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

[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.

To begin with God is everywhere. We know that. God created us all because he loved us.

You have the free will to choose God and have eternal life in him, or you can choose to have eternal death and be departed from him forever.

But what does God creating you and giving you the choice to live your life in whatever way you choose have to do why God created you?

He created you because he loves you and wants you to be with him forever and enjoy eternal life in him. Just because he knows the outcome of what you will do, has nothing to do with your creation. He created you to be his, It was your choice to choose to be separated from him, not his.

 

[rinnie]

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.

This is how I am seeing it also. Its like asking why did God create me and then give me free will but then not take it away from me? What would be the purpose?

God created us to do his work and be a part of him. He left the rest up to us. We can either ask for his help and do what he wanted or choose to sin and be departed from him and do what we want.

But why do we exist? Simple to love and honor God. That is what he created us for. And our reward is eternal happiness in him and with him.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Peter

I didn’t desire to be created. God created me, and he knew I would go to hell. Free will aside. I Understand free will. I get to choose, but the fact is, God knows the outcome. He knows the path that my free will takes me, so why create something if you know it will fail?

You didn’t desire to be created. But you did desire to go to hell. You seem to suggest the blame for going to hell belongs on God’s shoulders because He created you knowing you would end up in hell. In that event, God should be blamed for creating hell in the first place?

To have created a world in which only good and heaven-bound people exist suggests that you want God to have created a world in which evil is not present. A perfect world might possibly be created, but how perfect would it be if men were denied the free will to choose evil … and hell as their final destination?

Even some of the angels, who were already in heaven, freely (and stupidly) chose hell.

God has given us the very freedom that atheists with their materialistic determinism would deny us. But with atheism everyone goes to hell … the black hole of nothingness.

 

[Candide_West]

Ok, I’ll reply to this bit because I haven’t already covered elsewhere in post 277. Or at least not explicitly.*

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.*

I’m fine with that definition of free will. Looks reasonable to me. In fact perhaps it can help you understand where you are making error 2.

In this definition you are assuming I am targeting this bit (bolded).

Free will is the apparent ability of agents to make choices **free from certain kinds of constraints. **

But I am NOT. I have been very clear on this fact, but you keep ignoring it.

In fact I am aiming at this bit (bolded).

Free will is the apparent ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints.*

Ok? I am not saying that there are “constraints”. In fact I have assumed there aren’t any in the way you are using the term (God tinkering with peoples brains).*

But what I am saying is that if God has those four attributes he supposedly does then God made all the decisions about who would do what and when. Therefore free will is an illusion.*

In other words, the die is cast, every decision you will ever make has already been decided and it was done by God, at the beginning of existence.

(I’ll demonstrate this using the example given in 277.)

So yes, error 2 IS an error because your assumption that the imposition of some kind of constraints is the only way free will could be an illusion, is wrong.

Ok? It’s really important that you get your head around this because you keep saying things like…

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?

See? You made error 2 again. Therefore you thought that there had to be some kind of constraint to stop the robot having free will, when in fact the key question is “WHO decided for a, b and c to happen”. Because if the robot decided, then it had free will. But if the designer decided then the robot’s “free will” was an illusion.

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

Ok, I shall look forward to your reply. Please keep the above in mind too when you’re writing that reply, I realise that I covered error 1 in post 277 but didn’t really cover error 2. Hopefully this post should do that clearly enough.

Thanks.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Ok, I’ll reply to this bit because I haven’t already covered elsewhere in post 277. Or at least not explicitly.*

I’m fine with that definition of free will. Looks reasonable to me. In fact perhaps it can help you understand where you are making error 2.

In this definition you are assuming I am targeting this bit (bolded).

Free will is the apparent ability of agents to make choices **free from certain kinds of constraints. **

But I am NOT. I have been very clear on this fact, but you keep ignoring it.

In fact I am aiming at this bit (bolded).

Free will is the apparent ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints.*

Ok? I am not saying that there are “constraints”. In fact I have assumed there aren’t any in the way you are using the term (God tinkering with peoples brains).*

But what I am saying is that if God has those four attributes he supposedly does then God made all the decisions about who would do what and when. Therefore free will is an illusion.*

In other words, the die is cast, [SIGN]every decision you will ever make has already been decided and it was done by God, at the beginning of existence[/SIGN].

(I’ll demonstrate this using the example given in 277.)

