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

[Candide_West]

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

Not quite, it’s about whether 4A makes free will an illusion.*

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.

I’ve got it all wrong? Ok, let’s check because if so then the entire debate may be moot.*

My understanding is as follows: The debate is whether free will is genuine or illusory. My conclusion is that it is illusory, yours is that it is genuine.

If I am wrong and you have not concluded that free will is genuine then I’d be interested to understand what your conclusion is and how / if it contradicts mine.*

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

Exactly. You have just demonstrated that you understand my contention perfectly. So it’s clearly not terribly difficult to understand.

If you really wish to debate against that other contention of yours then that’s fine, but just understand that you are debating against yourself, not me. So I won’t interfere.

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

But it’s not an unnecessary bit. It’s actually really quite important.*

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

Then you are debating with yourself, not with me. My statement is clear and precise as you yourself demonstrated above.

When you say determined the shape of the soul, is the soul free or not?

I assume neither. Indeed I cannot possibly assume either without committing a logic error (just like error 1).

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.

Until you at least present some evidence then I certainly am not. I look forwards to finally seeing some.

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.

Yes, and I am. I even went through that definition for you and highlighted the bit you think I am aiming at and the bit I am actually aiming at. And you still don’t get it? I can’t help but wonder if you are just obfuscating here.*

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…

Ok, the error you made in you syllogism was to treat the definition as requiring one thing only. In fact it requires two. The “ability to make a choice” AND “no constraints”. It is an error to treat them as a single point because as you yourself have already pointed out you can have free will and constraints or you can have no free will and no constraints. So the correct syllogism in this case is more like…

A = ability to make choices
C = constraints (thus notC = no constraints)
F = free will

If A AND (notC) THEN F is True.

You error 2 is your belief that constraints are the only way to make free will not true.

You have also compounded this error by treating constraints in a very narrow way by specifying that you are referring to something like God intervening to overwhelm the individuals brain. Effectively possessing them.

*Therefore you are saying that at the point of creation, God did not give us free will.

Not quite, I am saying that if the assumptions I have made about God are true (as stated explicitly in previous posts) then free will is an illusion.*

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

You took the words right out of my mouth. All these repetitions going over the same errors and you still don’t get it.*Sigh. Never mind, I’ve got high hopes for my back-to-basics example. Looking forwards to getting back to that properly.

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

Well as I said, try, try again. Perhaps the explanation above will help you get your head around error 2. If not then I’ll have to think of something else. Fear not, I’m not just going to give up on you.*

*I’ll respond to your other post on Thursday.

Ok, I shall look forwards to hearing from you.*

 

[Candide_West]

Hi bendictus, you still about? Not wanting to pester or anything but it’s a couple days after you said you’d reply and I’m keen to get to the back-to-basics example with you. So thought I’d write just to check you haven’t forgotten or anything.

Take care

 

[benedictus2]

Hi bendictus, you still about? Not wanting to pester or anything but it’s a couple days after you said you’d reply and I’m keen to get to the back-to-basics example with you. So thought I’d write just to check you haven’t forgotten or anything.

Take care

My apologies for the very late reply. I have over committed myself to other projects and had no time to spare for CAF.

Anyway.

I think it is best if I try to summarize your position based on your responses so far.

I will be jumping around your posts 298 and 301.

Your expressed position is this: Because God is Creator, Omnipotent, Omniscient and Interventionist (COOI) then free will is an illusion.

A few terms we need to clarify:

Point 1) Illusion: When we say something is an illusion we actually mean two things:

1. 
   *] that the thing does not exist
   *] that there is an impression (a hallucination) of this thing existing
   
   **Point 2) Free Will: **As we have defined it is the ability to choose without constraint. This definition is composed of two things :
   1. 
      *]The Will – which is the ability to choose, and
      *]**Free **– without constraints
      
      Regarding the definition you said that you are not stressing the constraint but rather the first part – the ability to choose.
      
      **Point 3) **God is Creator and Omnipotent ( I will show later that the other two make no difference to your contention)
      
      To summarize.
      
      In point 2, it is clear that what you are arguing against is not the freedom of the will but WILL itself. You are in effect saying that **we do not have any will at all, **let alone that it is free.
      
      This is very clear in your post 297 when you said: But rather that we only will choose one response and that response was chosen before we were born.
      
      But as I said in post 300:* If we only will chose one response then that response was pre-programmed into us…… That only happens with robots.*
      
      But not only that, you are also saying that somehow we have been implanted a kind of thought to think that we posses it ** (without this additional clarification then there is no illusion).** And this has to be an implanted thing because if the response has been pre-programmed into us then that also means we do not really have a capacity to think. The absence of will also takes with it the capacity to think. Robots do not think.
      
      So to re-phrase your argument it goes like this:
      
      Because God is C-O-O-I then the only thing He can logically make are robots but that He also implanted in these robots a kind of “thought” that makes them think they are not robots.
      
      That essentially is your argument broken down and stated more clearly.
      
      But is this really so?
      
      Well let’s take a look at your other responses.
      
      continued on next post

 

[benedictus2]

Continuation of post 303 - Response to Candide West
**
Q&A 1)**
I asked: Do you understand this to mean all powerful?

**You answered: **Not quite, it means he is able to do anything which is logically possible.

**My comment: **So basically, what you are aiming at is to prove that it is logically impossible for God due to COOI to make non-robots. Not only that, you will also show that He somehow needs to give this robots the impression that they are not robots.

