...and now for something completely different: Free Will!

[paradox]

You said that your god is constrained by the laws of logic.
Therefore logic is more powerful than your god.
Therefore, if god is the most powerful thing, then logic is god.

All of this is what YOU said not me.
If you don't believe me go look post history and you'll see.

"Me first" what?

Answer to the question with logic since you claimed logic is "god"

You said that logic could provide an answer (although you didn't say what the question was).

No I didn't say it "could" provide an answer, I said that it should give you an answer since you said logic is "god"

 

[Trailblazer]

The "free" part has been conventionally used to represent that we can make decisions unconstrained by nature or nurture. That we have souls that recognize a sort of deontological morality, and that our mortal ties can conflict with that moral sense. The free part is supposedly our ability to make correct moral decisions free of factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and present life circumstances. I am not advocating for that position, merely explaining it.

What I see in your definition is reasonable, but isn't that just our will? I don't see that it needs an adjective to make it mean any more than that.

I do not believe that we can make decisions that are unconstrained by nature or nurture because we are who we are because of nature and nurture.

The free part is supposedly our ability to make correct moral decisions free of factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and present life circumstances but I do not believe we can make choices that are free of those factors, since those are the factors that play into the choices we will ultimately make.

Yes, it is just our will. We do not really need an adjective to make it mean any more than that.
I think the reason that adjective was added was to to emphasize that we have freedom to choose rather than being automatons controlled by some outside force, but that in no way implies that we are free to choose anything we might want to choose.

For example, I could not have become a physician because I do not have the kind of mind that is good at hard science, but I could have become an attorney if I had aspired to that instead of something else back when I was attending college. Another example, is that I cannot decide to take a trip to Europe tomorrow just because I might want to, as I have life circumstances that make that impossible.

 

[KWED]

I think this is called "Divine Command Theory"? Basically, if God declares something to be to be good or evil, then it is, regardless of how we feel about it. Putting it another way, God's definition of a word must be correct because he writes the dictionary.

The trouble with this, as I see it, is that it makes all morality meaningless (to us). For example, if Dr Evil creates a flood that wipes out the whole Earth, that's evil. If God does it, it's good. If tomorrow God declares that rape is good then it is (not saying he would necessarily do this, but that's where this line of thinking goes). How can we reconcile this, other than with a kind of universal version of "father knows best". And if we are faced with judging something new to us morally, what do we do? The only thing we can do it seems is to ask God, because any judgment we might make could well be wrong, no matter how reasonable it might seem.

In short, morality becomes arbitrary.

And in practical terms this approach gives us things like The Nuremberg Defence.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Of course it does, because if the response is already known with 100% certainty, it is not a "test".
Because the response is fixed, only one response is possible, so no test.

The response isn't fixed by anything but our choices. So it's still a real test. And a test like this isn't like a math test in school. It builds character. It's not for figuring out what you're made of, it's to make you into something you should be.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So you really do consider eating more than you need to be as serious an offence as murdering several children, and deserving the same punishment!
And there we have a perfect example of the dangers of blind adherence to religious dogma.

Nope, and I didn't say I did. You really aren't paying attention.

 

[Wildswanderer]

What "real joy and hope"? We have discussed this before. My life was been thoroughly enjoyable while yours has been terrible. You only cling on to the idea of some better life to come because your life has been so awful. If god can give me the life I've had, why can't he give you the same? Of what benefit is all your suffering?

Um, ok, now you apparently know everything about my life somehow?
My life has been good. I've got nothing to complain about, but yet I still complain sometimes.
If you haven't had trials in life you haven't lived much. Trials create perseverance in people. They can also create bitterness or resentment or anger. It's all up the individual. No, I haven't suffered nearly as much as some people. Do you know what those people say? That they learned the most during the hard times, not the easy times.

 

[KWED]

What actions? You have no idea what God's actions are. Nobody does.