So yes, error 2 IS an error because your assumption that the imposition of some kind of constraints is the only way free will could be an illusion, is wrong.

Ok? It’s really important that you get your head around this because you keep saying things like…

See? You made error 2 again. Therefore you thought that there had to be some kind of constraint to stop the robot having free will, when in fact the key question is “WHO decided for a, b and c to happen”. Because if the robot decided, then it had free will. But if the designer decided then the robot’s “free will” was an illusion.

Ok, I shall look forward to your reply. Please keep the above in mind too when you’re writing that reply, I realise that I covered error 1 in post 277 but didn’t really cover error 2. Hopefully this post should do that clearly enough.

Thanks.

I do not understand what you are saying here. God does not decide everything we do at our existence.

We are born into this world to serve God and want to be apart of him. If we want this by our own free will we are a part of him. Its our own free will to want him.

But the bottom line is we get the chance to live out our life in the end with him in eternal life which is heaven. or without him in eternal hell without him.

But why do you feel just because at the moment of our birth, and because God can see the future and sees the choice WE make, it takes away from him creating us?

I mean if you WANT to be separated from God it was by your own actions and will and the way you lived your life. What really is the difference between not choosing God in this life or the next?

If you want God and his peace in this world you will want it in the next. But if you live in this world hating him or rejecting him, what makes you think you wll want him or accept him in the next.

You either feel the want and need for GOd or you do not. But what I don’t understand what does that change with him letting you be born, and in eternal life living the life you choose there also. separated without him alone in your own missery. I mean it what you wanted here, whats so different in eternity?

And what does God being able to see what will happen have to do with it happening? Its like you are saying that if you read the last chapter of the book you changed the whole book or something. The only difference between God knowing what you will do, and you doing it is he knows the end of the book. But do you not see that if by no means takes away you living that book in the moment and ending it the way you want it to end.

Just because he can be ahead of time in no way takes away our free will and what we will choose. Again what you seem to be saying him knowing how the book ends changed the book, and took away our freedom to write the book or something.

 

[Mungling]

I’d like to add a bit of a twist to this debate, if I may.

I understand the idea that God us free will and therefor despite knowing my final resting place I was ultimately the one who chose that direction.

But modern psychology tells us that human behavior is an interaction of nature (our basic genetic components) and nurture (the environmental around us), Both nature and nurture are ultimately a product of God’s creation. Consequently, although God may have given me free will he has also been determined how I will act. After all, God has ultimately set in motion the events that would lead to my birth (the nature component) as he has done so for my environment (nurture). Why, then, would God create me if I am captive to my circumstances. Furthermore, if you do not believe that one’s behavior is determined by these two factors what would be your proposed alternative.

 

[rinnie]

I’d like to add a bit of a twist to this debate, if I may.

I understand the idea that God us free will and therefor despite knowing my final resting place I was ultimately the one who chose that direction.

But modern psychology tells us that human behavior is an interaction of nature (our basic genetic components) and nurture (the environmental around us), Both nature and nurture are ultimately a product of God’s creation. Consequently, although God may have given me free will he has also been determined how I will act. After all, God has ultimately set in motion the events that would lead to my birth (the nature component) as he has done so for my environment (nurture). Why, then, would God create me if I am captive to my circumstances. Furthermore, if you do not believe that one’s behavior is determined by these two factors what would be your proposed alternative.

Oh so okay, then what you are saying is because my Father had a horrible Father, and home life and was poor and his brothers all took to the bottle then he had no choice to do the same and be the same.

Then tell me why my Father took to the coal mine, became a Boss in the mine, went to Church faithfully, was the best Father and Husband in the world. Made a wonderful salary, gave us material and emotional support always. So he was also what a fluke? A exception to the rule.

Or could it be him praying every single day and asking for prayers for the Blessed Mother and Christ constantly for help to overcome these struggles could have been the key. And could it be possibly true that with the Grace of God, as the bible tells us ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE

 

[Mungling]

Oh so okay, then what you are saying is because my Father had a horrible Father, and home life and was poor and his brothers all took to the bottle then he had no choice to do the same and be the same.

Then tell me why my Father took to the coal mine, became a Boss in the mine, went to Church faithfully, was the best Father and Husband in the world. Made a wonderful salary, gave us material and emotional support always. So he was also what a fluke? A exception to the rule.