Q&A 2)
I asked: Since you say He makes each soul, did He make the soul free or not-free at the point of creation?

**You answered: “…. this question can’t be answered either way without assuming the conclusion”

My comment: Yes, that is true. We cannot answer that without assuming the conclusion.

But here’s the thing.

1. You said that God is the Creator.
2. If God is creator, then it is God who decides at the point of creation whether He will create a being with will or without will. Being God it is His choice. He can freely will either way. You need to remember this because this is crucial. It is God who makes a decision at the point of creation of man whether to make him into a robot or not.
   **
   The question for us now is to find out which one did he make: a creature with will or a creature without will - a robot.**

That He is Omniscient and Interventionist has no bearing on His decision whether to create a robot or a non-robot. To show that this has a bearing on God decision at point of creation, you need to show that His Omniscience and being Interventionist impinges on and informs His Omnipotence.

The question that now confronts you is this:

Being God and COOI, what is there in His being COOI that would logically prevent Him from creating beings with will?

So far, you have not been able to show that God’s Omnipotence, Omniscience and Interventionism constrains Him to making only robots.

And another thing you need to show is why, having chosen to make robots, He needed to implant a further program into this robots to make them think they have a will so that you can show that it is an illusion?

In actual fact, my post 300 has already addressed the problems with your argument because you’ve already shown that for you the issue is much more basic than free will - it is the will.

 

[benedictus2]

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?

As I said when I first used the term ‘shape”, it is a very inadequate analogy.

But anyway. I’ll work with your example as a follow-up to my two earlier posts. I want to stress however, that though I am working with your example to show the problems with it, I am in no way saying that this is how it actually happens or this is what I believe happens.

You said that God sees into the future such that even before you were born He knew that if he made you into a square you will choose A, if he made you into a circle you will choose B. These are the choices that He sees you making in future.

As you yourself have written, Square chose A and Circle chose B.

So clearly it is Square and Circle who chose - who made the decision to go for A and B respectively.

What God has determined by making you either Square or Circle is the outcome He wanted. Let’s say He wanted an A outcome. Knowing that as a square you will choose A He therefore opted for the square.

If A is - say - killing Person X - then all that can be blamed on Him is for creating you when He already knew that you will choose to kill Person X, so perhaps the outcome He wanted was to have person X killed.

But there is nothing in that example that says you did not choose A. So clearly, He gave you the ability to choose, but that He knew that as a square you will choose A.

Now here’s a very important clarification.

The only time there is no choice is if you say “S=A, C=B” are pre-set formulae i.e. squares only ever choose A and circles only ever choose B.

In that case, there is no choice at all. If this is what you meant above, then that means that as a square, you went for A because the square configuration can only ever go for A, that there is an overwhelming compulsions for Squares to choose A such that squares can not choose anything but A.

If that is what you are trying to say, then clearly you are saying that He was making robots.

But first you have to show why God has to be Omniscient and Interventionist if all He is making are robots. To make robots, the only characteristic that needs to be met is Creator. As Creator, He can make robots as He pleases. This seeing into the future has no bearing because He can make the future as He pleases with His robots.

 

[Candide_West]

My apologies for the very late reply. *I have over committed myself to other projects and had no time to spare for CAF.

That’s quite alright, I know that CAF isn’t exactly anyones number one life priority. Good posts by the way.*

Your expressed position is this: Because God is Creator, Omnipotent, Omniscient and Interventionist (COOI) *then free will is an illusion.

Well actually I’d use “if” rather than “because” but otherwise yes indeedy.

*A few terms we need to clarify:

Point 1) * Illusion: When we say something is an illusion we actually mean two things:

that the thing does not exist*

that there is an impression (a hallucination) of this thing existing*

Well I wouldn’t use the term hallucination (it’s emotive language) but otherwise yes.

*Point 2) * Free Will: As we have defined it is the ability to choose without constraint. **

This definition is composed of two things :*

The Will – which is the ability to choose, and
Free – without constraints
*
Regarding the definition you said that you are not stressing the constraint but rather the first part – the ability to choose.

Yes indeed, my point is that the choices we think are ours were already made by someone else (God). Essentially we cannot do anything that God did not choose for us to do.*

*Point 3) God is Creator and Omnipotent ( I will show later that the other two make no difference to your contention)

I continue to think that the other two attributes actually make a substantial difference but I’m sure we’ll get to that further on.*

*In point 2, it is clear that what you are arguing against is not the freedom of the will but WILL itself. You are in effect saying that we do not have any will at all, *let alone that it is free. *

Pretty much, I guess you could put it simply as “the choices have all been made”.*

*This is very clear in your post 297 when **you said

But rather that we only will choose one response and that response was chosen before we were born.

But as I said in post 300:
If we only will chose one response then that response was pre-programmed into us…… That only happens with robots.**

Hmmm, no I don’t agree here. But I suspect this is a difference in terminology. How to explain what I mean… Ok, let’s set aside the whole question of free will for the moment. You are approaching a t-junction. You are going to turn left or right but you WILL only do one of those, you cannot actually do both, irrespective of whether you are “free” to do either.*

That is what I was aiming at when I said “we only will choose one response”. Not sure if I’ve been clear here still. Please let me know if not and I’ll try to improve my explanation.
benedictus2;8214634:

But not only that, you are also saying that somehow we have been implanted a kind of thought to think that we posses it*…

Indeed, it means that God (if he exists) decided to give us the impression that we have free will.

