Why did God create me if he knew I would spend an eternity in hell?

[Michael19682]

But he didn’t have to create any souls. If he knows for a fact that any percentage of his creation (and he does - omniscience) is going to go to spend eternity wailing and gnashing their teeth, then how could you create any of us?

Peter167, you have made several assertions that cannot be proven; in fact, even though you purport these to be personal opinions, they are in fact generic falsehoods.

Recall your previous statement, “I didn’t ask to be created…”
Then consider that we were created anew in him [Baptism] since before the world began Eph 1:4.
Thus, if we were created since before the world began, so was our freewill given at that time. Thus our mysterious ‘incarnation’ as people must be due at least in part to that freewill, for if we had not desired it at some level of our nascent being God would not have sent us into the world. I conclude that everyone here desired creation. Christ is clear, whatever you ask in his name he will grant. If it can be imagined and if you had asked God in Christ’s name to not send your nascent unformed being into this world, we should presume he would have honored that. You’d be still burning with desire to know Christ fully, to live as a person as he did, and ultimately would ask to live as a person…Time is the only missing key to this argument, and it is revealed in many places in the gospels as belonging to the Father of the Trinity only.
Hope this helps you, if not belatedly.

Peace and Encouragement.

 

[Spock]

Only to a materialist. Since we also posit that He is Omnipotent, then He is capable of working within time which after all is His creation.

Introducing another nonsensical concept (omnipotence) will not help your argument.

Depends on how define that contingency. If contingency in terms of existence yes. Not in terms of actions because of the reasons stated above.

Since God is simple, his existence cannot be separated from his knowledge or his action.

And if there is no God then then whatever you see coming from ll these people is just self-interest, inverted self-interest.

Really? When a mother loves her child, and when a child loves her mother, is that just “inverted self-interest”? You sure have a strange, twisted way of viewing reality.

Since you are not God you do not know which is truly necessary and which is unnecessary.

True, but since no one can explain and God is overly shy to explain, I will go by the available data, which clearly shows that there is not good reason for the suffering. I will go by the age-old duck-principle.

 

[benedictus2]

Introducing another nonsensical concept (omnipotence) will not help your argument.

Actually you are the one who is sounding more nonsensical by the minute.
First you affirm attributes of God that you say the Church decrees as de fide. But then when we bring up the fact that there are other things about God that the Church has also decreed de fide you call it non-sensical.
You have to make up your mind some time.
So yes, it does help me with my argument because God being omnipotent can create creatures with free-will and He can choose to respond to that free will. And the response in no way makes Him not simple.

Perhaps you need to understand what the Church means by God is simple.

Since God is simple, his existence cannot be separated from his knowledge or his action.

And His responding to prayer in no way negates that.

Really? When a mother loves her child, and when a child loves her mother, is that just “inverted self-interest”? You sure have a strange, twisted way of viewing reality.

Really. Do you know that millions of mothers hate their children so much they kill them while they are still in their wombs and some even kill them outside of the womb. Some love that is.

For an atheist, that would be par for the course, after all each individual has no real value - only the subjective value that one assigns to a person.

Without God, there is no such thing as love. Love is not something that proceeds from mere matter and without God, that is all you are – just matter that somehow (illogically) popped out from nothing.

Since nothing comes from nothing, does that mean that you are nothing?

True, but since no one can explain and God is overly shy to explain, I will go by the available data, which clearly shows that there is not good reason for the suffering. I will go by the age-old duck-principle.

What you mean is that you accept only available scientific data - that the only reality is that which the scientific method can prove. But this tenet itself is something that the scientific process cannot prove.

 

[Spock]

Perhaps you need to understand what the Church means by God is simple.

Simple is simple. There is no “secular” simple and “Catholic” simple.

Really. Do you know that millions of mothers hate their children so much they kill them while they are still in their wombs and some even kill them outside of the womb. Some love that is.

Has nothing to do with those who love their children and the children who love their mother. Your attempt to derail the argument with bringing up irrelevancies is getting very boring.

Without God, there is no such thing as love. Love is not something that proceeds from mere matter and without God, that is all you are – just matter that somehow (illogically) popped out from nothing.

Love is an emotion, coming from our biological nature. The fact that you try to define it differently is your problem, not mine.

What you mean is that you accept only available scientific data -that the only reality is that which the scientific method can prove. But this tenet itself is something that the scientific process cannot prove.

You don’t understand anything. And thus you put words into my mouth, which not acceptable. The duck principle simply means that when all the evidence points in one direction, then the best explanation is where the evidence points to. It has nothing to do with the scientific method - it an epistemological method. Try to understand what I am actually saing. If you don’t understand, ask.

 

[benedictus2]

Simple is simple. There is no “secular” simple and “Catholic” simple.

And the fact the God responds to our prayers does not make Him any less simple.

Has nothing to do with those who love their children and the children who love their mother.

And the fact that real love is not explained by materialism.

Your attempt to derail the argument with bringing up irrelevancies is getting very boring.

Derail? My responses were rebuttals of your arguments so how is that derailment?

The precise point of derailment was when you gave such a stirring response to my statement that God’s essence is love. (Yes, you may give yourself two smacks in the behind for that derailment.)

Love is an emotion, coming from our biological nature. The fact that you try to define it differently is your problem, not mine.