Or could it be him praying every single day and asking for prayers for the Blessed Mother and Christ constantly for help to overcome these struggles could have been the key. And could it be possibly true that with the Grace of God, as the bible tells us ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE

Not a fluke. His home life did not represent the totality of his environment. Something in his environment encouraged him to go to church, to be a good husband and father, and to to be materially and emotionally supportive. Something in his environment encouraged him to pray. In the end either something through nature or nurture encouraged your father to be the wonderful man that he is.

I guess the gold standard would be to pit a pair of identical twins with the exact same home life and see if they would undergo the same choice when faced with the same decision, If not a matter of nature and nurture, what other facts effect our behavior?

 

[Michael19682]

I’d like to add a bit of a twist to this debate, if I may.

I understand the idea that God us free will and therefor despite knowing my final resting place I was ultimately the one who chose that direction.

But modern psychology tells us that human behavior is an interaction of nature (our basic genetic components) and nurture (the environmental around us), .

I don’t suppose the word twist was a figurative pun on the twist of the double helix? Now seriously…

Nature nurture arguments run into reincarnation arguments because we don;t know why people are born the way they are, as individuals with unique identities. (Incidentally, to my knowledge twin studies have shown that genetics is very much a factor in determining personality and hence decisions that could possibly lead to a miserable after life etc–what do you know of them?) The reincarnation advocates hold that we simply continue in a life suited to work out some karmic or active thread of a past life. Hence if we were a clothes salesman we might become someone very vain in the next life, or, depending on how we performed our job–say, developed a dislike for our vain clientele, we might simply be born into a vain family or culture while not being vain ourselves. The goal would be to develop equanimity towards our hangups or attachments. This IS relevant because it gets to the root of freewill. The serpent in the garden of Eden appeared out of nowhere. He was there as a force of nature before Adam and Eve, correct? So sin, which leads to misery or Hell, preexisted men. Thus, the problem of evil preceded man’s knowledge of it–else Eve wouldn’t have been so impudently stupid as to be deceived and Adam wouldn’t have either listened to her. So as I see it, man has choices that have a wild card thrown in. Evil. All that is really required is that God allowed evil (some teachers notably one says that God made nothing evil, so to I use ‘allowed’ instead, to show my distinction, of course). Thus, because Evil also has free will like all of created things human level and above it is fair to say I think that it is simply part of the equation of life in the flesh, whose concern is that of Adam after his transgression–death. So really, it doesn’t matter. Everything has freewill. God created you and gave you the apparatus of a body (including mind and spirit) to use as a weapon for righteousness. If you encounter evil in the form of temptation then you already have the armor and equipment necessary to combat it. If you say it overwhelmed your genetic capability, then that holds some water, but not much. Because you were baptized by that same water and spirit which takes away the error of Adam and joins you to a community of people who if they care about anything at all should help you to obtain the weapons you need to fight evil in your life, it can also be said that you are not doomed. Evil can’t destroy you. All it can do is kill your body. Hence the official teaching of the church on Hell: no one goes to hell unless they want to. Only you can choose evil. Speaking to the full dignity of man as a spirit in an earthen vessel, evil is something he does, not something done to him. True, his mind may be conditioned to feel pain, but he must on some level consent to the pain. Besides, not all pain ends in death of the body.

Why jump from reincarnation to talk about the serpent, or talk of reincarnation at all? Well, its because you talked about nurture and nature. We are in a sense reincarnated by our genetics inherited from parents. We are born into their immediate environments and with their faces and noses etc. So really, we all inherited a little of Eve and Adam. But we inherit the spirit of Christ Jesus, which so surpasses our tendencies of sin that it washes those away. Hence that along with our protective community (if that is what the church is) essentially annihilates our worry about where we came from or what we will do with that trillion cell plus cortex) makes us effectively unique in time and breaks the so called inheritance of flesh and mind or karmic sequence of events. “It’s a one shot deal” We go to heaven which is permanent union with God. Jesus, his only son, even gave us comparisons of Heaven so that we might look for signs of the kingdom now.

 

[benedictus2]

I am answering the second part of your post 277 first because I want to put this to bed. The more important points are in my reply to your 5 point statements about God which is in my post 291.

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.*

Here is what I have written just for reference:* 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.*

Now, where in the first section of my post have I assumed free will? I actually asked “When God created the soul was it free or was it determined? Where is the assumption in that?