*So to re-phrase your argument it goes like this:

Because God is C-O-O-I then the only thing He can logically make are robots but that He also implanted in these robots a kind of “thought” that makes them think they are not robots.

That essentially is your argument broken down and stated more clearly.

If that is clearer to you then fair enough. I prefer to avoid using terms like “robots” because it inevitably carries an emotional impact which makes it harder to review the situation dispassionately.*

Continuation of post 303

I asked: Do you understand this to mean all powerful

You answered: Not quite, it means he is able to do anything which is logically possible.

**My comment: **So basically, what you are aiming at is *to prove that it is logically impossible for God due to COOI to make non-robots. Not only that, you will also show that He somehow needs to give this robots the impression that they are not robots.

Again I prefer not to use terms like robots. And I don’t agree with the last part, I don’t think it is logically supportable that he “needs” to give us the impression that we have free will. He could simply have chosen to.*

Another way of saying this is that it is logically impossible for us to “choose” to do something that God did not already choose for us to do.*

*Q&A 2) I asked: Since you say He makes each soul, did He make the soul free or not-free at the point of creation?

You answered: …. this question can’t be answered either way without assuming the conclusion”

My comment: Yes, that is true. We cannot answer that without assuming the conclusion.

Great. 100% agreed.*

*But here’s the thing.

1. You said that God is the Creator.
2. If God is creator, then it is God who decides at the point of creation whether He will create a being with will or without will. Being God it is His choice. He can freely will either way. *

Ah but we know even God cannot do things which are logically impossible. So if it is logically impossible for him to create beings with free will (who “choose” things which he did not already choose for them to do). Then the most he can do is to give them the illusion that they have free will.*

 

[Candide_West]

*You need to remember this because this is crucial.

It is God who makes a decision at the point of creation of man whether to make him into a robot or not.

Again, not if it is logically impossible. If so then God can no more do that than he can make a four sided triangle or a stone so heavy he can’t lift it.*

*That He is Omniscient and Interventionist has no bearing on His decision whether to create a robot or a non-robot. To show that this has a bearing on God decision at point of creation, you need to show that His Omniscience and being Interventionist impinges on and informs His Omnipotence.

They wouldn’t have bearing on a decision making process but they are important in terms of logical constraints.*

*The question that now confronts you is this:

Being God and COOI, what is there in His being COOI that would logically prevent Him from creating beings with will?

As I recall when I wrote out my logic previously your primary objection was to my point 3. Which was about God determining the internal factors upon which decision making is predicated.*

The aim of my back-to-basics example is to clarify that point since I think it is the key to the discussion.

*…He needed to implant a further program into this robots to make them think they have a will so that you can show that it is an illusion?

This I don’t agree with. I don’t think there is an argument to say that God needed to give us the illusion of free will. At least not one I can see. It could simply have been his choice.

As I said when I first used the term ‘shape”, it is a very inadequate analogy.

But anyway. I’ll work with your example as a follow-up to my two earlier posts.

Ok, great.

*You said that God sees into the future such that even before you were born He knew that if he made you into a square you will choose A, if he made you into a circle *you will choose B. These are the choices that He sees you making in future.

Not quite, I’ve deliberately avoided saying things like “square will choose A” because that implies the assumption that it is the individuals choice. Which goes back to assuming the conclusion.*

*As you yourself have written, Square chose A and Circle chose B.

So clearly it is Square and Circle who chose - who made the decision to go for A and B respectively.

No, as above I avoided that terminology for exactly that reason.

*What God has determined by making you either Square or Circle is the outcome He wanted. Let’s say He wanted an A outcome. Knowing that as a square you will choose A He therefore opted for the square.

Not sure I’m clear on what you are saying here. Are you saying that God determined the outcome through selection of the soul shape in this example?

*If A is - say - killing Person X - … so perhaps the outcome He wanted was to have person X killed.

As before I’d prefer to avoid specifics of killing people and suchlike, it tends to be emotive.*

*Now here’s a very important clarification.

The only time there is no choice is if you say “S=A, C=B” are pre-set formulae i.e. squares only ever choose A and circles only ever choose B.

Agreed, but remember that we are not talking about simple formulae here and we are considering this from an omniscient perspective. And from an omniscient perspective we can indeed say with absolute certainty that at decision point 1, S → A and C → B (arrows indicate “lead to” which is probably more appropriate here than “=”).

If you’re happy with this part I’ll move onto the next bit of the argument which was with regards to the soul reshaping itself.

*In that case, there is no choice at all. If this is what you meant above, then that means that as a square, *you went for A because the square configuration can only ever go for A, that there is an overwhelming compulsions for Squares to choose A such that squares can not choose anything but A.

No, I don’t mean that there is an overwhelming compulsion. In this example I have cut out the decision making process for simplicity and just left the ultimate decision. Nonetheless from an omniscient perspective we can be absolutely certain that if the soul is a “square” the option A will be taken.

*But first you have to show why God has to be Omniscient and Interventionist if all He is making are robots…

True, if that was all I was saying, but it’s not. I’m not saying he chose to make beings without the ability to make choices (beings that are unable to decide things he didn’t decide for them) but rather that he couldn’t make beings with the ability to make choices.

 

[benedictus2]

Again, not if it is logically impossible. If so then God can no more do that than he can make a four sided triangle or a stone so heavy he can’t lift it.*

They wouldn’t have bearing on a decision making process but they are important in terms of logical constraints.*

As I recall when I wrote out my logic previously your primary objection was to my point 3. Which was about God determining the internal factors upon which decision making is predicated.*

The aim of my back-to-basics example is to clarify that point since I think it is the key to the discussion.