That you understand it so little is your misfortune.

And thank you for making my case for me. There is no real love where there is no God because love as you have confirmed will be nothing more than the by product of a chemical process.

So I suppose doping the whole population with Ecstasy would be par for the course in the quest for a “loving” world.

You don’t understand anything. And thus you put words into my mouth, which not acceptable. The duck principle simply means that when all the evidence points in one direction, then the best explanation is where the evidence points to.

I was not referring to the duck principle in my response.

But since you insist, yes, it very much has to do with the scientific method or more precisely empiricism because the evidence you speak of in the duck principle is nothing more than evidence that is empirically verifiable.

It has nothing to do with the scientific method - it an epistemological method. Try to understand what I am actually saing. If you don’t understand, ask.

But I do understand what you are saying (it seems far better than you do yourself). I just extended your line of thinking to where it naturally lead – empiricism - which happens to be your kind of epistemology.

 

[Candide_West]

No you have not rebutted those arguments in 192…

Curious, are you actually reading my replies? I said “I don’t think it is a valuable exercise to backtrack over territory we have already covered to show you why you failed.”*

By which I mean I know that I have not replied to that post, but since we have already identified the errors you made in that post elsewhere and moved beyond that point I don’t consider it a sensible enterprise to go back to it and cover those errors again.*

Let me simplify it this way: Assume that the whole of life consists of one decision…

Ok, but all that is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. As per my last post.*

Again, the changes is not a case of layers of causality. The changes are ontological, there is a change in being. So you cannot dismiss this as simply layers of causality.

Well done, adding layers of causality do not change who made the decision. Correct.*

And as I have explained before which you conveniently ignore all the time, God did not determine in advance the internal factors. …

We’ll get to that using my example.

If soul is the internal, God did not determine the soul as such. God determined an infant soul and this infant soul He gave free will to use as he/she pleases

Error 1 again, we’ll cover this using the example.*

Please read that again because you keep going on *and one about God determining the internal when I have already explained that He does not.

Again, we’ll get to that using the example.*

Let’s make it even simpler. Imagine a soul, that God created in its infancy and it is good…

Unfortunately you have simplified the example past any usefulness as you have removed from it the drivers for the decision which is the whole point AND effectively reintroduced your error 1. So to go back to our simplest example again…

That very first decision (decision 1) that a baby makes when their “soul” is still exactly as it was crafted by God. Let’s say that God had four shapes (square, triangle, circle and oval) that he could have made the soul in for simplicity. And there are two options (A and B) available from this very first decision point.*

God (being omniscient) knows the nature of the first decision situation the soul he is making will go into. He also knows how his shaping of the soul will affect the “choice”. Let’s say (for simplicity) the results will fall out as follows:

Square (S) - option A
Triangle (T) - option A
Circle (C) - option B
Oval (O) - option B

So. God at the point of selecting a soul shape determines whether option A or B will be chosen in decision point 1.

Are you still with me here?

But free will is not my conclusion. I am not saying “a is b, therefore there is free will”

*I am saying *that creation, omniscience and omnipotence – throw in intervention if you like and let’s call this is COCI ) does not in any way preclude free will.

Ok, seems like a bit of an odd acronym to use but fair enough. And I am well aware that is what you are saying.*

Your position however is this : COCI precludes free will

Not quite, I am saying that “COCI” makes free will an illusion. So it looks from our perspective as if we have free will but in fact we don’t.*

You assumed it too but you phrased it in the negative, as I have shown above.

Not at all, once again, it is the conclusion, NOT an assumption. I feel I’ve been very clear on this point.*

Sorry but that is exactly what you have done …

Obviously I have not been sufficiently clear in presenting the logic here. I will do so using the example above. It’ll break it down into more easily digested chunks.

If God as we say created the soul with the capacity and ability to choose for itself…

Here you have reintroduced error 1 again.*

I think what colours your thinking is that you cannot believe that an Omnipotent God would do just that – create a free soul

Not quite, I have identified that given the characteristics he supposedly has then God can only give the illusion of free will.*

Well helloo, it was the person who chose to do that.

Error 1 again.*

Your position is “if God is COCI, then there is no free will” which essentially means COCI and free will cannot hold true at the same time

Not quite, I am saying that “COCI” makes free will an illusion. So it looks from our perspective as if we have free will but in fact we don’t.*

But, they can, as I have shown in post 192.

As stated above, I don’t feel backtracking is valuable.*

You have not been able to show that God’s being COCI will not enable him to make free-willing people.

I shall, using the example show that God being “COCI” makes free will an illusion.

Thank you, because that is the only way that the person loses free will.

Restating error 2 doesn’t make it any less an error.*

Enlightened me then as to the other ways that God can interfere with our free will thereby rendering us un-free.

“interfere” is a misleading term here since it implies that we free will originally existed and was genuine (error 1) and that God would need to meddle with us somehow to stop us having it (error 2).

Anyway, I will try again with the example. That should be straightforward enough to avoid confusion.

 

[Candide_West]

Which you have not shown.

… Clearly enough for you, as yet.*

I think we need to get back to basics and define first what we mean by free will.

When I speak of free will, I mean our ability to make choices free from constraints.

Ok. And I will show using the example that if God exists and is as described then the choices are made by him, not us. Please note I am not attempting to show some kind of “constraints” at least in the sense you have referred to previously in your error 2.