The only assumption in it is that God is capable of doing either of this if He so wished and all we need to find out is which one He went for.

The second part is when I give our positions because God can only do one or the other.

So the only real question to ask is since He is omnipotent did He or did He not?

But how do we determine which choice He went for?

I said if free then my post 192 proves you wrong, in which case I am right about my assumption. And I showed exactly how giving us free will cannot possibly go against the 4 attributes your mentioned.

Second part says “If NOT”. Now “if Not”, then obviously God chose to make human beings without free will. But then, you have to prove that because of the 4attrributes, God could not possibly have made human beings with free will.

And that is what you need to prove (but have sadly failed to do so). What is there in the 4attributes that somehow disables Him from creating human beings with free will.

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.

I am not going to answer this because it illustrates that you clearly have no concept of what the soul is. So when you have answered my questions regarding the hidden assumptions in your 5 statements about God, then we can proceed and adjust this question accordingly. To put simply you are asking the wrong question - something like “Why do cows lay eggs”?

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

Okay, read this reply slowly and try to absorb it.

Step 1: If free will is an illusion, then free will does not exist.

Step 2: If free will is an illusion because of the 4 attributes (let’s simplify this to 4A), then free will does not exist because of the 4A.

With me so far?

Step 3: If free will does not exist because of the 4A, then the 4A is the reason there is no free will.

Step 4: If the 4A is the reason there is no free will, then the 4A precludes free will.

So compare that with my statement: You are saying COCI (meaning 4A) precludes free will.

So can you see it now?

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.

But that is precisely what you have to explain. What do you mean by determined? What is the nature of this determination? What is the extent of this determination? Because depending on the nature and extent of determination is the range and extent of freedom of the will – the more determined the less free.

You see, you think this term is clear but it isn’t. At least not in the way you use it.

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).*

And the accusation stands until you can prove otherwise.

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.*

And I have explained it several times -every time you have asked me to explain.

 

[benedictus2]

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).

Actually there are plenty of hidden assumptions so it is great that we are back to basics.

Until you clarify these points, we can’t proceed.

So let’s take them one by.

You: 1. God exists.

Me: That’s simple enough so I will just say yes.​

You: 2: . God created the universe and designs and makes each human soul

Me: Now here is where a lot of hidden assumptions lurk.

Q1. What do you mean when you say He designs and makes each human soul?

Q2. How do you understand the soul. What is it’s nature?

Q3. When you say He makes each soul, in what way is the soul determined, what are the things that he has pre-set in the soul?

Q4. Since you say He makes each soul, did He make the soul free or not-free at the point of creation? (This needs to be cross referenced with the next set of questions below.)​

You: 3. God is omnipotent

Me: Now you need to tell me how you understand omnipotence.

Q1. Do you understand this to mean all powerful?

Q2.If all powerful, do you think that being so, He is capable of making human beings with free will, that is, able to make unconstrained choices?

Q3. Give reasons for your Yes/No answer to question Q2

Q4. If your answer is yes, then since He is capable, do you think He would have? If not, why not?​

You: 4. God is omniscient

Me: I think with this one, I am pretty clear as to how you understand it?​

You: 5. God is interventionist.

Me: What do you mean by God is interventionist?

Q1. Do you mean that he intervenes in human affairs or just in the non –human existence in the universe.

Q2. If you answer “human affairs” in Q1, what sort of intervention does He do?

 

[benedictus2]

Ok, I’ll reply to this bit because I haven’t already covered elsewhere in post 277. Or at least not explicitly.*

I’m fine with that definition of free will. Looks reasonable to me. In fact perhaps it can help you understand where you are making error 2.

In this definition you are assuming I am targeting this bit (bolded).

Free will is the apparent ability of agents to make choices **free from certain kinds of constraints. **

But I am NOT. I have been very clear on this fact, but you keep ignoring it.

In fact I am aiming at this bit (bolded).

Free will is the apparent ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints.*

Ok? I am not saying that there are “constraints”. In fact I have assumed there aren’t any in the way you are using the term (God tinkering with peoples brains).*

If you are not saying there are constraints, and since by definition free will is the ability to make choices without constraints, ergo there is free will.

By that definition, that only thing that nullifies free will is constraint and you are saying there isn’t any. Ergo, there is free will.