Ah yes. I just remembered how utterly pointless any conversation with you is.

GOD. CREATED. THE. UNIVERSE.
HE. DETERMINED. HOW. IT. OPERATES.
THAT. IS. ONE. OF. HIS. KNOWN. ACTIONS!

God does not inflict suffering on people, including innocent children. Suffering simply exists as part of living in the material world, but there is also joy in the material world.

He could prevent it but choses not to. Therefore any suffering is his responsibility - even if he doesn't directly cause it.
BUT - you have previously claimed that god does cause things to happen in this world (but you will probably contradict yourself now and say he doesn't - until someone brings up a passage from Bahaullah that says different, then you will flip flop again).

I never hear atheists thank God for the joy, they only blame God for the suffering.

Whuh? It is religionists who praise god for the good but never condemn him for the bad.
Atheists merely point out the inconsistencies in arguments for god.


I'm not wasting any more time on you.

 

[Wildswanderer]

But we're talking about God, not fallible humans. I would expect God to be so loving that he would want us to be happy regardless of how and where.



What if I'm asking for God to just leave me alone, but not in some place of punishment? That option doesn't seem to be there. I do understand that Christian belief on the afterlife does include those options, but I don't see one where I get to be back in the Garden of Eden, or somewhere pleasant anyway. Nobody actually desires or asks for hell in reality. It's just that the options are, well, limited.



Now you're just preaching. If I believed that, I'd be fine with it. I'd even be fine with natural suffering and self caused suffering. Just subtract the undeserved suffering that so many experience.

By the way, I already have eternal life, do I not? Seems like I must have if God has to annihilate me.

I'll add something that may interest you. After a life long atheism, some time ago I went through a period of belief in some form of God. Long story. I decided that I would approach that in a "scientific" way. I started with only two assumptions. God exists and God is good. The first relates to something I considered to be evidence and the second I out and out assumed, because I found an evil God to be too horrible to contemplate. I then went on a voyage of discovery, asking God for guidance and testing various religious beliefs against my two assumptions. More is too much for this thread, but the end of the story is that it all faded away. Weird, huh?

Well I assume that if someone doesn't want to be with God he doesn't want the eternal life God offers. If he does, then he's wanting to have his cake and eat it too. Let's see, if I hate the person who gives out the cake and spit in his face, should I still get cake? I don't think that sounds like justice at all.
You can't find God by using science, only by faith.

 

[KWED]

Nope, and I didn't say I did. You really aren't paying attention.

That was the implication of your argument.
I suspect that when people talk in received platitudes, they often fail to understand what they are actually saying.
There are a few of you on here like that.

 

[Alien826]

You are correct in saying that the typical atheist accepts the world for what it is, but we have some atypical atheists on this forum who blame God for whatever they do not like.

That would be ridiculous. Such a person would either not be an atheist or be totally lacking in intelligence. Or, more likely, you have misunderstood something someone said. Look, I don't want to be too dismissive. If you can provide a link to one one of these "atheists", and I agree with your assessment, I'll happily apologize.

Whenever atheists talk about what God did or did not do that they do not like, they are invoking God so they are blaming God for what they do not like. There is no get out of jail free card for atheists just because they do not believe God exists. A nonexistent entity cannot be to blame for anything, that is illogical.

People do sometimes state something that they don't think is true then go on to show that it is contradictory. To use the word "God" is not to invoke him, like a magician attempting to summon a demon. Try it. You say "the Flying Spaghetti Monster" and I'll tell you that means you believe that it exists. The rest I agree with.

According to my religion the purpose for which we were created was to know and worship God.
That purpose is summarized in the following prayer.

Short Obligatory Prayer

TO BE RECITED ONCE IN TWENTY FOUR HOURS, AT NOON.

I bear witness, O my God, that Thou hast created me to know Thee and to worship Thee. I testify, at this moment, to my powerlessness and to Thy might, to my poverty and to Thy wealth.