This I don’t agree with. I don’t think there is an argument to say that God needed to give us the illusion of free will. At least not one I can see. It could simply have been his choice.

Ok, great.

Not quite, I’ve deliberately avoided saying things like “square will choose A” because that implies the assumption that it is the individuals choice. Which goes back to assuming the conclusion.*

No, as above I avoided that terminology for exactly that reason.

Not sure I’m clear on what you are saying here. Are you saying that God determined the outcome through selection of the soul shape in this example?

As before I’d prefer to avoid specifics of killing people and suchlike, it tends to be emotive.*

Agreed, but remember that we are not talking about simple formulae here and we are considering this from an omniscient perspective. And from an omniscient perspective we can indeed say with absolute certainty that at decision point 1, S → A and C → B (arrows indicate “lead to” which is probably more appropriate here than “=”).

If you’re happy with this part I’ll move onto the next bit of the argument which was with regards to the soul reshaping itself.

No, I don’t mean that there is an overwhelming compulsion. In this example I have cut out the decision making process for simplicity and just left the ultimate decision. Nonetheless from an omniscient perspective we can be absolutely certain that if the soul is a “square” the option A will be taken.

True, if that was all I was saying, but it’s not. I’m not saying he chose to make beings without the ability to make choices (beings that are unable to decide things he didn’t decide for them) but rather that he couldn’t make beings with the ability to make choices.

So therefore, summarizing your responses in posts 306 and 307 :

You maintain that God’s being COOI logically constrains Him from making nothing but robots but He chose to give them a kind of thought to make them think they are not robots.

You object to the word robot and yet that is the only being that you are saying that a COOI God can make. If robots are the only thing God can make why not use the term?

Secondly, you keep using the term free will when you are not arguing against free will but against will. You need to keep that in mind. You are not arguing against free will but against will.

Thirdly, If something has no will then it is essentially a robot. If a robot no intelligence. You have to explain why God having created robots would choose to give a kind of “thought” to make robots think they are not robots. What is the purpose of that?

You are right about your clarification that there is no choice if there is no will. In which case , I don’t understand your objection to the term robot considering that it captures exactly the only thing that according to you God can make on account of His being COOI.

And then there is the fact, that you have not shown that if God is COOI He can make only robots.

You keep saying it is logically not possible but you have not shown that it is indeed so.

What is there in God’s being COOI that prevents Him from creating a being with will?

As I said many posts ago, your basic position is this: that a COOI God and a being with will (back then I said “free will” because I didn’t realize that you did not even have a full grasp of your own position) can be true at the same time. You said no that is not your position, but it must be coming clearer to you by now that that is indeed your position.

Regarding your clarification about making only one “choice”. If the “choice” is pre-programmed into the creature then there is indeed no choice, nothing to will. Which again means that God is creating robots.

No matter how much you dislike the term, that is exactly what you are left with once you put your argument under the microscope of reason.

 

[benedictus2]

Not sure I’m clear on what you are saying here. Are you saying that God determined the outcome through selection of the soul shape in this example?

I am saying that if the being He created can choose and He sees that this being will choose A and He still created Him then He must have wanted an A outcome.

As before I’d prefer to avoid specifics of killing people and suchlike, it tends to be emotive.*

Specifics make for clarity, emotive or not.

Agreed, but remember that we are not talking about simple formulae here and we are considering this from an omniscient perspective. And from an omniscient perspective we can indeed say with absolute certainty that at decision point 1, S → A and C → B (arrows indicate “lead to” which is probably more appropriate here than “=”).

If you’re happy with this part I’ll move onto the next bit of the argument which was with regards to the soul reshaping itself.

There is nothing more to add to the example.

You are obvioiusly talking about a simple formula since according to you the person has no will. If a person has no will - no ability to choose - then it is a preset thing : Squares =A, Circles=B.

But even that is a stupid proposition because if God’s being COOI constrains Him from making anything other than robots, then even these examples do not apply. God simply makes things that go A or B or whatever He chooses. There is not even shape to talk about because He can make the shape go which ever way He chose.

Changing the equals to an arrow makes no difference.

So therefore, even this example of yours do not fit with your proposition because of the fact that your argument is not against free will but against will itself. There is no choice and no ability to choose. You need to keep referring back to that basic tenet of your proposition.

No, I don’t mean that there is an overwhelming compulsion. In this example I have cut out the decision making process for simplicity and just left the ultimate decision. Nonetheless from an omniscient perspective we can be absolutely certain that if the soul is a “square” the option A will be taken.

You are right about this clarification. There is no overwhelming compulsion. Compulsion applies to beings with will not robots. But since you say God can only make robots, there is no compulsion to speak of but programs built into the creature.

So as I have said before, if God can make only robots, Omniscience and intervention has no bearing on anything. He sees the future becuase the future is what He made the future to be.

It would be like someone who writes a program into the your operating system that makes your computer blink red, white and blue when it is first turned on. He sees your computer blinking red, whtie and blue because he has programmed it that way not because he can see your computer opting to blink red whtie and blue in future and so makes it blink red white and blue.

As a matter of fact, this is the weakest point in your argument because it contradicts itself. So give that a thorough mulling over.