I know you don’t mean that, but that is the only real constraint that will completely nullify free will.

Indeed not. I’ll demonstrate using the example.

…Based on any given set of parameters, we chose and that choice was freely given based on those parameters.

Error 1 again.

If someone had put a gun to our head, the choice is diminished, but the choice is still there

Again here you are assuming I am chasing your error 2. I am not.

Furthermore, God judges our responses (choices) depending on how stacked the odds are against us. …

I think you have the impression that God judges our actions as black and white…

Ok, nothing to do with this discussion, but fair enough if that’s what you believe.

Are you saying that he had no other option when he surveyed the damage but to kill himself? *No, clearly not.

From Gods point of view clearly yes. I know you’ll disagree here. But we’ll reach this eventually using the example.

I am sorry to say this but that is a rather stupid addendum to the discussion. *…

Indeed it is stupid. I rather thought it went without saying that different epicentre locations would produce different outcomes for your hypothetical person. But you challenged this so I gave you some examples to demonstrate.*

What’s to stop him from slashing his wrist or drinking poison?

Absence of poison or a knife? Its irrelevant anyway the point is quite clear and I feel it adequately addresses your challenge.

Seriously, you get bogged down with the minutae and this is why you lose focus.

What an odd thing to say, YOU directed us down this little diversion. Not I. In the absence of a clear criteria against which to determine which of your misunderstandings to respond to I am responding to them all. Should I ignore some of them?

Again, this is crossing the threshold of irrationality. *Seriously, in your attempt to pass his decision on to God, you are coming up with “what ifs” that has got no bearing on the discussion.

Except to answer the challenge you provided. Which I have now done.*

What if God already knew that all these “what ifs” will lead to the same thing – suicide of one form or another and that there may be an element on this what if that could pull him the other way?

? Is this one of the pointless misunderstandings you think I should ignore?*

You originally stated “The devastation made this man so depressed he decided to kill himself. The man went to the top of an undamaged building and hurled himself.”

I demonstrated at least a couple of ways in which your hypothetical person obviously wouldn’t have committed suicide (lack of any devastation to witness and already being dead). Clearly God would know these and an infinite array of others as well.*

With all these what ifs, please explain how his decision to kill himself is not his decision. Please show that he was somehow constrained from choosing the other option, that is to continue living.

I won’t show that he was constrained, I have never suggested he was constrained in his “choice” I am saying that his “choice” was not his, but Gods and made long before he existed. I’ll do this by building up from my example.

In giving this what ifs, you are again falling into your usual error, equating could have with would have. Please, please, please you need to see the difference between these two.

Not at all. Where you are confused is the difference between our perspective and an omniscient one. An omniscient being must know the result of every variation. Thus for him there is no “could have” there can only be “would have”.

Can you safely conclude that the only choice he could have made was to kill himself?

No, but clearly God would.*

Again, how exactly does God’s knowledge of his intent to kill himself, make his decision suddenly God’s decision? He was the one who chose to kill himself? At the most, all one can say is being Omnipotent, He could have stopped it. Being Omniscient, He could have put him in a different milieu. But the ultimate decision to end his life was his.

Again error 1. But we’ll get to this eventually using the example.

In the movie, Man on Fire, the father organized the kidnap of his child in the hope of getting the ransom money…

This final choice was a result of the little choices that he made all through his life which killed his sense of morality.

Yeah, good film too. I’ll show (if you like), again using the example how his free will would be illusory too given the God you believe in.*

 

[Candide_West]

And whichever epicentre, if the person wants to kill himself, he will. It was the *person who chose to jump. He did not have to, he chose to.

Again error 1 in action.

But you are the one arguing that moving the epicentre would change the results.

Indeed and I have demonstrated this using examples.*

But just because they are visible to God does not nihilate free will.

Error 1 again.

These are your exact words: “God (from his own perspective) looking at those 3 options must have thought "I’m going to put the centre at O, this will cause (amongst billions of other things) person A to kill himself."

Yes…

There is no way that one can conclude from the assumption that God is omniscient that God would have thought that.

Well, not word for word, no. But he would have been aware of the suicide which would be one of the results of his action and in your hypothetical situation he still decided to put the epicentre at a location which would result in that consequence. So perhaps I have paraphrased but otherwise fine.

Actually from formulations such as this, it is very clear that your conception of God, if you believed in one is of an unfeeling evil despot. …

“COCI” making free will illusory is not related to my concept of God but rather due to logic. Again, I’ll demonstrate this step by step using the example.*

So you think that “God thinking:I’m going to put the centre at O, this will cause (amongst billions of other things) person A to kill himself.” follows logically from His omniscience?

Thought, known, been aware, perceived. It matters little what verb you use here. Logically if God is omniscient he must have known that one of the results of him causing the earthquake in exactly the way he did would be that suicide. Yes.

Sorry, but there is nothing in God being COCI that makes this a foregone conclusion.

From Gods perspective, yes there is. Obviously, otherwise he’d be wrong.*

No you are equating knowledge with cause. David was so spot on with that.

Nope, once again I ask you. Where do you think I have done so? To date you have repeated this statement again and again but have yet to successfully identify a single example.*

But that is just it. You have not shown that…

Again, we’ll build it up slowly for you using the example.*

With the logic you have given this is very not apparent. As a matter of fact this is a non-sequitur.