But what I am saying is that if God has those four attributes he supposedly does then God made all the decisions about who would do what and when. Therefore free will is an illusion.*

And to so free will is an illusion is to say there is no free will.

In other words, the die is cast, every decision you will ever make has already been decided and it was done by God, at the beginning of existence.

If the die is cast then there is constraint because obviously there is no choice.

 

[benedictus2]

I’d like to add a bit of a twist to this debate, if I may.

I understand the idea that God us free will and therefor despite knowing my final resting place I was ultimately the one who chose that direction.

But modern psychology tells us that human behavior is an interaction of nature (our basic genetic components) and nurture (the environmental around us), Both nature and nurture are ultimately a product of God’s creation. Consequently, although God may have given me free will he has also been determined how I will act.

Please show how that is so?

After all, God has ultimately set in motion the events that would lead to my birth (the nature component) as he has done so for my environment (nurture). Why, then, would God create me if I am captive to my circumstances.

Because you are not captive to your circumstaces. You may have been brought up by certain parents in certain ways but you are not captive to your circumstances. When you choose, you still choose freely. Even those brought up horribly still have the option of going for the other choice. This is a cop out that most people use to wiggle out of their responsibility.

Furthermore, if you do not believe that one’s behavior is determined by these two factors what would be your proposed alternative.

Your behaviour is not determined but they are influenced by these two factors. There’s a big difference between these two words.

There are those who came from horrible family backgrounds who have turned our to beautiful caring people. There are those who having grown in up violent situations have determined that they do not want to have anything to do with violence.

 

[rinnie]

Not a fluke. His home life did not represent the totality of his environment. Something in his environment encouraged him to go to church, to be a good husband and father, and to to be materially and emotionally supportive. Something in his environment encouraged him to pray. In the end either something through nature or nurture encouraged your father to be the wonderful man that he is.

I guess the gold standard would be to pit a pair of identical twins with the exact same home life and see if they would undergo the same choice when faced with the same decision, If not a matter of nature and nurture, what other facts effect our behavior?

Exactly my point. Good and Evil, right and wrong. All choices but we have free will from God to make good choices or bad choices. We have free will from God to follow his parth or depart from his path and follow the devil.

We can follow the light which is God or the darkness which is the devil. But the bottom line is our soul is the center of our being. We either give that soul to God and stay in his light, or depart from God and stay in the darkness of sin.

 

[rinnie]

Please show how that is so?
Because you are not captive to your circumstaces. You may have been brought up by certain parents in certain ways but you are not captive to your circumstances. When you choose, you still choose freely. Even those brought up horribly still have the option of going for the other choice. This is a cop out that most people use to wiggle out of their responsibility.
Your behaviour is not determined but they are influenced by these two factors. There’s a big difference between these two words.

There are those who came from horrible family backgrounds who have turned our to beautiful caring people. There are those who having grown in up violent situations have determined that they do not want to have anything to do with violence.

Exactly you see it every day. Here is a good example.

A woman is in the grocery store and sees a women ring out and does not have enough money, she sees 3 or 4 kids with her. She sees the women starting to put back cereal, milk, butter, etc. While keeping bread, milk, etc. SHe says that was me 20 years ago. SHe turns around and says hold on. Here let me pay for the rest. God Bless you.

Or she says huh! Who ever helped me, I was there, People let me half starve to death. now you suffer also.

You see people who had struggled like my Dad who will go out of his way to help others. or People like my Sister in Law who have struggled and when she sees others struggle she gets like a high off of it. Its unexplainable.

My SIL will go out of her way to see someone who is in pain, and trouble and will do anything in her power to make things worse. Why:shrug: I never figured it out.

I guess she feels when others suffer, it makes up for her suffering when she grew up. I don’t see how this is possible, but she gets joy out of seeing others suffer.

 

[benedictus2]

Exactly you see it every day. Here is a good example.

A woman is in the grocery store and sees a women ring out and does not have enough money, she sees 3 or 4 kids with her. She sees the women starting to put back cereal, milk, butter, etc. While keeping bread, milk, etc. SHe says that was me 20 years ago. SHe turns around and says hold on. Here let me pay for the rest. God Bless you.

Or she says huh! Who ever helped me, I was there, People let me half starve to death. now you suffer also.

You see people who had struggled like my Dad who will go out of his way to help others. or People like my Sister in Law who have struggled and when she sees others struggle she gets like a high off of it. Its unexplainable.

