What was the point in creating the universe?

[Sir Doom]

I'm not removing just ANY options, I'm removing those that have detrimental consequences to other people or yourselves, like killing, stealing, etc. IOW, they have moral values. That's why I wrote: "the ability to transgress laws, rules, prohibitions, etc." Choosing between eating a hamburger or a pizza does not fall into that category. But killing you next-door neighbor would. If I were to build a robot with programs that wouldn't allow it to trangress any (human) laws, would you consider it to have free will?

You are misunderstanding.

You remove sin. This removes free will by your statement.

Lets say you don't remove sin, but remove something innocuous like wearing red shirts. Does this ALSO remove free will?

See my post to Odion # 36.

I'll respond directly to that, then.

If God is all-knowing, then he knows that those in heaven will have no ability to sin - hence they are no different than robots - or they have this ability, in which case, they will all sin. the title of the OP follows logically: why a perfect entity would indulge into an exercise of futility.

Lets just pretend that you've proven these are the only possibilities for a second. Now why does that make it an exercise in futility? What is it that you suppose God is attempting to accomplish that is now rendered futile?

 

[Sir Doom]

It's the wrong analogy.

Assume that you have the ability to sin but you choose not.
So every moment you will exist in heaven, be it every second, every minute, every hour, every day - the unit of time is irrelevant for our calculation- you will be faced with the choice of sinning or not sinning. This is like flipping a coin: heads, you sin; tails, you don't sin. So what's the probability for not sinning after one moment of time: answer 1/2.
After two moments of time: (1/2) * (1/2) = (1/2)^2 = 1/4.
After 3 moments of time: (1/2)*(1/2)*(1/2) = (1/2) ^3= 1/8
.
.
After an infinite moments of time: (1/2)*(1/2)*(1/2).... = (1/2)^∞ = 0

That would be great if there were only 2 choices. Except there isn't. There are infinite actions to perform which do not count as sin. Therefore infinite time may be filled with infinite non-sin actions.

For you to never sin, it would be like flipping tails every single moment of time, and the probability for that to happen is ZERO.

So you are saying that with free will, we will eventually have no choice but to choose to sin? You don't seem to grasp the concept of choice. It isn't random. A coin does not decide to land on heads or tails. It just lands however it lands. If it COULD choose, it would be perfectly reasonable to expect a coin that prefers to land on heads to do so EVERY SINGLE TIME.

You either can't sin, in which case you are no different than a robot, or you can sin and in time, the probability is that you will.

Again, all you've removed is the choice to sin. A billion times a billion other options still remain. This is nothing like a robot that has no choice whatsoever. And again, probability does not determine what choices a human makes. By the same broken logic I could say that every human that goes to heaven will eventually get plastic surgery to look identical to me. When in reality that isn't likely to happen at all for ANYONE let alone EVERYONE.

 

[zaybu]

You are misunderstanding.

You remove sin. This removes free will by your statement.

Lets say you don't remove sin, but remove something innocuous like wearing red shirts. Does this ALSO remove free will?

Not being able to wear red, or hear sound, or to fly does not take away your free will. So to your question: No, as long as you can transgress moral laws, you have free will.

Lets just pretend that you've proven these are the only possibilities for a second. Now why does that make it an exercise in futility? What is it that you suppose God is attempting to accomplish that is now rendered futile?

It's futile as heaven will be populated with either robots ( if sin is not allowed) or will be empty ( if sin is allowed and then everyone banned). Now assuming that God knows it all, then why create the universe? He might as well create those robots in the first and skip altogether the creation of this universe.

That would be great if there were only 2 choices. Except there isn't. There are infinite actions to perform which do not count as sin. Therefore infinite time may be filled with infinite non-sin actions.

We can put all deeds into two distinct categories: sins and non-sins. Therefore, every moment you exist in heaven, you are then confront with those two choices.

So you are saying that with free will, we will eventually have no choice but to choose to sin?

Yes, that's exactly the story of Adam and Eve. Given they had a choice to sin or not to sin, it was just a question of time before they would sin.

A coin does not decide to land on heads or tails. It just lands however it lands. If it COULD choose, it would be perfectly reasonable to expect a coin that prefers to land on heads to do so EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Irrelevant, it does not invalid my calculation.

By the same broken logic I could say that every human that goes to heaven will eventually get plastic surgery to look identical to me. When in reality that isn't likely to happen at all for ANYONE let alone EVERYONE.

In that particular scenario, provision would have to exist for one to make that choice, that is, there are hospitals and plastic surgeons. Suppose that heaven is a magical place, and anything can happen, then yes, given an infinite amount of times, then everything will happen, including your scenario.

