!
The only problem is that their satisfaction and pleasure are poisoned by their slavery to themselves. Self-love can never be a source of peace, joy and fulfilment because we are not made to live just for ourselves but also for others. Egolatry inevitably leads to misery, frustration and isolation. The damned have everything they want but not everything they need!
C
Candide_West
Guest
Now come on, I’ve already shown you that what’s actually happened is that you’ve taken a statement by me added an incorrect assumption then decided it’s contradictory. If you wish to avoid such “wearying” conversations then how about you try not adding the erroneous assumptions?
Ok, let’s have a look.
Right, so I’ve said that IF a COOI God exists then my free will (just like everyone else’s) is illusory. This seems consistent with everything I’ve said to date, but let’s look at your other quotes…
So I’ve said that I don’t believe in ANY God. Which you know anyway, as my profile says I don’t have a religion. Again no contradictions here as far as I can tell.*
Right, so I’ve said that humans aren’t robots, which is an obvious statement of fact. The only thing that could achieve that would be a whole load of electronics and some significant steelworks. Even then you’d only have made a cyborg, not really a robot as such.*
And obviously I’ve never said that a COOI God can only make robots, indeed I don’t think I’ve ever said anything about any Gods making any robots let alone that a COOI God can only make robots*(certainly all the robots I’ve ever encountered have been made by people).
True, and I still don’t.*
Nope, obviously I’ve said nothing of the sort.*
Er, you seem to be trying to say that there is some kind of contradiction between the following 3 statements:*
“I don’t believe in a COOI God”…
“if I did then I’d be forced to admit free will to be illusory”*
And
“humans aren’t robots”
You’re right, I don’t see any contradiction there at all. Does anyone else out there see some contradiction?*
Right… Funnily enough, I know because I wrote it.
Nope, again you’re right this statement appears to make sense here. Why do you struggle with this one so much?
No, I’m making use of a common usage term which is (as in fact we’ve previously discussed) covered by my logic. So I’ve said “if xxxxx then free will is illusory because the will to choice is illusory.”
No, a more accurate statement is that I show that there are no squares with a number of sides other than 4. I then say “there are no 3 sides squares” and you insist that I can’t say that. Obviously the latter statement is covered by the former but is more specific and shorter. So why get so stressed about using it.*
Frankly I struggle to see this as anything other than irrelevant minutiae to give you an excuse to slide from the conversation.
No, I’ve already said, I believe we have free will. However, logically if a God exists, and has the characteristics he supposedly does, then free will must be illusory.*
Obviously in order to show that free will is illusory I’ll need to use the term.*
Again the point you are making here is just minutiae about terminology. This seems to be nothing but evasion.
As I say it’s a real disappointment to me. I was really impressed a few posts back when you finally managed to resolve the errors you kept making. You actually managed to resolve error 1 AND error 2 in a single post. I thought “great, amazing progress”. But ever since that point you’ve played obtuse and evaded and are now ending the discussion.*
I suspect the reason is that you are actually able to see where the logic goes but don’t want to admit it.*
As I said it’s your choice but I’m more than happy to continue the discussion if you change your mind.
D
DazedConfused
Guest
I joined today to specifically respond to this thread, and appreciate a forum by which we can start a dialogue.
The discussion of omniscience and eternal damnation is the largest obstacle for me to accept religion. While faith may provide the answer, I am unable to entertain it unless I accept the concept of salvation as is, ignore it altogether, or hope that the interpretation is incorrect.
The problem with knowing everything is…you know everything. This must include knowledge of the future. If it doesn’t, it’s not omniscience. When your creator is omniscient, free will is irrelevant. You will end up where it was known you would end up. This knowledge was present before the creation, during the creation, and throughout your existence. This knowledge exists regardless of our ability to make independent conscious decisions. It does not matter if those choices were free for us to make, as the ending was known at all points from creation through death and beyond. These are the unfortunate side effects of omniscience.