 

[rinnie]

Again, not if it is logically impossible. If so then God can no more do that than he can make a four sided triangle or a stone so heavy he can’t lift it.*

They wouldn’t have bearing on a decision making process but they are important in terms of logical constraints.*

As I recall when I wrote out my logic previously your primary objection was to my point 3. Which was about God determining the internal factors upon which decision making is predicated.*

The aim of my back-to-basics example is to clarify that point since I think it is the key to the discussion.

This I don’t agree with. I don’t think there is an argument to say that God needed to give us the illusion of free will. At least not one I can see. It could simply have been his choice.

Ok, great.

Not quite, I’ve deliberately avoided saying things like “square will choose A” because that implies the assumption that it is the individuals choice. Which goes back to assuming the conclusion.*

No, as above I avoided that terminology for exactly that reason.

Not sure I’m clear on what you are saying here. Are you saying that God determined the outcome through selection of the soul shape in this example?

As before I’d prefer to avoid specifics of killing people and suchlike, it tends to be emotive.*

Agreed, but remember that we are not talking about simple formulae here and we are considering this from an omniscient perspective. And from an omniscient perspective we can indeed say with absolute certainty that at decision point 1, S → A and C → B (arrows indicate “lead to” which is probably more appropriate here than “=”).

If you’re happy with this part I’ll move onto the next bit of the argument which was with regards to the soul reshaping itself.

No, I don’t mean that there is an overwhelming compulsion. In this example I have cut out the decision making process for simplicity and just left the ultimate decision. Nonetheless from an omniscient perspective we can be absolutely certain that if the soul is a “square” the option A will be taken.

True, if that was all I was saying, but it’s not. I’m not saying he chose to make beings without the ability to make choices (beings that are unable to decide things he didn’t decide for them) but rather that he couldn’t make beings with the ability to make choices.

I am kind of lost in this thread, and really need to find the time to go back and read, But I need to comment on this last paragraph.

You stated if I am correct that God Couldn’t make beings with the ability to make choices Okay lets prove you wrong right off the bat.

If God could not create beings with the ability to accept him or not accept him, why do some accept him and some reject him then Unless of course I am totally misunderstanding what you said.

 

[benedictus2]

I am kind of lost in this thread, and really need to find the time to go back and read, But I need to comment on this last paragraph.

You stated if I am correct that God Couldn’t make beings with the ability to make choices Okay lets prove you wrong right off the bat.

If God could not create beings with the ability to accept him or not accept him, why do some accept him and some reject him then Unless of course I am totally misunderstanding what you said.

I think I can answer for Candide here. His answer would be that we have a choice because there is no God.

His argument is : If God is C-reator, O-mnipotent, **O-**mniscient and I-nterventionist (COOI) then the only thing He can logically create are beings WITHOUT will, i.e. robots and that He has given these robots a kind of “thought” to make them think they are not robots.

So therefore if we have will and thus the ability to choose, therefore there is no God.

But of course, he has not as yet been able to prove that if God is COOI, the only thing He can logically make are robots.

 

[Spock]

His argument is : If God is C-reator, O-mnipotent, **O-**mniscient and I-nterventionist (COOI) then the only thing He can logically create are beings WITHOUT will, i.e. robots and that He has given these robots a kind of “thought” to make them think they are not robots.

The beings in question do not have to be “complete” robots without any freedom whatsoever. They can have a well-defined amout of freedom to choose among the choices which are in synch with the creator’s goals (it is pretty obvious that there can be many possible choices which are either neutral of positive). Also they can have the freedom to commit “though-crimes” (imagine the atrocities) but unable to carry them out. For example there would be some physical constraints preventing a rape or a murder, though such acts could be imagined. (Amazing that the concept of “thought-crime” was not invented by George Orwell, but by Jesus. )

So therefore if we have will and thus the ability to choose, therefore there is no God.

Actually that is not the only possible corollary. It may be that there is a God, but not COOI. Especially since the two “O”-s are so poorly defined that they are meaningless.

 

[benedictus2]

The beings in question do not have to be “complete” robots without any freedom whatsoever. They can have a well-defined amout of freedom to choose among the choices which are in synch with the creator’s goals (it is pretty obvious that there can be many possible choices which are either neutral of positive). Also they can have the freedom to commit “though-crimes” (imagine the atrocities) but unable to carry them out. For example there would be some physical constraints preventing a rape or a murder, though such acts could be imagined. (Amazing that the concept of “thought-crime” was not invented by George Orwell, but by Jesus. )

I think you need to read the discussion between Candide and me in detail. We have gone past this stage.

I would respond to your post in detail except that you are responding to a specific post of mine which is an offshoot of this long conversation between me and Candide.

Actually that is not the only possible corollary. It may be that there is a God, but not COOI. Especially since the two “O”-s are so poorly defined that they are meaningless.

I reply with the same here. Although perhaps Candide will say that you will need to drop the OI to get beings with will. But that he still needs to prove.

 

[rinnie]

I think I can answer for Candide here. His answer would be that we have a choice because there is no God.

His argument is : If God is C-reator, O-mnipotent, **O-**mniscient and I-nterventionist (COOI) then the only thing He can logically create are beings WITHOUT will, i.e. robots and that He has given these robots a kind of “thought” to make them think they are not robots.

So therefore if we have will and thus the ability to choose, therefore there is no God.

But of course, he has not as yet been able to prove that if God is COOI, the only thing He can logically make are robots.

Where is Reason in all of this. If God created us as robots as he is TRYING to say it can make no sense.

If God created me as a good robot, and you as a bad one we have no free will. Now that is impossible to prove because everyone has good and bad in them. It is for us to choose what we want to go with. The good or the bad.