There is none other God but Thee, the Help in Peril, the Self-Subsisting.

Bahá’u’lláh

Short Obligatory Prayer

Hmmm. That's it? All this is because God wanted cheerleaders? Why?

I never claimed that God is not the originator of the suffering, but that is not he same thing as being the cause of the suffering. God created a world in which suffering exists but after that God was out of the game.

So someone who planted a land mine is not to blame when it blows someone up?

Suffering exists in this world because it is a material world in which suffering is unavoidable. Accidents and injuries will happen and people will get physical diseases because they have physical bodies. Moreover, people will die and leave mourners who suffer the loss of their loved ones. I do not like it any more than anyone else, especially because I have had to endure untold suffering for most of my life. I do not want to share it on this forum, I try to keep it private, but if you were my personal friend like @Truthseeker you would know what I have endured.

I'm sorry to hear that, and hope that some improvement may be possible.

I agree that suffering is inevitable in this world. I know nothing about your situation, but I have a close friend who lives with constant pain. If I could cure her with one snap of my fingers I would do so. And yours too. God can. Why doesn't he snap his fingers? That's the argument, and it disturbs me to think this is all to provide a cheer leading squad. There must be something more important than that.

 

[KWED]

Um, ok, now you apparently know everything about my life somehow?
My life has been good. I've got nothing to complain about, but yet I still complain sometimes.
If you haven't had trials in life you haven't lived much. Trials create perseverance in people. They can also create bitterness or resentment or anger. It's all up the individual. No, I haven't suffered nearly as much as some people. Do you know what those people say? That they learned the most during the hard times, not the easy times.

Sorry, mixing you up with @Trailblazer there. You do come across as quite similar.

 

[ppp]

I do not believe that we can make decisions that are unconstrained by nature or nurture because we are who we are because of nature and nurture.

The free part is supposedly our ability to make correct moral decisions free of factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and present life circumstances but I do not believe we can make choices that are free of those factors, since those are the factors that play into the choices we will ultimately make.

I agree.

Yes, it is just our will. We do not really need an adjective to make it mean any more than that.
I think the reason that adjective was added was to to emphasize that we have freedom to choose rather than being automatons controlled by some outside force, but that in no way implies that we are free to choose anything we might want to choose.

I would agree. Or it might be an artifact of another language. This has been a matter of debate since Greek antiquity (at the least). And probably well before then. Who knows how the concept has changed hopping thru the last three thousand years of language and culture. All humans have free will may be the product of a 3000 year old game of telephone that started with the sentence, "Athens Fine Tailoring --Euripides Eumenides, Proprietor "

For example, I could not have become a physician because I do not have the kind of mind that is good at hard science, but I could have become an attorney if I had aspired to that instead of something else back when I was attending college. Another example, is that I cannot decide to take a trip to Europe tomorrow just because I might want to, as I have life circumstances that make that impossible.

I think the only important concept of free will is the difference between walking out of a room, and being dragged out of a room.

Holy canoli! We just agreed without reservation!
Somewhere someone is about to get by a falling anvil.

 

[ppp]

The response isn't fixed by anything but our choices.

and our choices are determined by our experiences and our individual natures.

 

[Alien826]

Well I assume that if someone doesn't want to be with God he doesn't want the eternal life God offers. If he does, then he's wanting to have his cake and eat it too. Let's see, if I hate the person who gives out the cake and spit in his face, should I still get cake? I don't think that sounds like justice at all.

If that was all there was to it, I'd agree. How would you feel though if someone offered you cake, then when you politely refused, put you in jail? No you shouldn't get the cake, but that's not all that's at stake. It's more than just cake or no cake. And, as I said before, God doesn't give us eternal life, just a choice between a nice life and a horrible one. No other options.

You can't find God by using science, only by faith.