My SIL will go out of her way to see someone who is in pain, and trouble and will do anything in her power to make things worse. Why:shrug: I never figured it out.

I guess she feels when others suffer, it makes up for her suffering when she grew up. I don’t see how this is possible, but she gets joy out of seeing others suffer.

My mom is the same. Her family was not exactly the most charitable of peoples and yet she has been an example of charity and humility to those who know her.

My grandfather thought that since he did it hard when he was younger, every one else should go through hardships as he did so he was not into helping anyone.

My mother on the other hand, because of the hardship she went through empathized with the suffering of others and so tried to alleviate them whereever she found them and whenever she could with whatever means she has. She would even scrimp on herself just so she can give to the needy. And yet, in her family, she is the only one like this.

 

[Candide_West]

Now, where in the first section of my post have I assumed free will? I actually asked “When God created the soul was it free or was it determined? *Where is the assumption in that?

No, I’m afraid you misunderstood. You said that the first question you have to ask is whether the soul has free will or not. That’s the error, I’ll demonstrate below.

I said if free then my post 192 proves you wrong, in which case I am right about my assumption.

No, because if you answer that it’s free then 192 is irrelevant. Nothing else matters in fact because you just gave the answer.*

Second part says “If NOT”. *Now “if Not”, then…

If not then again nothing else matters because you’re already at the conclusion.*

You see? The question that you said needs to be answered first makes any further discussion moot, because it forces you into error 1. Assuming the conclusion.*

I am not going to answer this because *it illustrates that you clearly have no concept of what the soul is. So when you have answered my questions regarding the hidden assumptions *in your 5 statements about God,

Not sure what the nature of the “soul” matters in this. But I’ll play along, because I really think that the back to basics example really is the best way to get progress here. And if you genuinely think those questions need to be answered first then fair enough I guess.*

Okay, read this reply *slowly and try to *absorb it.

Step 1: If free will is an illusion…

… Then free will is an illusion. We both know what the sentence means. So why are you trying to modify what I have said? The words I have used are perfectly clear and mean exactly what I am seeking to say. Why should we change my original statement to something which is much less precise?*

So let’s use the contention I have used from the start. Thanks.

But that is precisely what you have to explain. What do you mean by determined? What is the nature of this determination? What is the extent of this determination? Because depending on the nature and extent of determination is the range and extent of freedom of the will – the more determined the less free.

Ok, determined in this context means determined the design. To use your earlier metaphor, the shape. Ok? So God designs the shape of the soul before we are born ok? I am not using the term “determined” to refer to something which is of fixed function and response. If I had Used it that way I would have assumed the conclusion which would have been a logical error (just like error 1).

And the accusation stands until you can prove otherwise.

Ah yes, that’s right. What is the phrase they use in courts? Guilty until proven innocent?.. Oh nope, actually that’s backwards, so no actually it’s on you to show your accusation is true.*

And I have explained it several times -every time you have asked me to explain.*

Really? Where? As I said, to date I believe you have accused me 11 times and i have challenged you to identify evidence each time. To date I believe you have only even tried once (and on that occasion failed).*

If you are not saying there are constraints, and since by definition free will is the ability to make choices without constraints, ergo there is free will.

No, again this is error 2. I’d really hoped I’d covered this well enough. Never mind, try, try again.*

What I am saying is NOT that some external constraint is imposed which means we can only choose one response. But rather that we only will choose one response and that response was chosen before we were born. Is that clearer?

Trying to think of an example to help… Ah got one. Ok, let’s saying you’re driving a car somewhere, but unknown to you someone has disconnected the controls and has programmed the car to drive a specific route. But has planned out and arranged in advance every last detail of the route (the lady crossing the road, the traffic around you, everything). Such that you will always turn the wheel in a way which matches the route the car is taking. So, you reach a junction, you decide to turn right, the car turns right… Etc. Ok, the planning is so perfect that there is never a moment when the car doesn’t appear to have done as you wished it to. But the steering wheel isn’t connected to anything, neither are the pedals, someone else picked the route you would take before you reached the car. You just got through the whole journey without realising that your control of the car was an illusion. Does that make it clearer?

If the die is cast then there is constraint because obviously there is no choice.

Not in the way you’ve been using the word (God forcefully overwhelming someones brain etc). As I said, if it’s an illusion then we appear to have the choice but in reality all the choices have already been made, we’re just actors reading a script without knowing it.