The only way he could logically prove his fight here is to tell me I CANNOT choose bad, or I CANNOT choose good. SInce he CANNOT do this he just shot himself in the foot here.

 

[Candide_West]

*You object to the word robot and yet that is the only being that you are saying that a COOI God can make. If robots are the only thing God can make why not use the term?

Because, obviously enough, robots are not the only thing that a 4A God can create. We aren’t robots. If I am correct and God having 4A means free will is an illusion then we are still not robots. As I’m sure you are well aware there are billions of things on this planet which cannot be considered to have free will which are also not robots. So why use a misleading term?*
*

*Secondly, you keep using the term free will when you are not arguing against free will but against will. You need to keep that in mind.

Ok, I think I’ve been pretty explicit about the fact that I’m talking about the ability to choose, throughout the conversation but I shall continue to keep it in mind.*
*

*…You have to explain why God having created robots would choose to give a kind of “thought” to make robots think they are not robots. What is the purpose of that?

Nope, I really don’t need to do that. Obviously I don’t need to explain why an entity who I don’t believe to exist would do something. That is well outside what I’m interested in conjecturing upon.

*You are right about your clarification that there is no choice if there is no will. In which case , I don’t understand your objection to the term robot …

As above, it’s inaccurate and at the same time introduces an unnecessary emotive element to the conversation.*

*And then there is the fact, that you have not shown that if God is COOI He can make only robots.

Right, now if you remember I presented logic leading to that point. You objected to my point 3 which was that God had designed the internal elements of the decision making process. So that’s what my back-to-basics example is seeking to cover.

*As I said many posts ago, your basic position is this: that a COOI God and a being with will …

How about this as a clear statement - if God is omniscient, omnipotent, interventionist and creator (of individual people and the universe in general) then he is logically unable to create beings which can choose to do something he did not choose for them to do.

That to me means that free will is an illusion because it means God has already made all the decisions.
*

*Regarding your clarification about making only one “choice”. If the “choice” is pre-programmed into the creature then there is indeed no choice, nothing to will…

I see that I have failed to explain clearly here. But what you have said above is true and kinda the point. You’ve actually skipped ahead a bit.*

This comes down to the difference between a time bound vs omniscient perspective. You can take any decision you have made in the past and no matter how many options there were, the one you chose is the only one you chose. From an omniscient perspective the decisions you will make in the future are exactly the same - the one “choice” you will make is just as fixed and certain.*

Are you with me on that one?*

I am saying that if the being He created can choose and He sees that this being will choose A and He still created Him then He must have wanted an A outcome.

Right, so if God wanted option A to happen he would create a square or rectangular soul and*if he wanted a “B” outcome he would have made a circular or oval soul. Either way he would achieve the desired end result.Correct?

If you’re still with me at this point I’ll move onto the main point of this example which is the reshaping of the soul by that decision.

*Specifics make for clarity, emotive or not.

Not necessarily, sometimes they just cloud the issues by getting tied up in minutiae.

*There is nothing more to add to the example.

Oh yes there really is. As I said before the aim is to show how the reshaping of the soul by it’s “decisions” doesn’t change anything which was as I recall your main objection when I laid out my logic.
*

*You are obvioiusly talking about a simple formula since according to you the person has no will. If a person has no will - no ability to choose - then it is a preset thing : Squares =A, Circles=B.

Whoops, careful, you’ve assumed the conclusion again there. That’s not allowed. Knowing thatSquares → A, Circles → B is a necessary result of omniscience. And it’s part of why those attributes make free will an illusion.I am very definitely NOT saying thatSquares → A, Circles → B because free will is illusory. That would be assuming the conclusion.

*But … God simply makes things that go A or B or whatever He chooses. There is not even shape to talk about because He can make the shape go which ever way He chose.

Again I have not assumed free will or no free will at this point. That’s why I’ve removed the decision making process from the example.*
*

*So as I have said before, if God can make only robots, Omniscience and intervention has no bearing on anything. He sees the future becuase the future is what He made the future to be.

No, he sees the future BECAUSE he is omniscient. If he exists but is just an omnipotent creator then he can only guess what’s going to happen when he sets balls rolling and can’t pick*between one series of events and another because he can’t predict what will happen (just like people can’t). He’d still be ultimately responsible for everything (as he’d still be the cause of everything) but free will could be genuine.

The interventionist bit is more subtle so I’ll cover that later.

 

[rinnie]

Because, obviously enough, robots are not the only thing that a 4A God can create. We aren’t robots. If I am correct and God having 4A means free will is an illusion then we are still not robots. As I’m sure you are well aware there are billions of things on this planet which cannot be considered to have free will which are also not robots. So why use a misleading term?*
*

Ok, I think I’ve been pretty explicit about the fact that I’m talking about the ability to choose, throughout the conversation but I shall continue to keep it in mind.*
*

Nope, I really don’t need to do that. Obviously I don’t need to explain why an entity who I don’t believe to exist would do something. That is well outside what I’m interested in conjecturing upon.
As above, it’s inaccurate and at the same time introduces an unnecessary emotive element to the conversation.*

Right, now if you remember I presented logic leading to that point. You objected to my point 3 which was that God had designed the internal elements of the decision making process. So that’s what my back-to-basics example is seeking to cover.

How about this as a clear statement - if God is omniscient, omnipotent, interventionist and creator (of individual people and the universe in general) then he is logically unable to create beings which can choose to do something he did not choose for them to do.