Why not? Do you think you have no evidence at all for God, but just believe it anyway? I bet that's not true. That evidence you have is science, of a sort. That's another grumble I have. Why is it more praiseworthy to believe something without evidence rather than to use our intelligence? I can see why churches prefer it, the gullible are more easily separated from their money. But God supposedly gave us intelligent minds, why doesn't he want us to use them?

 

[Trailblazer]

No, I haven't suffered nearly as much as some people. Do you know what those people say? That they learned the most during the hard times, not the easy times.

Yes, that is what I say, later, after the dust settles, but increasingly I even say it while I am in the test.
I am in the biggest test of my life right now, and without God I would never make it through.
I still wonder how I will make it through but somehow I will, trusting in God.

 

[Trailblazer]

GOD. CREATED. THE. UNIVERSE.
HE. DETERMINED. HOW. IT. OPERATES.
THAT. IS. ONE. OF. HIS. KNOWN. ACTIONS!

I never denied that God created the universe, I only denied that God did anything AFTER that, except for sending Messengers. I have always said God did that.

He could prevent it but choses not to. Therefore any suffering is his responsibility - even if he doesn't directly cause it.

That is logically incoherent. The only suffering that could be considered God's responsibility is the suffering that is not freely chosen by humans. That would be our fate, for which God is responsible, and I covered this on another thread:

Questions that believers cannot answer

God does not prevent all suffering? Why should God prevent suffering, just because you and atheists like you don't like suffering? That is Not a reason for God to prevent suffering but it is the only reason you have.

BUT - you have previously claimed that god does cause things to happen in this world (but you will probably contradict yourself now and say he doesn't - until someone brings up a passage from Bahaullah that says different, then you will flip flop again).

What did I say God causes to happen? God determines what some of our fate will be, that which we do not freely choose (see above).

Whuh? It is religionists who praise god for the good but never condemn him for the bad.
Atheists merely point out the inconsistencies in arguments for god.

I am not a religionist who praises God for all the good and never looks at the bad.
I look at BOTH the good and the bad. As I said in my thread:

It would be unfair to blame man for things that are beyond his control so who is responsible for all the suffering in the world that is not caused by man? Logically speaking, if God is responsible for 'everything' then God is responsible for 'both' the good and bad things that happen to us.
Questions that believers cannot answer

Some believers merely point out the inconsistencies in atheist arguments about God.
You are one of the atheists who blames God for the bad but never gives God any credit for the good, and that is illogical, since if God is responsible for everything, God is responsible for BOTH the good and the bad.

I'm not wasting any more time on you.

Good.

 

[Trailblazer]

Sorry, mixing you up with @Trailblazer there. You do come across as quite similar.

Since you mentioned me....

KWED said: ↑
What "real joy and hope"? We have discussed this before. My life was been thoroughly enjoyable while yours has been terrible. You only cling on to the idea of some better life to come because your life has been so awful. If god can give me the life I've had, why can't he give you the same? Of what benefit is all your suffering?

God could have spared me the suffering, but then I would not have grown spiritually and become stronger, and I would not have come to the final conclusion that in the suffering, God is the only one who can help me through the suffering. THOSE are the benefits that have accrued to me.

I am going through the worst life event a person can endure but I have faith that God will see me through and so far that faith has not en in vain, because God has sent people to help me get through it, every time I need them. There is light at the end of this dark tunnel I am in, and I can already see it shining. I may well end up much better off than I was before this tragedy... stay tuned.

Do you think you are better off than me because your life has been thoroughly enjoyable? What is so great about enjoying this life? This earthly life will all come to an end eventually and what will you be left with?

“The world is but a show, vain and empty, a mere nothing, bearing the semblance of reality. Set not your affections upon it. Break not the bond that uniteth you with your Creator, and be not of those that have erred and strayed from His ways. Verily I say, the world is like the vapor in a desert, which the thirsty dreameth to be water and striveth after it with all his might, until when he cometh unto it, he findeth it to be mere illusion.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 328-329

That goes along with what Jesus said in John 12:24-26 and Matthew 16:23-26 and those are some of my favorite verses.