 

[Candide_West]

Actually there are plenty of hidden assumptions so it is great that we are back to basics.

Until you clarify these points, we can’t proceed.

Ok, I’m going to trust you here that you aren’t just giving me the runaround and after this you’ll actually work through the example with me because as far as i can see it really is the best way to progress.

…*

You: 2: . God created the universe and designs and makes each human soul

Me: Now here is where a lot of hidden assumptions lurk.

Q1. What do you mean when you say He designs and makes each human soul?

Q2. How do you understand the soul. What is it’s nature?

Q3. *When you say He makes each soul, in what way is the soul determined, what are the *things that he has pre-set in the soul?

Q4. Since you say He makes each soul, did He make the soul free or not-free at the point of creation? (This needs to be cross referenced with the next set of questions below.)​

Q1. He designs it’s starting “shape”, ie the “shape” your soul starts out in when you first enter existence.*

Q2. In brief it is you. By which I mean the supposedly immaterial “you” which is behind the eyes.*

Q3. Previously you used the term “shape”, which seems reasonable term. To use, different people are different from each other and their different personalities can be considered as differently “shaped” souls. So in creating a soul God shapes a personality which as we have discussed evolves through a persons life.*

Q4. As above this question can’t be answered either way without assuming the conclusion.*

You: 3. God is omnipotent

Me: Now you need to tell me how you understand omnipotence.

Q1. *Do you understand this to mean all powerful?

Q2.If all powerful, do you think that being so, He is capable of making human beings with free will, that is, able to make unconstrained choices?

Q3. Give reasons for your Yes/No answer to question Q2

Q4. If your answer is yes, then since He is capable, do you think He would have? *If not, why not?​

Q1. Not quite, it means he is able to do anything which is logically possible.

Q2. Not if it is logically impossible.*

Q3. As per Q2.

Q4. N/A

You: *4. God is omniscient
*
Me: I think with this one, I am pretty clear as to how you understand it?-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, good.

You: 5. God is interventionist.

Me: What do you mean by God is interventionist?

Q1. Do you mean that he intervenes in human affairs or just in the non –human existence in the universe.

Q2. If you answer “human affairs” in Q1, what sort of intervention does He do?

Q1 & Q2. Depends what you mean by human affairs. I am assuming he interacts with our world in a way which affects people ie responds to prayers, creates miracles etc but doesn’t interfere directly with peoples brains. (that would be assuming the conclusion so a definite no-no).

 

[benedictus2]

No, I’m afraid you misunderstood. You said that the first question you have to ask is whether the soul has free will or not. That’s the error, I’ll demonstrate below.

Nope. What I wrote is what I wrote. And what I wrote was ““When God created the soul was it free or was it determined?” Post 270.

No, because if you answer that it’s free then 192 is irrelevant. Nothing else matters in fact because you just gave the answer.*

But the question is not about free will’s existence but whether it is possible with 4A.

You said free will does not exist because of 4A. I said it does.

If not then again nothing else matters because you’re already at the conclusion.*
You see? The question that you said needs to be answered first makes any further discussion moot, because it forces you into error 1. Assuming the conclusion.*

Nope. Because as I have said before, you got it all wrong. Free will is not the conclusion. The question is whether 4A and free will can exist.

Your position is that 4A precludes free will. And I have shown that that is exactly what you mean one’s you strip the smoke and mirrors from your statement that “free will is an illusion because of 4A”.

That is all you are claiming: Free will does not exist because of 4A and that you have to prove and have failed so far.

… Then free will is an illusion.

Imprecise. Anything illusory does not exist.

To say it is an illusion is to say we think we have free will but we don’t.

What 'we think we have" is beside the point because what we want to find out is what we indeed have and not what we think we have.

So to put in the simplest terms, according to you free will does not exist because of the 4A so the 4A precludes free will.

We both know what the sentence means. So why are you trying to modify what I have said? The words I have used are perfectly clear and mean exactly what I am seeking to say. Why should we change my original statement to something which is much less precise?*

Because it is not precise. It is a sleight of hand.

My statement on the other hand is very precise and cuts out the unnecessary bit about our impressions as to our possession of it.

The question is, what is there in the 4A that precludes free will. You have to be able to show that the 4A somehow stops God from creating people with free will.

One very important thing that you must answer is whether God can or cannot create a human being with free will

So let’s use the contention I have used from the start. Thanks.