Well it isn’t really but we can use the back to basics example join the dots.

How? Again, how? So many posts later and you still have not shown that.

I have, repeatedly. But obviously not clearly enough for you. Hence the back to basics example.*

And the possible permutations do not preclude him killing himself in other ways.

True enough, they also do not preclude many other things.

But you are the one positing the “could have”. You are making the assumption that if the situation was changed, the “could have” is a *“would have”.

Odd statement, you seem to be criticising my assumption that moving the epicentre would have resulted in different responses from the man. Even though it is utterly obvious that it would have, as I demonstrated with my alternate epicentre examples.*

You are forgetting the other could have – that *he still “could have” chosen life over death given the situation. *The “could have” chosen life, was not taken out of the equation in that scenario.

Unfortunately you are wrong here. God knew that with the epicentre at O the man would kill himself. Thus if he had “chosen” not to then God would have been wrong. Obviously that fact alone doesn’t mean that his free will was an illusion. But combined with God having chosen the epicentre location, and the other features of your God. It does make his free will illusory.*

I guess you’ll probably argue with this because I haven’t taken you through the logic step by step. But it’s more sensible to do this with my back to basics example so I’ll defer this to there.*

As for God, how does His knowledge that the man “would have” *killed himself, erode this man’s free will. Was the choice not there? How was his choice constrained by God in this scenario?

Again error 2 brought into play.*

I try to be but rarely succeed. *Knowing that one is right and saying so is not a case of immodesty.

Pride before a fall and whatnot.

Yes, there is a totally free will and there is a partly free will. *Choices made under duress (gun at your head sort of scenario) is not totally free but that “could haves” for both good and bad are still there.

You totally missed the point. Never mind, it’s not very relevant anyway.*

 

[Candide_West]

I have read in detail your every post (as attested to by my line by line rebuttal) and sorry to say you have not made your case.

Well actually I have, just (as I have said) not clearly enough for you. Hence why I have such high hopes for my super simple, back to basics example.*

David was so right in that one liner response to you.

Again, if you really think so then please identify where I have done this. You have totally failed to do so as yet despite repeating your accusation over and over.

No I never added that assumption.

You did, you specifically stated it as one of your “givens” unless you mean something different by “givens”?

I merely restated your case:

My case: God’s being COCI and Free Will are both true.

I know this is what you think.

***Your case: **God’s being COCI and Free Will cannot both be true. If God is COCI we don’t have free will. If we have free-will God is not COCI. These two are in contradiction with each other.

Not quite. Again what I have said is that if the God you believe in exists then free will is an illusion.*

You have not shown that the scenarios (externals as you put it) are constraints to free will such that it totally destroys it. …

Nor have I tried to. Again I think I’ve been very clear on this.*

You have not shown that there were any constraints.

Nor have I tried to.

You have not shown that there were any constraints.

Nor have I tried to.

It’s not circular reasoning. I am not here to make a conclusion for free will. I am here to show that COCI and Free Will can both be true at the same time. I am here to show that this is not a case of *“either/or” but an “and”. You were trying to show that it is an *“either/or.” *That is the difference between your case and mine.

Not quite. Again what I have said is that if the God you believe in exists then free will is an illusion.*
*

Actually it was you, from the beginning who made the assumption of no-free-will, when you said that God determined the “internal”. *So from the beginning, you have already assumed that the soul had no free will.

Nope, free will being an illusion is the conclusion. Not an assumption. That would be silly. The assumptions are the four characteristics as stated.

Now that I have shown you that you have assumed the non-existence of free will from the beginning, then perhaps you can re-think your position.

As above, you are incorrect here. I have assumed nothing of the sort.*

 

[benedictus2]

Curious, are you actually reading my replies? I said “I don’t think it is a valuable exercise to backtrack over territory we have already covered to show you why you failed.”*

By which I mean I know that I have not replied to that post, but since we have already identified the errors you made in that post elsewhere and moved beyond that point I don’t consider it a sensible enterprise to go back to it and cover those errors again.*

Sorry I don’t buy that one little bit.

Firstly, we are having a conversation so I also get to say what is and is not valuable. My post 192 was not backtracking. It actually summarizes your contentions in one simple post.

So you are unable to rebut. That is fine. I never thought you would be able to anyway.

Ok, but all that is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. As per my last post.*

Not to me it isn’t. It is very relevant. It actually proves you wrong.

Well done, adding layers of causality do not change who made the decision. Correct.*

Again, that you call it layers of causality means you completely do not understand that the actions have ontological effect on the soul.
And what sort of ridiculous terminology is that? Layers of causality - there is no such thing. This is an invention of yours that does not mean anything. It’s empty terminology.

We’ll get to that using my example.

Your example as I have said in a previous post actually makes you guilty of what you were accusing me of – assuming the conclusion.

Error 1 again, we’ll cover this using the example.*

Nope, no error. Your example explains nothing.
It is faulty. And I said so when I first presented that analogy. Your presentation of it was actually worse. Which goes to show that you have no grasp of what this change in the soul actually is.

Unfortunately you have simplified the example past any usefulness as you have removed from it the drivers for the decision which is the whole point AND effectively reintroduced your error 1. So to go back to our simplest example again…

How is that so. The drivers for the deicions was not removed. It was there it was the soul.
You on the other hand put the driver of the decision on God. So so much for not assuming the conclusion.