That to me means that free will is an illusion because it means God has already made all the decisions.
*

I see that I have failed to explain clearly here. But what you have said above is true and kinda the point. You’ve actually skipped ahead a bit.*

This comes down to the difference between a time bound vs omniscient perspective. You can take any decision you have made in the past and no matter how many options there were, the one you chose is the only one you chose. From an omniscient perspective the decisions you will make in the future are exactly the same - the one “choice” you will make is just as fixed and certain.*

Are you with me on that one?*

Right, so if God wanted option A to happen he would create a square or rectangular soul and*if he wanted a “B” outcome he would have made a circular or oval soul. Either way he would achieve the desired end result.Correct?

If you’re still with me at this point I’ll move onto the main point of this example which is the reshaping of the soul by that decision.

Not necessarily, sometimes they just cloud the issues by getting tied up in minutiae.

Oh yes there really is. As I said before the aim is to show how the reshaping of the soul by it’s “decisions” doesn’t change anything which was as I recall your main objection when I laid out my logic.
*

Whoops, careful, you’ve assumed the conclusion again there. That’s not allowed. Knowing thatSquares → A, Circles → B is a necessary result of omniscience. And it’s part of why those attributes make free will an illusion.I am very definitely NOT saying thatSquares → A, Circles → B because free will is illusory. That would be assuming the conclusion.

Again I have not assumed free will or no free will at this point. That’s why I’ve removed the decision making process from the example.*
*

No, he sees the future BECAUSE he is omniscient. If he exists but is just an omnipotent creator then he can only guess what’s going to happen when he sets balls rolling and can’t pick*between one series of events and another because he can’t predict what will happen (just like people can’t). He’d still be ultimately responsible for everything (as he’d still be the cause of everything) but free will could be genuine.

The interventionist bit is more subtle so I’ll cover that later.

How can God give us free will but then turn around and make all the decisions?

 

[Candide_West]

Where is Reason in all of this. If God created us as robots as he is TRYING to say it can make no sense.

If God created me as a good robot, and you as a bad one we have no free will. Now that is impossible to prove because everyone has good and bad in them. It is for us to choose what we want to go with. The good or the bad.

The only way he could logically prove his fight here is to tell me I CANNOT choose bad, or I CANNOT choose good. SInce he CANNOT do this he just shot himself in the foot here.

Hi, nice to hear from you.

To be clear I’m not saying you can’t choose to do x. That would be silly.

I tried to demonstrate the idea of free will being an illusion to benedictus previously using the analogy of a car journey. It didn’t work out then but I’ll try again as it seems like a good analogy.

Imagine you go for a drive somewhere and when you get to your destination someone opens the bonnet and shows you that the steering wheel isn’t connected to anything. Nor are the pedals. The engine and wheels are entirely controlled by a computer, but you never noticed because it was programmed (in advanced) to follow a path which exactly matched what you did with the controls.

The person tells you that the person who programmed the computer is omniscient and was therefore able to predict to perfection your every decision and movement and wrote the programme to give you the illusion of complete control. He also tells you that you can get back in the car and drive anywhere you like, the car will continue to respond perfectly as if you were genuinely driving it, even though none of the controls do anything, even though the programme for what the car will do is already written.

You get back in the car, turn the key, the engine starts. Turn again - Off, on, off, on. You check under the bonnet and the ignition is just a socket connected to nothing… Every check you do with the controls, the car responds perfectly, every way you look, none of the controls are connected to anything.*

I hope you’ll forgive me if I’ve laboured the point somewhat. The key is that you are able to “choose” to do whatever you wish, (in the analogy, you are free to do whatever you like to the controls), and that is what you will do (in the analogy, the car will respond appropriately). But that does not mean the choice was truly yours (in the analogy, it does not mean that the controls are connected to anything).

Remember as well that what I’ve described here would of course be entirely possible for an omniscient being (who had access to a very good garage and a computer ).*

Take care*

 

[benedictus2]

Because, obviously enough, robots are not the only thing that a 4A God can create. We aren’t robots. If I am correct and God having 4A means free will is an illusion then we are still not robots. As I’m sure you are well aware there are billions of things on this planet which cannot be considered to have free will which are also not robots. So why use a misleading term?*

Candide, you really ought to think long and hard before you reply. It is clear you are unable to follow your own line of thinking because if your posts are anything to go by, you do not even have a clear grasp of your own position.

You said several posts ago that the reason you believe you have free will is because you do not believe in a COOI God, that a COOI God could not possibly have created you!

Now you are saying that since we aren’t robots, obviously a COOI God can create things other than robots? So let me get this straight, you are now saying that you believe that a COOI God created us? Do you realize that you have just done a 180 degree turn there?

Not only that, do you realize that with your above quote, not only have you acknowledge that:

1) God is COOI
2) God created us
3) We have the ability to choose (since as you say we are not robots);

but you have also debunked your own argument because you have just stated that a COOI God can logically create beings with the ability to choose.

But you said that a COOI God cannot logically create beings with the ability to choose!!!

Seriously, can’t you even at least be consistent?

I won’t reply to the rest of your post because you clearly have no idea what you are arguing for.

When you have worked out clearly in your head your position to its minute implication then perhaps you could reply with a post that is consistent with your stated position.

So, I remind you that :

1. You stated that we have free will because there is no God
2. You stated that a COOI God cannot logically create beings with will. Beings WITHOUT will ARE robots. Get that?
3. Remember too that you said that you are not arguing against the “constraint” part of the definition of free will but on the “ability to choose” part. If no ability to CHOOSE then no WILL full stop, therefore ROBOT.