 

[Sheldon]

Jesus equated lust with cheating on your wife and hate with murder.

That's pretty facile and weak reasoning, for someone claimed to be an omniscient deity. Were it true it would be another reason, if any beyond the complete dearth of objective evidence, to disbelieve any claims that he was anything but human. I mean if someone can't differentiate between pernicious behaviours like cheating on a partner, and murder, and ostensibly innocuous behaviours that are hard wired by evolution like lust and hate, then it would be absurd to suggest such a person was wise, let alone omniscient.

 

[Sheldon]

who is to say that God doesn't strike down a lot of killers?

Who is to say any deity does?

You are assuming a whole bunch of things here.

Now that's a lifetime supply of irony right there, just count the unevidenced assumptions you have made in that post.

Ever think that maybe it saved the child a lifetime of suffering to die young?

Wow! Given your ludicrous opposition to terminating an insentient blastocyst, you might want to read that sentence through until it sinks in what you just claimed.

We see through a glass darkly, God sees everything,

I don't believe you, since you are just making yet another unevidenced assumption, ironic though.

according to some theologians

Who cares, they can't demonstrate any objective evidence either.

he chose the best option in every situation given all the factors.

So "the best option" an omnipotent omniscient and omnibenevolent deity can choose, is to sit idly by and allow children to be raped? An evolved ape can do better than that.

 

[Trailblazer]

That would be ridiculous. Such a person would either not be an atheist or be totally lacking in intelligence. Or, more likely, you have misunderstood something someone said. Look, I don't want to be too dismissive. If you can provide a link to one one of these "atheists", and I agree with your assessment, I'll happily apologize.

Those atheists abound on this forum. Like I said, whenever an atheist invokes God and states what God does or does not do, they are referring to God. There is no get out of jail free card.

People do sometimes state something that they don't think is true then go on to show that it is contradictory. To use the word "God" is not to invoke him, like a magician attempting to summon a demon. Try it. You say "the Flying Spaghetti Monster" and I'll tell you that means you believe that it exists. The rest I agree with.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. Atheists want a free pass, they want to be able to say any damn thing about God and then they say no God exists. Tat is logically incoherent because a nonexistent entity cannot be responsible for anything.

Hmmm. That's it? All this is because God wanted cheerleaders? Why?

No, that is not the reason. God needs no cheerleaders because God has no needs at all.
Only humans and other animals have needs.

So someone who planted a land mine is not to blame when it blows someone up?

The person who sets it of is to blame.

I'm sorry to hear that, and hope that some improvement may be possible.

Thanks. My life has been one tragedy after another, and by all rights I should have lost my faith in God long, long ago, but I have sustained my faith with the help of friends like my bff @Truthseeker.

However, some improvement might be on the way.

I agree that suffering is inevitable in this world. I know nothing about your situation, but I have a close friend who lives with constant pain. If I could cure her with one snap of my fingers I would do so. And yours too. God can. Why doesn't he snap his fingers? That's the argument, and it disturbs me to think this is all to provide a cheer leading squad. There must be something more important than that.

The argument that atheists make -- that God can eliminate suffering so God should eliminate suffering -- is logically incoherent.

This is what atheists do not understand. Atheists think omnipotent means that God can do anything, which really means God should be doing everything they expect Him to do. They do not understand what omnipotence really means. It means that God can do anything but God only does what God chooses to do.

“Say: O people! Let not this life and its deceits deceive you, for the world and all that is therein is held firmly in the grasp of His Will. He bestoweth His favor on whom He willeth, and from whom He willeth He taketh it away. He doth whatsoever He chooseth.” Gleanings, p. 209

Why should an omnipotent/omniscient God do what humans expect Him to do? How could any human know more than God regarding what is best for humans?