That very first decision (decision 1) that a baby makes when their “soul” is still exactly as it was crafted by God. Let’s say that God had four shapes (square, triangle, circle and oval) that he could have made the soul in for simplicity. And there are two options (A and B) available from this very first decision point.*

God (being omniscient) knows the nature of the first decision situation the soul he is making will go into. He also knows how his shaping of the soul will affect the “choice”. Let’s say (for simplicity) the results will fall out as follows:

Square (S) - option A
Triangle (T) - option A
Circle (C) - option B
Oval (O) - option B

So. God at the point of selecting a soul shape determines whether option A or B will be chosen in decision point 1.

Are you still with me here?

The first thing you have to ask in that equation is what is the state of the soul. When God created that soul was it free or was it determined.

If free, my post 192 proves you wrong.
If not – in which you have assumed that which you are trying to prove – then your first premise is wrong.

Not quite, I am saying that “COCI” makes free will an illusion. So it looks from our perspective as if we have free will but in fact we don’t.*

Nope, that is not what you are saying. You are saying COCI precludes free will. Revisit your assumption above.

The first stage when God created the soul, at this point is when we determine whether there is free will or not because this is at the beginning of the soul’s creation.

Whether God can see into the future action of the soul has no bearing on whether God can and did, create the soul free.

You say the soul is determined so obviously you are already assuming that there is no free will.And that is your first premise.

I say there is, so I am assuming that there is free will…

That is what you fail to grasp, that at the very beginning of your premises you have already made the biggest assumption in your case and that is, that there is no free will.

The question now is not whether there is free will or not but whether it is possible for God who is COCI to create human beings with free will.

My post 192 says it is.

Not at all, once again, it is the conclusion, NOT an assumption. I feel I’ve been very clear on this point.*

Wrong again, it was your first premise when you said that God determined the internal (meaning the soul). If the soul is determined, then it is not free. So there, you’ve already stated your conclusion.

Obviously I have not been sufficiently clear in presenting the logic here. I will do so using the example above. It’ll break it down into more easily digested chunks.

Oh I digested every single bit of your point alright and you assumed your conclusion.

Here you have reintroduced error 1 again.*

It is not an error. I was honest about my position. But you weren’t. Although I don’t think you were being dishonest. It just seems that you don’t really see the fact the you have assumed your conclusion.

 

[benedictus2]

Not quite, I have identified that given the characteristics he supposedly has then God can only give the illusion of free will.*

But you haven’t. It is not the characteristics that make free will an illusion, it is your first premise.

So you see, your approach is all wrong. For both us, we have already determined the presence or lack there of freedom of the will.

The only question now is whether saying that He created us with free will is incompatible with COCI or whether God being COCI makes it logically impossible for Him to create man with Free will.

Error 1 again.*

Nope. Your error, because as I keep saying, so many posts later and you still fail to show that COCI and Free will can’t go together. I on the other hand have proved my point on post 192.

Not quite, I am saying that “COCI” makes free will an illusion. So it looks from our perspective as if we have free will but in fact we don’t.*

And the proof of that is still a long way coming and will never come because it defies reason, it defies logic.

As stated above, I don’t feel backtracking is valuable.*

Nope. That’s not it at all. It’s not because you don’t like backtrackaing, it is because you cannot rebut.

I shall, using the example show that God being “COCI” makes free will an illusion.

And if you can only count how many times you have said that and failed to prove it. This is becoming really tiresome.

Restating error 2 doesn’t make it any less an error.*

Sorry, but that is not an error. You think it is an error because you have assumed your conclusion.

“interfere” is a misleading term here since it implies that we free will originally existed and was genuine (error 1) and that God would need to meddle with us somehow to stop us having it (error 2).

Ha! Gotcha!

Can you not see what I have been saying all along? If that is not assuming your conclusion, I don’t know what is.

Anyway, I will try again with the example. That should be straightforward enough to avoid confusion.

You will not be able to come up with one that will get you out of this predicament because frankly there is no way out. Not logically.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=8163923
​

 

[benedictus2]

… Clearly enough for you, as yet.*

No, and never will be because you are begging the question.

Ok. And I will show using the example that if God exists and is as described then the choices are made by him, not us. Please note I am not attempting to show some kind of “constraints” at least in the sense you have referred to previously in your error 2.

Again, if there is no constraint on free will and you are saying that there is no free will then obviously at the beginning we were created without free will which means you have not proven but in actual fact have assumed that which you are hoping to prove.

From Gods point of view clearly yes. I know you’ll disagree here. But we’ll reach this eventually using the example.

Really, and how do you know that for a fact? You know God’s point of view?

Indeed it is stupid. I rather thought it went without saying that different epicentre locations would produce different outcomes for your hypothetical person. But you challenged this so I gave you some examples to demonstrate.*

Outcomes have nothing to do with whether the choice was free or not?
He jumped – was that choice free or not. He helped – was that choice free or not. He decided to live – was that choice free or not.
Can you see the point or do I need to make more examples.
It is not about outcomes but whether the choice was free or not.

Absence of poison or a knife? Its irrelevant anyway the point is quite clear and I feel it adequately addresses your challenge.