You need to keep those very important points of your stated position in mind.

You are not arguing against free will so you better start posting from your clearly stated position.

This thing about free will being an illusion is just hogwash because that is not what you are arguing for.

As I have shown, you are not arguing against free will, You are simply arguing against will. You are saying a 4A God cannot create beings with will.

You keep going back to your original formulation when I have already shown over several posts that your original formulation does not stack up to your actual understanding of your position.

Don’t you even get that?

 

[benedictus2]

Hi, nice to hear from you.

To be clear I’m not saying you can’t choose to do x. That would be silly.

I tried to demonstrate the idea of free will being an illusion to benedictus previously using the analogy of a car journey. It didn’t work out then but I’ll try again as it seems like a good analogy.

Imagine you go for a drive somewhere and when you get to your destination someone opens the bonnet and shows you that the steering wheel isn’t connected to anything. Nor are the pedals. The engine and wheels are entirely controlled by a computer, but you never noticed because it was programmed (in advanced) to follow a path which exactly matched what you did with the controls.

The person tells you that the person who programmed the computer is omniscient and was therefore able to predict to perfection your every decision and movement and wrote the programme to give you the illusion of complete control. He also tells you that you can get back in the car and drive anywhere you like, the car will continue to respond perfectly as if you were genuinely driving it, even though none of the controls do anything, even though the programme for what the car will do is already written.

You get back in the car, turn the key, the engine starts. Turn again - Off, on, off, on. You check under the bonnet and the ignition is just a socket connected to nothing… Every check you do with the controls, the car responds perfectly, every way you look, none of the controls are connected to anything.*

I hope you’ll forgive me if I’ve laboured the point somewhat. The key is that you are able to “choose” to do whatever you wish, (in the analogy, you are free to do whatever you like to the controls), and that is what you will do (in the analogy, the car will respond appropriately). But that does not mean the choice was truly yours (in the analogy, it does not mean that the controls are connected to anything).

Remember as well that what I’ve described here would of course be entirely possible for an omniscient being (who had access to a very good garage and a computer ).*

Take care*

I’ve already shown the flaws in the above analogy and this has supported by your subsequent clarifications of your position. So the above analogy has been show to be invalid based on your succeeding posts.

 

[Candide_West]

Candide, you really ought to think long and hard before you reply. It is clear you are unable to follow your own line of thinking because if your posts are anything to go by, you do not even have a clear grasp of your own position.

You said several posts ago that the reason you believe you have free will is because you do not believe in a COOI God, that a COOI God could not possibly have created you!

Now you are saying that since we aren’t robots, obviously a COOI God can create things other than robots? So let me get this straight, you are now saying that you believe that a COOI God created us? Do you realize that you have just done a 180 degree turn there?

Not only that, do you realize that with your above quote, not only have you acknowledge that:

1) God is COOI
2) God created us
3) We have the ability to choose (since as you say we are not robots);

but you have also debunked your own argument because you have just stated that a COOI God can logically create beings with the ability to choose.

But you said that a COOI God cannot logically create beings with the ability to choose!!!

Seriously, can’t you even at least be consistent?

I won’t reply to the rest of your post because you clearly have no idea what you are arguing for.

When you have worked out clearly in your head your position to its minute implication then perhaps you could reply with a post that is consistent with your stated position.

So, I remind you that :

1. You stated that we have free will because there is no God
2. You stated that a COOI God cannot logically create beings with will. Beings WITHOUT will ARE robots. Get that?
3. Remember too that you said that you are not arguing against the “constraint” part of the definition of free will but on the “ability to choose” part. If no ability to CHOOSE then no WILL full stop, therefore ROBOT.

You need to keep those very important points of your stated position in mind.

You are not arguing against free will so you better start posting from your clearly stated position.

This thing about free will being an illusion is just hogwash because that is not what you are arguing for.

As I have shown, you are not arguing against free will, You are simply arguing against will. You are saying a 4A God cannot create beings with will.

You keep going back to your original formulation when I have already shown over several posts that your original formulation does not stack up to your actual understanding of your position.

Don’t you even get that?

Sigh, benedictus it would really help if you read my post before replying to it. Again I’m forced to wonder if you are being deliberately obtuse.*

The problem here is your misconception that anything with doesn’t have free will is a robot. This is of course completely wrong. As I said in the post you just replied to “As I’m sure you are well aware there are billions of things on this planet which cannot be considered to have free will which are also not robots.”

Let me help you with this. A robot is…

• a mechanism that automatically performs complicated often repetitive tasks
• a machine that looks like a human being and performs various complex tasks
• a device guided by controls

You agree with those?

So let’s try a couple things which don’t have free will against those descriptions.

This table - definitely no free will, doesn’t seem to have any controls, doesn’t seem to have any mechanisms in it and beyond having legs (the wrong number) doesn’t look like a human… I’d say that this table is not a robot and doesn’t have free will.

That tree in my garden - pretty convinced it doesn’t have free will.*doesn’t seem to have any controls, doesn’t seem to have any mechanisms in it and really doesn’t look human either.*I’d say that that tree is not a robot and doesn’t have free will.

Yes, I know that above is silly, but so is your insistence on calling anything that doesn’t have free will a robot. And even more so is you going off claiming that I’ve contradicted myself because I refuse to join you in using misnomers.

Any chance we could get back to sensible discussion?