I won’t because it is imprecise. It is a sleight of hand.

Ok, determined in this context means determined the design. To use your earlier metaphor, the shape. Ok? So God designs the shape of the soul before we are born ok? I am not using the term “determined” to refer to something which is of fixed function and response. If I had Used it that way I would have assumed the conclusion which would have been a logical error (just like error 1).

When you say determined the shape of the soul, is the soul free or not?
You see, this is the only point when free will or its absence happens – at the point of creation. Either God creates us with free will or He creates us without free will.

Of course one can say “but that is what we are here to find out whether God built in the free will or not” but somehow I don’t think that even enters into your equation.

The question again arises, what is there in 4A that will disable God from incorporating free will at the point of creation.

Ah yes, that’s right. What is the phrase they use in courts? Guilty until proven innocent?.. Oh nope, actually that’s backwards, so no actually it’s on you to show your accusation is true.*

No, you’ve been proven guilty (out of your own mouth as a matter of fact) so the only reason you are not guilty would be in the off chance that I have misunderstood.

Really? Where? As I said, to date I believe you have accused me 11 times and i have challenged you to identify evidence each time. To date I believe you have only even tried once (and on that occasion failed).*

Okay, I will go back and dig up my replies and repost them.

No, again this is error 2. I’d really hoped I’d covered this well enough. Never mind, try, try again.*

I am sure I will be told off for this but seriously you cannot be that dense. You accepted a definition, okay?

Since you accepted the definition you have to abide by that definition.

The definition says free will means ability to choose without constraints. You said there are no constraints. Based on that definition, if there are no constraints, then there is free will. What is so hard to understand there?

Let me put that in syllogism.

1. If without C, A is B.
2. Without C
3. Ergo, A is B.

Very simple really

 

[benedictus2]

What I am saying is NOT that some external constraint is imposed which means we can only choose one response. But rather that we only will choose one response and that response was chosen before we were born. Is that clearer?

If we only will chose one response then that response was pre-programmed into us.

Now, pause there a moment and think about that. That only happens with robots.

If that is true, then you are saying that that response has been pre-programmed, built into us. Therefore you are saying that at the point of creation, God did not give us free will.

Programming that response into us is a constraint so therefore you are saying that there is constraint.

If there is constraint (contrary to what you claimed before) then there is no free will therefore you have done Error 1. You have assumed that which you need to prove.

And I have been telling you that several posts back.

It is tiring debating with you because it takes so long before you get something so simple.

So again, this just reiterates my original point. Free will is either built into us at the point of creation or it is not. So God has to have decided at the point of our creation whether He will give us free will or not.

All this talk you have given above is nothing more than sleight of hand and smoke and mirrors to detract from this essential point.

Trying to think of an example to help… Ah got one. Ok, let’s saying you’re driving a car somewhere, but unknown to you someone has disconnected the controls and has programmed the car to drive a specific route. But has planned out and arranged in advance every last detail of the route (the lady crossing the road, the traffic around you, everything). Such that you will always turn the wheel in a way which matches the route the car is taking. So, you reach a junction, you decide to turn right, the car turns right…

What stops you from turning left if you so wish? Is the car engineered to turn right only? If so that has got no bearing on free will. You chose to turn left but they have rigged the car to only turn right. How does that stop you from choosing left? You may not go left but it does not mean that you did not choose left.

Remember, the issue here is not where you end up but which one you choose. You may be going right but you are still trying to steer the car left so clearly your choice is left.

However if you are turning right because you have been programmed to turn right, well then, I rest my case – you have assumed that which you are hoping to prove and the sad thing is you don’t even realize it.

Seriously, you have just given a very long example that does not illustrate one bit what you are hoping it would.

Not in the way you’ve been using the word (God forcefully overwhelming someones brain etc). As I said, if it’s an illusion then we appear to have the choice but in reality all the choices have already been made, we’re just actors reading a script without knowing it.

Illusory things do not exist. We think it is there but it is not there. To put simply you are saying free will does not exist. But you have not proven that. You keep saying that it does not exist because 4A but after that rather long example, all you’ve succeeded in showing is that you once again have assumed that which you hoped to prove. Petitio principii. You keep falling into this error.

I’ll respond to your other post on Thursday. I have an early start tomorrow so need to go to sleep right now and tomorrow I will get back rather late.