As an outsider attempting to entertain religious belief, it becomes very difficult to reconcile an omniscient creator coupled with the concept of eternal damnation. I struggle to accept that the most intelligent entity in the universe would design a system knowing that billions of its creation would spend an eternity in damnation. I am unable to recognize how this can interpreted as kind and loving. I cannot accept that people in eternal damnation chose to be there, or more pointedly, deserve to be there. Given a true choice, and implicit understanding and evidence of the consequences of the choice, I find it implausible that intelligent individuals would choose to spend an eternity in damnation. The single greatest evidence will be provided upon death, as we will all eventually experience it despite our differing belief systems. I do not comprehend a system that provides for such a short physical existence, offers the possibility of eternal pain and suffering, and does not provide a choice at the moment of clarity, death itself.
I struggle with this issue because it is at the core of why I have lost my faith. I could amend my understanding of damnation, of the creator’s omniscience, of the requirements of salvation, or any number of other caveats that would have me focus on certain tenets while completely ignoring others. I often wonder what it would take for me to accept the basic premise of religion again, what evidence would need to occur for me to truly believe, or even if it is possible based on my current perspective. I accept that in death I will have my answer because I will be experiencing it. Unfortunately in death, if I am to believe religion, it will be too late.
The discussion of omniscience and eternal damnation is the largest obstacle for me to accept religion. While faith may provide the answer, I am unable to entertain it unless I accept the concept of salvation as is, ignore it altogether, or hope that the interpretation is incorrect.
The problem with knowing everything is…you know everything. This must include knowledge of the future. If it doesn’t, it’s not omniscience. When your creator is omniscient, free will is irrelevant. You will end up where it was known you would end up. This knowledge was present before the creation, during the creation, and throughout your existence. This knowledge exists regardless of our ability to make independent conscious decisions. It does not matter if those choices were free for us to make, as the ending was known at all points from creation through death and beyond. These are the unfortunate side effects of omniscience.
As an outsider attempting to entertain religious belief, it becomes very difficult to reconcile an omniscient creator coupled with the concept of eternal damnation. I struggle to accept that the most intelligent entity in the universe would design a system knowing that billions of its creation would spend an eternity in damnation. I am unable to recognize how this can interpreted as kind and loving. I cannot accept that people in eternal damnation chose to be there, or more pointedly, deserve to be there. Given a true choice, and implicit understanding and evidence of the consequences of the choice, I find it implausible that intelligent individuals would choose to spend an eternity in damnation. The single greatest evidence will be provided upon death, as we will all eventually experience it despite our differing belief systems. I do not comprehend a system that provides for such a short physical existence, offers the possibility of eternal pain and suffering, and does not provide a choice at the moment of clarity, death itself.
I struggle with this issue because it is at the core of why I have lost my faith. I could amend my understanding of damnation, of the creator’s omniscience, of the requirements of salvation, or any number of other caveats that would have me focus on certain tenets while completely ignoring others. I often wonder what it would take for me to accept the basic premise of religion again, what evidence would need to occur for me to truly believe, or even if it is possible based on my current perspective. I accept that in death I will have my answer because I will be experiencing it. Unfortunately in death, if I am to believe religion, it will be too late.
D
davidv
Guest
It seems to me that part of the problem you express here is that you have projected your sense of time which brings with it ideas like past, present and future, onto the being we call God who transcends time. For God there is no past or future, there only now. To me this can only being accepted on faith based God’s revelation to us of this nature of His, for there is no possible way through our natural reason we could come to such an understanding.
B
benedictus2
Guest
So let me get this straight so I can understand exactly where your are coming from. Your problem is this: God created you knowing that you will do evil so why did He still create you?
It only does not make sense if we see it as a “system”. As a system of " you do this you get to heaven, you do that you plunge to hell".
But that is not quite what it is.
The Catholic belief in heaven and hell is a complex yet subtle interrelation of several beliefs. If you are interested I will try to give some sort of summary (which of course will not answer your question in depth but will at least show you that this question is more complex than you have put forward.