 

[Sir Doom]

Not being able to wear red, or hear sound, or to fly does not take away your free will. So to your question: No, as long as you can transgress moral laws, you have free will.

As I suspected. You define 'free will' as 'can sin' and nothing else. No other choices have any bearing on 'free will'.

So, if I intend to steal a loaf of bread, I am intending to sin and this is an exercise of free will. But during the actual theft, if I stop to consider whether I should steal rye bread or white bread this has nothing at all to do with free will? Or does it speak to free will because it relates to the sin I'm committing?

It's futile as heaven will be populated with either robots ( if sin is not allowed) or will be empty ( if sin is allowed and then everyone banned). Now assuming that God knows it all, then why create the universe? He might as well create those robots in the first and skip altogether the creation of this universe.

Ummm, what? First of all, you didn't answer my questions. Secondly, why do you think 'fast-tracking' robot creation is non-futile and doing it 'the slow way' is futile?

We can put all deeds into two distinct categories: sins and non-sins. Therefore, every moment you exist in heaven, you are then confront with those two choices.

Wow, really? So, when I look at my drawer full of shirts I am really choosing whether or not to murder my family. Never quite saw it that way, myself. I think I'll call my mother and tell her the good news. She isn't going to be murdered. I've selected the black shirt instead. Whew!

Yes, that's exactly the story of Adam and Eve. Given they had a choice to sin or not to sin, it was just a question of time before they would sin.

M'kay, I can see that clever phrasing is lost on you so I'll go ahead and spell it out for you:

You are on one hand saying that free will itself is DEFINED by the ability to CHOOSE to sin and then you are saying that sinning is inevitable. That means you DON'T HAVE A CHOICE ABOUT IT. That is a blatant contradiction.

Irrelevant, it does not invalid my calculation.

Actually it does completely shred your calculation to bits, but that isn't really important since the flipping of a coin is in no way, shape, or form a suitable parallel to sin/not-sin since it is not a free-will-determining choice as you've arbitrarily decided. In other words, if you wish to maintain that sin is the only measure of free will, then you CANNOT then compare it to something that has no bearing on free will and insist that it works the same way.

In that particular scenario, provision would have to exist for one to make that choice, that is, there are hospitals and plastic surgeons. Suppose that heaven is a magical place, and anything can happen, then yes, given an infinite amount of times, then everything will happen, including your scenario.

So they would also eventually get plastic surgery to look like everyone else as well. And then they'd all get tattoos of each other. And then they'd all paint watercolors of each other. And then they'd all make pop-sickle-stick murals of the South China Sea. And then they'd all make the largest ball of rubber bands in existence... oh wait they can't ALL do that... it would just keep... getting... infinitely... bigger.... OH NO THEY HAVE NO TIME FOR SIN LEFT THEY ARE TOO BUSY 1-UPPING EACH OTHER'S RUBBER BAND BALLS FOR ETERNITY!!!!!

:dust hands:

[youtube]X8PyTo6NyXA[/youtube]
All Too Easy - YouTube

 

[Breathe]

Wow, really? So, when I look at my drawer full of shirts I am really choosing whether or not to murder my family. Never quite saw it that way, myself. I think I'll call my mother and tell her the good news. She isn't going to be murdered. I've selected the black shirt instead. Whew!

Don't forget that eventually you might just select that instead.

 

[Sir Doom]

Don't forget that eventually you might just select that instead.

Haha! No, I have no choice! Eventually I WILL select that!

 

[Breathe]

Haha! No, I have no choice! Eventually I WILL select that!

Indeed, the logic is inescapable[!]

The idea that eventually one will eventually sin regardless looks to me like not accepting free will anyway...

 

[Sir Doom]

Indeed, the logic is inescapable[!]

The idea that eventually one will eventually sin regardless looks to me like not accepting free will anyway...

Exactly.

 

[zaybu]

As I suspected. You define 'free will' as 'can sin' and nothing else. No other choices have any bearing on 'free will'.

So, if I intend to steal a loaf of bread, I am intending to sin and this is an exercise of free will. But during the actual theft, if I stop to consider whether I should steal rye bread or white bread this has nothing at all to do with free will? Or does it speak to free will because it relates to the sin I'm committing?

I did say that free will had to do with making choices. So basically, you're asking me to repeat myself. But what kind of free will would you have if you're never given the choice to transgress laws, knowing there are punitive consequences for that?

why do you think 'fast-tracking' robot creation is non-futile and doing it 'the slow way' is futile?

What's the point for God in creating people who have to earn their ticket to paradise when God already knows who will qualify? Is God a sadist?

You are on one hand saying that free will itself is DEFINED by the ability to CHOOSE to sin and then you are saying that sinning is inevitable. That means you DON'T HAVE A CHOICE ABOUT IT. That is a blatant contradiction.