Exactly. It is irrelevant because the outcomes are irrelevant. You introduced all these possible outcomes but they have nothing whatsoever to do with the freedom with which the choice was made.

What an odd thing to say, YOU directed us down this little diversion. Not I. In the absence of a clear criteria against which to determine which of your misunderstandings to respond to I am responding to them all. Should I ignore some of them?

I did not direct you into the diversion. I made a scenario to illustrate the point that freedom exists. The minutae you get bogged down in has nothing to do whether the choice was made freely or not.

Except to answer the challenge you provided. Which I have now done.*

And that is just the whole sad thing about it – you have risen to the challenge but not really provided an answer.

? Is this one of the pointless misunderstandings you think I should ignore?*

You originally stated “The devastation made this man so depressed he decided to kill himself. The man went to the top of an undamaged building and hurled himself.”

I demonstrated at least a couple of ways in which your hypothetical person obviously wouldn’t have committed suicide (lack of any devastation to witness and already being dead). Clearly God would know these and an infinite array of others as well.*

Exactly my point about the minutae. That is why I said that. You gave so many what ifs so I gave a few more what ifs to show that it has nothing to do with whether the action was taken freely or not.
I think this is another thing where you have to make a distinction. The epicentre may have affected the outcome, the choice but it does not mean that the choice was not done freely.

I won’t show that he was constrained, I have never suggested he was constrained in his “choice” I am saying that his “choice” was not his, but Gods and made long before he existed. I’ll do this by building up from my example.

Then your position makes no sense because when we speak of free will, we mean the ability to make a choice without constraints and if there is not free will, then there was constraint in the choice.
So if you are arguing for the absence of free will then you are arguing for constraint on the will.

Not at all. Where you are confused is the difference between our perspective and an omniscient one. An omniscient being must know the result of every variation. Thus for him there is no “could have” there can only be “would have”.

And so what? So what if God knew? How does His knowing put a constraint on the exercise of our will?

No, but clearly God would.*

Considering that you are not God, then sorry to say, you’ve got no clue as to what He would do. As a matter of fact, considering that you know Him so very little, then you are completely clueless as to what He would.

Again error 1. But we’ll get to this eventually using the example.

You keep saying that but I doubt it.

 

[rinnie]

Lets say that I reject God and choose to spend an eternity in hell. He knew I would make this choice, and yet he still made me.

If he loved me so much, why would he make me knowing that I would spend an eternity away from him?

Articles on omniscience, predestination, or this exact topic would be loverly.

What does his love for you in creating you have to do with you rejecting his love for you.

So then what you are really saying is God should only created people as robots and take away their free will, or they do not deserve to be alive.

 

[benedictus2]

Again error 1 in action.

Nope. Your error 1. Assuming what you said needed proving.

Indeed and I have demonstrated this using examples.*

So the results change so what? How does a changed result mean that the choice was not free?

Error 1 again.

Only because of your persistence in your own error 1.

Well, not word for word, no. But he would have been aware of the suicide which would be one of the results of his action and in your hypothetical situation he still decided to put the epicentre at a location which would result in that consequence. So perhaps I have paraphrased but otherwise fine.

But pray tell how knowing the results would have meant that God thought what you said He thought?

“COCI” making free will illusory is not related to my concept of God but rather due to logic. Again, I’ll demonstrate this step by step using the example.*

Sorry but it is due to your concept of God (which is actually a rather heinous concept of God but that is all beside the point).

Thought, known, been aware, perceived. It matters little what verb you use here. Logically if God is omniscient he must have known that one of the results of him causing the earthquake in exactly the way he did would be that suicide. Yes.

And you are assuming that that is what he thought. You are quite fond of assuming things and presenting them as if they were facts. That is why your reasoning is so convoluted. You can’t keep track of your assumptions and possibly are not even aware that they merely your assumptions because you have believed them into fact.

From Gods perspective, yes there is. Obviously, otherwise he’d be wrong.*

And how do you know God’s perspective? Another one of your assumptions-to-fact?

Nope, once again I ask you. Where do you think I have done so? To date you have repeated this statement again and again but have yet to successfully identify a single example.*

To date I have explained it several times. You keep saying that because God knew this would happen so therefore He caused this to happen.

Again, we’ll build it up slowly for you using the example.*

To be quite honest, I don’t think you will be able to do that even if succeed in cloning pigs that fly. If you can do that, you would have done that by now.
And the reason you will be unable to do that is because your understanding of the matter is all wrong.

Well it isn’t really but we can use the back to basics example join the dots.

And so far the joined dots have proven to be elusive.

I have, repeatedly. But obviously not clearly enough for you. Hence the back to basics example.*

Not clearly enough period. You can try as many times as you like and you never will be able to because you have begged the question right at the beginning by assuming that there is no free will instead of proving it.
Because quite frankly, there is nothing in God being COCI that will logically prevent him from creating human beings with free will.

 

[benedictus2]

True enough, they also do not preclude many other things.

Exactly. Because as I have said before, it is not a question of the outcome but whether the will that chose the outcome was free or not. You were bogged down in the outcome.

Odd statement, you seem to be criticising my assumption that moving the epicentre would have resulted in different responses from the man. Even though it is utterly obvious that it would have, as I demonstrated with my alternate epicentre examples.*

And all the could haves will not make for a definite would have.

