Why does God's nature require freedom?

[Linusthe2nd]

Since God cannot commit evil, since that is a contradiction of his nature, then he can be said to be a slave to his nature. Even if he has options for what good he will do, which I am still trying to see is possible.

To act according to one’s nature is not being enslaved. One is free when one acts according to one’s nature. One is a slave when one is prevented from acting according to one’s nature.

Have you thought of looking into therapy?

Linus2nd

 

[blase6]

To act according to one’s nature is not being enslaved. One is free when one acts according to one’s nature. One is a slave when one is prevented from acting according to one’s nature.

Have you thought of looking into therapy?

Linus2nd

Define it however you want. You are differing from how I would expect God to operate. I would be afraid of a god who could do whatever he wanted, and wasn’t bound by his nature to act only in one way.

 

[davidv]

Define it however you want. You are differing from how I would expect God to operate. I would be afraid of a god who could do whatever he wanted, and wasn’t bound by his nature to act only in one way.

I think we should all be afraid of the god you have created. For it is not the God described by the Catholic Church.

 

[blase6]

I think we should all be afraid of the god you have created. For it is not the God described by the Catholic Church.

Why would you be afraid of a god which is compelled by its nature to do good unto you?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Define it however you want. You are differing from how I would expect God to operate. I would be afraid of a god who could do whatever he wanted, and wasn’t bound by his nature to act only in one way.

God is perfect good, he only does what is good. Why should that scare you?

You didn’t answer my other question.

Linus2nd

 

[blase6]

God is perfect good, he only does what is good. Why should that scare you?

You didn’t answer my other question.

Linus2nd

It doesn’t. But it is hard to reconcile a belief that God can only do good, with the idea that God is free.

Of course I did not answer your other question. It seems that since I have made valid logical arguments supporting solipsism, and you cannot counter me with a valid philosophical argument, you just make suggestions that I am insane or that I need to study Aquinas more.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It doesn’t. But it is hard to reconcile a belief that God can only do good, with the idea that God is free.

Of course I did not answer your other question. It seems that since I have made valid logical arguments supporting solipsism, and you cannot counter me with a valid philosophical argument, you just make suggestions that I am insane or that I need to study Aquinas more.

One cannot argue with illusions. If you cannot accept reality no one can give you a reason for anything. You are wasting our time and we are wasting yours. You just refuse to acdept the logical conclusion of your position.

Linus2nd

 

[blase6]

One cannot argue with illusions. If you cannot accept reality no one can give you a reason for anything. You are wasting our time and we are wasting yours. You just refuse to acdept the logical conclusion of your position.

Linus2nd

The point of solipsism is not to say that the external world is definitely an illusion. The point is saying that it cannot be known.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The point of solipsism is not to say that the external world is definitely an illusion. The point is saying that it cannot be known.

And what does it mean to you to say that the world " cannot be known. "

Linus2nd

 

[PseuTonym]

Desirable means that an option appears to be a better choice in one moment than other options. What is “good” or “better” depends on the person’s individual disposition to find some things to be good and some things to be not good. From my experience and observation, this is what determines how a person acts.

Can you conceive of a scenario that would provide experience and observations that would refute your claim that “this is what determines how a person acts”?

Also, can you describe one example of your own experience or observation that has already provided you with what you believe is evidence in support of your claim that “this is what determines how a person acts”?

In the meantime, let’s consider an imaginary scenario. Two people are playing chess with (or perhaps we should say “against”) each other. You observe them in person, face-to-face. They are not actors playing a role. You do not know this, but one player is pursuing the goal of a draw, and is making an effort to refrain from checkmating his or her opponent. You cannot see what moves the players are considering but not making. Do you acknowledge that in this situation, nothing that you observe – not even a player’s authentic emotional reaction of surprise or sadness – can support your claim that “this is what determines how a person acts”?

 

[blase6]

And what does it mean to you to say that the world " cannot be known. "

Linus2nd

I cannot truthfully say to myself, “I know for certain that the world exists,” because I am not in the position of knowledge to say that. It has not been proven by logic that an external world cannot not exist. So my knowledge is only a conjecture based on evidence.

 

[blase6]

Can you conceive of a scenario that would provide experience and observations that would refute your claim that “this is what determines how a person acts”?

Also, can you describe one example of your own experience or observation that has already provided you with what you believe is evidence in support of your claim that “this is what determines how a person acts”?

In the meantime, let’s consider an imaginary scenario. Two people are playing chess with (or perhaps we should say “against”) each other. You observe them in person, face-to-face. They are not actors playing a role. You do not know this, but one player is pursuing the goal of a draw, and is making an effort to refrain from checkmating his or her opponent. You cannot see what moves the players are considering but not making. Do you acknowledge that in this situation, nothing that you observe – not even a player’s authentic emotional reaction of surprise or sadness – can support your claim that “this is what determines how a person acts”?

No I cannot conceive of a scenario. I have seen how predictable people’s actions always are.

Here is an example. While I was in bed, I thought to myself how I could test my free will by deciding to wave my arm in the air. I was tired so I had the motive to not move my arm, because it would take energy. This conflicted with the motive to test my free will. I finally waved my arm in the air and concluded that my action resulted because the motive to test my free will became stronger than the motive to rest my arm at the moment that I moved it. So I did not have convincing evidence for free will.

In the scenario you describe, I would expect that the two players would continue throughout the game with the end motives you described. Of course I cannot examine directly any other person’s motives for action, so I do not have definite proof of my conjecture, but I still have convincing evidence because it explains human actions very well.