The jury is still out there on the issue of free will versus determinism.

So they would also eventually get plastic surgery to look like everyone else as well. And then they'd all get tattoos of each other. And then they'd all paint watercolors of each other. And then they'd all make pop-sickle-stick murals of the South China Sea. And then they'd all make the largest ball of rubber bands in existence... oh wait they can't ALL do that... it would just keep... getting... infinitely... bigger.... OH NO THEY HAVE NO TIME FOR SIN LEFT THEY ARE TOO BUSY 1-UPPING EACH OTHER'S RUBBER BAND BALLS FOR ETERNITY!!!!!

Sorry, but you don't understand the nature of infinity. Here's an example. Suppose you have a hotel with an infinite number of rooms, all occupied. You show up, asking for a vacant room. All I need to do is shout to everyone: move one room to the right, and presto, there is a vacant room for you. That the people would be doing all sorts of thing and "OH NO THEY HAVE NO TIME FOR SIN LEFT ", well I'll let you figure that one out.

 

[Sir Doom]

I did say that free will had to do with making choices. So basically, you're asking me to repeat myself. But what kind of free will would you have if you're never given the choice to transgress laws, knowing there are punitive consequences for that?

Doesn't answer my question.

I'll answer yours though. The same kind we always had. Nothing changes. Except that sin isn't a choice anymore. Just like drop-kicking a puppy to Mars is not an option I have now. It's just a choice I can't make. If there is no sin in Heaven... that's just one set of choices you can't make. You still have a ton of other things and maybe you can drop-kick puppies to Mars. And maybe they love it.

What's the point for God in creating people who have to earn their ticket to paradise when God already knows who will qualify? Is God a sadist?

This doesn't answer my question at all, once again. But to be honest, you should have just wrote this for your OP. It would have been a clone of roughly half-a-billion metric butt-loads of threads already created, but you know... at least it would match the title and your final question would have made sense.

Anyway, sure. Sadism would explain that. There could be other reasons, though. Can you imagine any? Or is sadism the first and last thing you can think of to cause that scenario?

The jury is still out there on the issue of free will versus determinism.

What a cop-out. If you don't believe in free will, that's fine. But in order to address the OP of this thread one must do so under the assumption that free will exists. It is prudent to suspend disbelief in that case. Otherwise the entire premise is rendered nonsensical. So, assume free will exists as you've been doing this entire time. Now try and respond again.

Sorry, but you don't understand the nature of infinity. Here's an example. Suppose you have a hotel with an infinite number of rooms, all occupied. You show up, asking for a vacant room. All I need to do is shout to everyone: move one room to the right, and presto, there is a vacant room for you.

I'm pretty sure I have come no closer to understanding the nature of infinity after your example. Clever phrasing for the win.

That the people would be doing all sorts of thing and "OH NO THEY HAVE NO TIME FOR SIN LEFT ", well I'll let you figure that one out.

Yeah, you completely missed what I was saying. As long as a person can continue to choose 'Make a larger rubber band ball' that is an alternate choice to 'sinning' therefore there are infinite choices to make ASIDE from sinning and it becomes equally likely that someone will NEVER sin than that they will eventually sin. And it only takes ONE person to defeat your argument.

 

[Ouroboros]

So the questions are:

1. Once in Heaven, can you sin? If not, you have no free will.

Since Satan was in Heaven, and according to Job, he also was betting with (or against) God, so I assume the Bible supports the idea you have free will and can choose to sin in Heaven.

2. If yes, can you be banned from Heaven for having sin? If yes, then salvation is not eternal and chances are, one by one, over an eternity, we will all be banned.

LOL! Yes. Very true. The statistics is against us.

3. If no, then God is in for a very rough ride as everyone can curse him with impunity.

Since God is all-knowing, and surely knows the answers to 1,2,3, then what was the point in creating the universe?

Boredom.

 

[Ouroboros]

Or he just enjoys witnessing nonsensical reasoning as to whether or not his creation is reasonable...

Those who show reasonable minds and choose to look at reality and nature for the answers to the "creation"--instead of old dusty books--will go to heaven.

Maybe heaven will be filled with atheists and all religious people are... well... somewhere else.

 

[Ouroboros]

Again, I don't believe in sin (nor do I believe in Hell), but even if I did: yes, I do believe it could be possible to go all eternity without 'slipping up'; you're going about this from a mortal, human standpoint, where this is generally not seen to be the case in Heaven.

It wouldn't be human nature. We tend to push limits and test boundaries. That's part of who we are and how we work. If we don't, we're nothing but robots.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Perhaps the issue here is applying to heaven certain rules or beliefs found here on earth in our society. Would heaven necessarily experience time, for example? Is "sin"worked out in a different manner? Is "sin" an entirely different concept or construct, perhaps?