Unfortunately you are wrong here. God knew that with the epicentre at O the man would kill himself. Thus if he had “chosen” not to then God would have been wrong. Obviously that fact alone doesn’t mean that his free will was an illusion. But combined with God having chosen the epicentre location, and the other features of your God. It does make his free will illusory.*

Sigh1 And you ask me why I keep saying David was right?? Seriously. Please read what you have just written.

I guess you’ll probably argue with this because I haven’t taken you through the logic step by step. But it’s more sensible to do this with my back to basics example so I’ll defer this to there.*

You don’t need to take me through the logic. I know your arguments and the logic is faulty.

Again error 2 brought into play.*

You really ought to understand the definition of the term you are hoping to debunk if you want your arguments to make sense.

Pride before a fall and whatnot.

Knowing that one is right is not pride. It’s simply knowing that one is right. Now you are free to prove me wrong. In which case I will simply say Mea Culpa …. if you succeed.

Anyway, this is my last post for the night. The clock has struck and my glass slipper is fast becoming sand.

 

[Candide_West]

Sigh, very well. Since you keep insisting and insisting I’ll show you why going back to 192 is backtracking. I’ll try to keep this as brief as possible to avoid having to get tangled up in the same errors again.

…

**Firstly, **the reason you fail to grasp this very simple thing is because you think *of God building this track and setting this train on this one way track and the train just goes down this track unable to change course.

A more apt analogy is God putting you in command of this train …

Here you have used error 1. You have assumed that we have free will. It is silly to do this in a debate about whether free will is an illusion. It is assuming the conclusion.*

Secondly, as human’s we make robots unable too think for themselves. But suppose we are Omnipotent Creators, able to make beings who are able to completely, freely chose and decide what to do? *(Stop here for a while and think about that).

Here you have used error 1. You have assumed that we have given the robots truly free will. Again It is assuming the conclusion.*

Suppose too, that we are omniscient and could see that by letting them make decisions for themselves, they can choose either evil or goodness. But, we can also see that in the future they will choose to create havoc.*

Here you have used error 1 again and combined it with a misunderstanding of causality. Essentially for your logic to work then you would be saying that there’s only one way to make an intelligent robot.*

I imagine you’re going to say I’m wrong here because I haven’t gone over the logic step by step. But try imagining a really simple example where you have two ways of designing a robot and one you know in advance will result in actions a, b and c. And the other will result in actions x, y and z. You design it in the first way and (inevitably) a, b and c happen. Who chose for a, b and c to happen?*

Incidentally you will note that above I have made no assumptions about the robot having or not having free will. Please try to answer without using error 1 again. Ie saying something like “the robot because it has free will”

Now to the third point.*Intervention

…

God does intervene with world but it does not mean that He intervenes with human will.

This is error 2. Once again, I never suggested that God intervenes or tinkers with peoples thoughts.*

*So there you are. *All 4 “characteristics” taken cared of and yes, we still *retain free will.

Or more accurately a selection of errors we have already identified elsewhere. As I said.*

 

[Candide_West]

My post 192 was not backtracking. It actually summarizes your contentions in one simple post.

Ok, I have now responded to 192 as requested. As I said it is just an earlier iteration of the same errors. We are past those now, or at least we should be. So let’s not go back around that loop again please.*

Incidentally I’m only going to respond to the more relevant parts of your last set of posts. Most of it was threatening to drop us into a loop which is likely only to result in ever lengthening exchanges which frankly I don’t have the time for.

Besides, the best chance of progress is by starting at the back-to-basics example to make it nice an easy to understand.

*Your example as I have said in a previous post actually makes you guilty of what you were accusing me of – assuming the conclusion.

Not at all, I think I can see where you got confused here now. So let me state my assumptions in this conversation nice and clearly for you.

1. God exists.
2. God created the universe and designs and makes each human soul
3. God is omnipotent
4. God is omniscient
5. God is interventionist.

That is it. No other assumptions, everything else follows from there. Please note that “free will is an illusion” does NOT appear anywhere on that list. So no, I have NOT assumed the conclusion (as you were in error 1).

*The first thing you have to ask in that equation is what is the state of the soul. When God created that soul *was it free or was it determined.

If free, my post 192 proves you wrong.
If not – in which you have assumed that which you are trying to prove – then your first premise is wrong.

No, that is not the first thing to ask. Because if you assume it is free you have already assumed the conclusion. If you assumed it was not free you have already assumed the conclusion.*

Therefore neither of these is acceptable. Essentially what you are trying to do here is reintroduce error 1. To add an extra assumption to the list above. But that remains an error. So I ask again…

That very first decision (decision 1) that a baby makes when their “soul” is still exactly as it was crafted by God. Let’s say that God had four shapes (square, triangle, circle and oval) that he could have made the soul in for simplicity. And there are two options (A and B) available from this very first decision point.*

God (being omniscient) knows the nature of the first decision situation the soul he is making will go into. He also knows how his shaping of the soul will affect the “choice”. Let’s say (for simplicity) the results will fall out as follows:

Square (S) - option A
Triangle (T) - option A
Circle (C) - option B
Oval (O) - option B

So. God at the point of selecting a soul shape determines whether option A or B will be chosen in decision point 1.

Are you still with me here?

*Nope, that is not what you are saying. You are saying COCI precludes free will.