 

[PseuTonym]

No I cannot conceive of a scenario.

Please consider this possibility: if you cannot conceive of a scenario that would be evidence against your claim, then maybe none of what you have interpreted as support for your claim is actually support for your claim. What you have interpreted as support for your claim might merely be consistent with your claim. Consider this possibility: your reasoning, experiences and observations are consistent with your claim, but they provide no support whatsoever for your claim.

 

[PseuTonym]

I have seen how predictable people’s actions always are.

That would be a completely different discussion. You cannot claim that a person’s actions are predictable by waiting to see what the person’s actions are, and then inventing, after the fact, some explanation that satisfies somebody. If you wish to claim that a person’s actions are predictable, then you need to make a clear prediction before the person takes action. Of course, in that case it might be essential to ensure that the prediction is not communicated to the person, because it is possible for a person to deliberately act contrary to a prediction that is known to that person.

 

[blase6]

Please consider this possibility: if you cannot conceive of a scenario that would be evidence against your claim, then maybe none of what you have interpreted as support for your claim is actually support for your claim. What you have interpreted as support for your claim might merely be consistent with your claim. Consider this possibility: your reasoning, experiences and observations are consistent with your claim, but they provide no support whatsoever for your claim.

When you have plenty of evidence consistent with your claim, and little evidence against it, then if your claim has no logical problems, it is a reasonable claim. I find the idea of freedom, even if it is a possibility, to be logically unnecessary to explain human actions. Everything can seemingly be explained by stimulus.

The concept of freedom is difficult because it cannot be found outside of the idea of persons. I do not perceive directly any freedom in my choices, and I do not find it outside of myself.

 

[blase6]

That would be a completely different discussion. You cannot claim that a person’s actions are predictable by waiting to see what the person’s actions are, and then inventing, after the fact, some explanation that satisfies somebody. If you wish to claim that a person’s actions are predictable, then you need to make a clear prediction before the person takes action. Of course, in that case it might be essential to ensure that the prediction is not communicated to the person, because it is possible for a person to deliberately act contrary to a prediction that is known to that person.

In my case, I did anticipate that my action would occur after the motive for it became stronger than the motive against it.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I cannot truthfully say to myself, “I know for certain that the world exists,” because I am not in the position of knowledge to say that. It has not been proven by logic that an external world cannot not exist. So my knowledge is only a conjecture based on evidence.

The knowledge you have is based on the objective existence of the world. If it did not exist you would have no knowledge of it. It exists, therefore you have knowledge of it. If it did not exist your mind would be a near blank, a tabula raza.

Or again, it is not that the world must exsit, it is that it does exist.

Linus2nd

 

[blase6]

The knowledge you have is based on the objective existence of the world. If it did not exist you would have no knowledge of it. It exists, therefore you have knowledge of it. If it did not exist your mind would be a near blank, a tabula raza.

Or again, it is not that the world must exsit, it is that it does exist.

Linus2nd

I know that I am experiencing what seems like an external world. But to go on and say that I know certainly that an external world exists would be false, since I cannot “leave” my internal world of perception.

The idea of “tabula rasa” is just a theory which isn’t necessarily true. For example, you probably believe that angels are created with infused knowledge, and animals have primal knowledge, so why would human beings not have primal knowledge?

 

[PseuTonym]

When you have plenty of evidence consistent with your claim, and little evidence against it, then if your claim has no logical problems, it is a reasonable claim.

I consider the following to be either misleading or incoherent: “When you have plenty of evidence consistent with your claim …” In my view, if something is merely consistent with your claim, then it should be referred to with a neutral term such as “data.” That some data is consistent with your claim is not – in my opinion – enough to warrant using the word “evidence” to refer to the data.

You speak of “little evidence against it.” However, I get the impression that you think there is actually no evidence against your claim. You might be right. Perhaps there is no possible scenario that could produce data that you would consider to be evidence against your claim. However, that suggests that your claim is akin to an ideology rather than a fact.

Previously I asked you a question using the word “refute”, and I now think that I was asking for too much. I would like to withdraw that question and ask you the following similar question:

Can you think of any scenario that could provide experience and observations that you would consider to be evidence against your claim?

 

[blase6]

I consider the following to be either misleading or incoherent: “When you have plenty of evidence consistent with your claim …” In my view, if something is merely consistent with your claim, then it should be referred to with a neutral term such as “data.” That some data is consistent with your claim is not – in my opinion – enough to warrant using the word “evidence” to refer to the data.

You speak of “little evidence against it.” However, I get the impression that you think there is actually no evidence against your claim. You might be right. Perhaps there is no possible scenario that could produce data that you would consider to be evidence against your claim. However, that suggests that your claim is akin to an ideology rather than a fact.

Previously I asked you a question using the word “refute”, and I now think that I was asking for too much. I would like to withdraw that question and ask you the following similar question:

Can you think of any scenario that could provide experience and observations that you would consider to be evidence against your claim?

Your suggestion is correct, in that consistent data with a theory does not confirm a theory. But it is still a suggestion of truth which becomes more reasonable, especially if there is no logical problem with the original theory.

The only scenario I could think of, would be for me to see inside another person’s mind, and determine if they really choose the motive which appears best to them. But I am incapable of doing that. So I can only go from what a person’s external actions are, to see if they are free or not. And I do not see from the actions of other people that they must be free.