I am unable to recognize how this can interpreted as kind and loving. I cannot accept that people in eternal damnation chose to be there, or more pointedly, deserve to be there. Given a true choice, and implicit understanding and evidence of the consequences of the choice, I find it implausible that intelligent individuals would choose to spend an eternity in damnation. The single greatest evidence will be provided upon death, as we will all eventually experience it despite our differing belief systems. I do not comprehend a system that provides for such a short physical existence, offers the possibility of eternal pain and suffering, and does not provide a choice at the moment of clarity, death itself.
Again, this is a misconception or rather a misapprehension of how we understand the nature of heaven and hell.
T
tonyrey
Guest
No one is condemned for being sincere!
F
fred_conty
Guest
Here is an article on the above subjects. You may want to wander thru this thread.
//forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7403324#post7403324
The topics you mention are dogmas of imense mysteries in and of themselves.
If we so to speak, “dump” freedom, grace, knowledge, predestination, love, hell, and
sundry items that relate to these into one pot, we have one big bowl of theological unimaginable
soup.
The simple fact to sustain us is, God loves us (cross).
F
fred_conty
Guest
Dazed, you should find this article very helpful for understanding hell.
It explains why they don’t want heaven.
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Hell
M
Michael19682
Guest
Jesus himself, before the resurrection of his body, Mt 26:39…“And going a little further, he fell upon his face, praying, and saying: My Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass from me. Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.” If God’s son was sincere in his prayer to alter his own fate, we simply have to accept that we know even less and can change even less. Submitting to God’s will in your life leaves one fear and one fear only: that of death. Jesus knew the future but appears to have known that the future is a practical matter, and he did not want to die in the manner in which he was destined. Even though he was immortal, his prayer and his call out to his father on the cross indicate to me that his death must have been just like hell. He experienced abandonment of his own being despite knowing full well the kind of death he was to experience.
The official position of the Catholic Church on hell is that no one goes to hell unless they wants to. Hell remains a reality.
Your point about omniscience implies that people do not have the basic ability to avoid hell. All humans know that hell or its equivalent is something even their bodily sensory motor neurons cause them to avoid (pain)? For the remaining minority who are inclined toward self destruction, some other facet of life–perhaps even their life itself–is the deterrent. That leaves all dissuaded but the indifferent. Yet the indifferent are lazy, so they would want rest and abhor the toil and torment of hell–hence choose heaven.
The reactionary will claim this is too lenient on the sinner. But yet it is not so. If out of habit we choose hellish living and affirm an anti Christian sentiment daily, what will stop that force of habit when we die. So, omniscience really is in relation to free will. The important thing is to stick to your practical guns and fight the battle of faith, which informs us that anything is possible, including our delimited omniscience in a human body. As the literary genius Eco asks in one of his novels: Are you responsible for the fact that your feet are not very prehensile? I’m sure a marathon runner is happy he has his the feet god gave him.
When you decide what you can reasonably know and what you need to know, you will realize that your faith does in fact make you omniscient, too.
You already know all you need to know.
Mt 6:26 “Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?”
N
Nimeniton
Guest
A Catholic from another forum gave me this Biblical reply to a similar question.
*14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”[f]
16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”[g] 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”[h] 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? * Romans 9:14-24
In my mind it is a curious response to the question to whether God is just or not.
The basic response seems to be, “Who are you to question God’s wishes?” and Paul gives the example of the Potter being free to use the clay for whatever purpose he wishes.
Some , in response to you, have implied that giving people free will is more important to God than never having them born even if it means they “choose” hell. However, it is interesting that this verse seems to indicate predestination and not free will. "he hardens whom he wants to harden." and* “For who is able to resist his will?”*
Then St Paul gives this What if in verses 22 and 23 as reasons to prove God’s justness
T
tonyrey
Guest
A superb post!
“all you need to know” is the key phrase…
B
benedictus2
Guest
I think this would be more like Calvinist view point and you are correct that it does not answer the question at all. It is a somewhat flawed understanding and some give St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas as support.
There is a much more coherent approach to grace and free will.
I will try to write a summary tonight.
- Status