Nope, what I am saying is what I have said again and again. The four specified attributes make free will an illusion.*

*Wrong again, it was your first premise when you said that God determined the internal (meaning the soul). *If the soul is determined, then it is not free. So there, you’ve already stated your conclusion.

Here you are getting confused over the use of the term “determined”. The way I have used this is to mean something like - “God determined the nature of each soul at each point in its life in advance”. NOT as you seem to think “God made non-free souls”. that would be assuming the conclusion, thus erroneous.

To date I have explained it several times. You keep saying that because God knew this would happen so therefore He caused this to happen.*

I am only responding to this because I find it quite insulting. To date you have accused me of this error 11 times and only even attempted to show that I committed this error once (and I showed you immediately and clearly why you were mistaken on that case).*

So for you to say that you have “explained it several times” is an outright falsehood, as is claiming that I “keep saying” something which I have not said even once.*

 

[benedictus2]

Here you have used error 1. You have assumed that we have free will. It is silly to do this in a debate about whether free will is an illusion. It is assuming the conclusion.*

You really have no grasp of the nature of this problem.

I never questioned the existence of free will because that is not the question. The question always was whether COCI and free will can go together. You said they can’t because according to you if COCI, then no free will, if free will then can’t be COCI. You have always assumed the non-existence of free will while pretending to prove it’s non existence.

While I can rightly assume free will because of the way I present my case (so therefore no error in logic) you on the other hand are saying that you will prove that free will is an illusion when in fact you have assumed that. You said that God determined the internal – THAT is assuming what you are hoping to prove.

Here you have used error 1. You have assumed that we have given the robots truly free will. Again It is assuming the conclusion.*

No, it isn’t because free will is not my conclusion. Free will is part of my premise. I am not saying that free will has to be proven but whether COCI and free will can exist together. And if COCI and free will can both be true, then I’ve made my case.

Here you have used error 1 again and combined it with a misunderstanding of causality. Essentially for your logic to work then you would be saying that there’s only one way to make an intelligent robot.*

Nope. Refer above.

I imagine you’re going to say I’m wrong here because I haven’t gone over the logic step by step. But try imagining a really simple example where you have two ways of designing a robot and one you know in advance will result in actions a, b and c. And the other will result in actions x, y and z. You design it in the first way and (inevitably) a, b and c happen. Who chose for a, b and c to happen?*

Well duh. The outcomes are not the ones in question here but whether the outcomes were results of choices that is free or not.

Let me ask you this, where in your above statement does it say that robot did not chose freely, that somehow his will was constrained?

You know what, I think, the reason you are not understanding this very well is because you have not even grasped the definition of free will.

First define it, then decide whether your example above, negates that definition.

As I said in my earlier post, you have to have a full grasp of the term that you are trying to disprove otherwise, you go round and round getting nowhere.

Incidentally you will note that above I have made no assumptions about the robot having or not having free will. Please try to answer without using error 1 again. Ie saying something like “the robot because it has free will”

Sigh! I don’t know if you mean to wear me out by your lack of comprehension but I am really tired of explaining things to you.
Understand what free-will means first. I think that is the major problem with your reasoning. You do not even understand what you are arguing against.

Get a dictionary – and write it down. Then when you argue refer back to this definition and see how your arguments stack up against that definition. That should bring some clarity into your thoughts.

 

[benedictus2]

This is error 2. Once again, I never suggested that God intervenes or tinkers with peoples thoughts.*

So therefore if He doesn’t then there is free will.
So that we can move forward here is a definition of free will from wikipedia.

*** Free will is the apparent ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints. Historically, the constraint of dominant concern has been the metaphysical constraint of determinism.***

So with that in mind, it is very clear that you have assumed what you are trying to prove because you have stated from the beginning that God has already determine the internal.

So what is the nature and extent of this determination? If total, then obviously you are saying that there is no free will, in which case it is a case of petitio pricipi.

But the further point is this: what is there in COCI that makes you think that God would not have or could not have created the human being with free will?

I think that is one question you really need to answer before you can move forward with your reasoning.

At the point of man’s creation, God determines whether to give man free will or not. You have to prove that He did not, that somehow COCI disables Him from this ability to give man free will.
Basically in your mind you think God has created say a man (like a magnet with either a positive or negative valence) and then God either puts him in an external with either positive or negative valence such that being made so, only one conclusion could be arrived at: If he is man-plus then if God placed him in an environment-minus then there will be attraction.

But the ball is in your court to prove that this is indeed what God did. Did He determine the internal to such a point that man is incapable of making a free choice?

Or more accurately a selection of errors we have already identified elsewhere. As I said.*

No errors.

And yes, I was able to prove what I set out to prove : that COCI and free will can both be true.

You on the other hand tried to be smart and prove that we have no free will when in fact that was your very first assumption.

I will reply to your post 277 on Sunday when I get back as I still have to do some packing.

 

[Odell]

I have only read the first page and want to offer this. Would not hell be better than the alternative to cease to exist? He knows in advance what you will choose. You may be miserable but you still get what you want. God decrees the permission to sin before foreseen demerits, and wills the punishment of the sin as a consequence to His permission.
But in the end its still what they wanted and God created them in order to communicate His goodness to the greatest possible extent, and this necessarily includes the goodness of His justice.