I think you're going to run into trouble applying physical existence to what seems to me, at least, a non-physical existence

 

[zaybu]

Doesn't answer my question.

I'll answer yours though. The same kind we always had. Nothing changes. Except that sin isn't a choice anymore. Just like drop-kicking a puppy to Mars is not an option I have now. It's just a choice I can't make. If there is no sin in Heaven... that's just one set of choices you can't make. You still have a ton of other things and maybe you can drop-kick puppies to Mars. And maybe they love it.

But that's not pertinent to the OP. Heaven is for those who do good as oppose to those who do evil. If you subtract moral choices from free will, which you could as you seem to insist, and only demand that free will concern neutral moral deeds, then the whole question of going to heaven is pointless. If we assume heaven exists, we must also assume that moral deeds exist, and free will agent like humans have that choice.

This doesn't answer my question at all, once again. But to be honest, you should have just wrote this for your OP. It would have been a clone of roughly half-a-billion metric butt-loads of threads already created, but you know... at least it would match the title and your final question would have made sense.

It is implied in the OP. According to you everything has to be spelled out? How much spoon-feeding do you need?

What a cop-out. If you don't believe in free will, that's fine. But in order to address the OP of this thread one must do so under the assumption that free will exists. It is prudent to suspend disbelief in that case. Otherwise the entire premise is rendered nonsensical. So, assume free will exists as you've been doing this entire time. Now try and respond again.

It's not a cop-out. Determinism versus free will is a debate that's been going on for centuries, and there are great thinkers on both sides of the fence. But that's a debate for another thread. In this thread, we are assuming that humans have free will, even if it might lead to a contradiction. Can you play along?

Yeah, you completely missed what I was saying. As long as a person can continue to choose 'Make a larger rubber band ball' that is an alternate choice to 'sinning' therefore there are infinite choices to make ASIDE from sinning and it becomes equally likely that someone will NEVER sin than that they will eventually sin. And it only takes ONE person to defeat your argument

.

What you missed is that you can't exhaust infinity. You can spend an infinity amount of time doing your nails, but you will still have an infinite amount time to sin. Perhaps that notion is way over your head.

 

[zaybu]

Perhaps the issue here is applying to heaven certain rules or beliefs found here on earth in our society. Would heaven necessarily experience time, for example? Is "sin"worked out in a different manner? Is "sin" an entirely different concept or construct, perhaps?

I think you're going to run into trouble applying physical existence to what seems to me, at least, a non-physical existence

Fair enough. But existing implies that time also exists. How could you exist without time? It also implies you have consciousness, otherwise, you don't exist after death, and atheists have won.

Now, if sin is worked out differently, in the sense that you are so exhalted that you won't have any urge to sin, how is that different from a person on drugs or a robot programmed to do no evil?

 

[methylatedghosts]

Fair enough. But existing implies that time also exists. How could you exist without time? It also implies you have consciousness, otherwise, you don't exist after death, and atheists have won.

Now, if sin is worked out differently, in the sense that you are so exhalted that you won't have any urge to sin, how is that different from a person on drugs or a robot programmed to do no evil?

Does it? Time is a necessary part of existence in a physical reality that exists of time and space. How could you know that time is necessary for another form of existence, in a reality that may not be couched in space and time - i.e. non-physical?

 

[zaybu]

Does it? Time is a necessary part of existence in a physical reality that exists of time and space. How could you know that time is necessary for another form of existence, in a reality that may not be couched in space and time - i.e. non-physical?

Well then, the burden falls on your shoulders to define this non-physical thing, how it exists, what are its properties and whether or not it can interact with the physical, and if these interactions can be detected in our physical world.

Good luck.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Well then, the burden falls on your shoulders to define this non-physical thing, how it exists, what are its properties and whether or not it can interact with the physical, and if these interactions can be detected in our physical world.

Good luck.

Come on, now. How am I supposed to describe to myself, let alone to you, a non-physical existence, using tools that describe physical existence? And that's kind of what I'm saying - how can anyone describe something like heaven, and claim to be able know what that is like without having first experienced it. Surely most would accept to do that, one would first have to die and then somehow communicate that information (which would have to be some method involving magic perhaps) to creatures in a physical reality. And failing the ability to describe something of a non-physical nature, how can it possibly be argued? By that, I don't mean to say I'm right, but simply that to argue against something that you can, by such a definition, know very little, if anything at all, about is rather difficult.

 

[Breathe]

It wouldn't be human nature. We tend to push limits and test boundaries. That's part of who we are and how we work. If we don't, we're nothing but robots.

This doesn't have to lead to 'sin', though.