|
Post by Aj_June on Mar 13, 2017 14:44:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Mar 13, 2017 14:53:19 GMT
In your view, can we choose anything at all then, or is that an illusion? Is our fate predetermined (or at least at the whim of random indeterminacy in a quantum universe)? I don't believe that free will is possible in the sense that it is traditionally understood. I think that either our choices are completely predetermined. I recently read an article about 'unexpected' decisions possibly being linked to quantum uncertainty, but even that wouldn't really be 'free' will, it would just be random will. Because we wouldn't be in control of the indeterminacy; the indeterminacy would be in control of us. Either way, I think that there is no doubt that free choice is an illusion. It's incoherent. If there's no free will, then can there be culpability? Should we dispense with court trials because the defendant can always plea "well, I didn't really have any choice in the matter"? This seems to be sliding into solipsist territory.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 13, 2017 15:16:37 GMT
There is NO condition to omnipotence that requires doing anything with it.
I would say it's a contradiction to suggest that an omnipotent person is required to do anything and thus is illogical to suggest as a condition.
There's nothing about God's interactions with us that is mysterious so I would never have reason to say that.
Of course evil exists. Anything that is contradiction to God's wishes would be a sign of both evil existing and that free will is evident.
This reasoning eliminates choice. It lowers existence to only being a mere expression of the creator which doesn't exist anywhere unless you write comic books. Otherwise, life s more than someone controlling you like a doll.
We have the power to change any number of things and we choose not to do it and yet God is required to? That makes no sense...Except that the writer of this quote is putting a condition that not only doesn't exist but couldn't exist based on other assumptions made.
It's a far more ridiculous premise because a man is dictating what a God should do...& to be clear, no one even knows which god he's talking about since no one actually knows who said it although it had to be well before Christianity.
The conclusion aren't true of course since if God exists and evil exists then naturally there's an immediate conflict which is it's biggest flaw.
If all we are arguing is the structure then maybe it is logical (I'll let philosophers argue that) but then it's not important because it's a perfect Venn Diagram of an incorrect assumption.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Mar 13, 2017 15:50:35 GMT
Yeah, I'm sure you are, because you firmly believe that there is life after death and that you will go to heaven for eternal bliss.
Some of us live in the real world, and understand that this is the only life we will ever have, there is no paradise on the other side, and we had better make this world as good as we can, for everyone.
Don't presume to tell me what I believe. You don't know me that well. I'm happy because I'm alive. Like most normal people of have no desire to die at all. I think the bigger issue is your admission of not being happy. Seriously?
Don't presume to pronounce me unhappy. You don't know me that well.
I, too, am happy because I am alive. I am a cancer survivor; advances in medical science cured me of what killed many of my relatives before me.
I think the bigger issue is that you can be happy all the time when other human beings are in pain or danger, and you make no effort to alleviate that situation. I spend a large part of my time helping others that are not as fortunate as I am. What do you do for others?
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Mar 13, 2017 16:56:54 GMT
There is NO condition to omnipotence that requires doing anything with it.
I would say it's a contradiction to suggest that an omnipotent person is required to do anything and thus is illogical to suggest as a condition. So okay, either your God knows hes got the juice but doesn't exercise it so he's a lazy deity. Or he doesn't know he's got the juice therefore, he's a fool who doesn't even know himself. The theological, not the atheistic, definition of omnipotence is that God is able to do all that is logically possible. This is an updated version of: God is able to do all. The updated version is alethic logic which answers the question of a too heavy rock for God to lift. These definitions were not made by atheists, they were made by theists and if so then why even mention anything about ability if not to use said ability. It sorta like bragging about it, don't you think?(God's got the juice but no show or tell!) There's nothing about God's interactions with us that is mysterious so I would never have reason to say that.
Of course evil exists. Anything that is contradiction to God's wishes would be a sign of both evil existing and that free will is evident. Of course it's not contradictory because free-will was posited to address the problem of evil, conveniently so (again by theists not atheists). Did God have the option not to give free-will therefore no evil? If God didn't have this option then evil is something that God has no control over himself so he has no real ethical recourse. If God did have this option then he chose evil to be part of his game plan again, he has no real ethical recourse. This reasoning eliminates choice. It lowers existence to only being a mere expression of the creator which doesn't exist anywhere unless you write comic books. Otherwise, life s more than someone controlling you like a doll.
We have the power to change any number of things and we choose not to do it and yet God is required to? That makes no sense...Except that the writer of this quote is putting a condition that not only doesn't exist but couldn't exist based on other assumptions made.
I honestly haven't got a clue what you're on about here! If not able and not willing then just ordinary like everyone else, it's a simple as. It's a far more ridiculous premise because a man is dictating what a God should do...& to be clear, no one even knows which god he's talking about since no one actually knows who said it although it had to be well before Christianity.
The conclusion aren't true of course since if God exists and evil exists then naturally there's an immediate conflict which is it's biggest flaw.
If all we are arguing is the structure then maybe it is logical (I'll let philosophers argue that) but then it's not important because it's a perfect Venn Diagram of an incorrect assumption.
Again, meaningless to what I was saying, consider this: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. You can see from the argument that it is valid in that the conclusion follows from the premises before any questions are asked whether if all men are really mortal or if Socrates actually existed. We see that they are not too ridiculous or unreasonable. Do you not get what I'm saying in that, regardless of the truth of the Epicurean argument, the argument is still logical in it's validity? You have not shown this to be otherwise. All you have done is been vague about the word, omnipotence, and used the get-out-jail-free-will card with nary an explanation.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 13, 2017 17:06:05 GMT
Don't presume to tell me what I believe. You don't know me that well. I'm happy because I'm alive. Like most normal people of have no desire to die at all. I think the bigger issue is your admission of not being happy. Seriously?
Don't presume to pronounce me unhappy. You don't know me that well.
I, too, am happy because I am alive. I am a cancer survivor; advances in medical science cured me of what killed many of my relatives before me.I am a cancer survivor; advances in medical science cured me of what killed many of my relatives before me.
I think the bigger issue is that you can be happy all the time when other human beings are in pain or danger, and you make no effort to alleviate that situation. I think the bigger issue is that you can be happy all the time when other human beings are in pain or danger, and you make no effort to alleviate that situation. I spend a large part of my time helping others that are not as fortunate as I am. What do you do for others?
You've repeatedly stated that I am wrong about most people being happy.
I assumed you knew that from personal experience. If you had told me you were an exception to the rule, then I wouldn't have assumed anything so my apologies.
I think the bigger issue is that you can be happy all the time when other human beings are in pain or danger, and you make no effort to alleviate that situation. This never came up in the conversation did it?
Yep, medical science is great and congratulation on being cured
Are you wanting to prepare volunteer notes?
I think arguments that are based primarily on bragging about oneself are flawed, but it's what you're asking...
In addition to money & other resources given to charity which is pretty easy, I spent years as a prison volunteer (Tough job.), helped with literacy programs for people with learning disabilities, am part of a book donation program that sends books to poor countries across the world but primarily in Africa, & usually sign up for whatever community outreach programs my employers offer.
None of that matters in comparison to the more important aspects of my life which is friends and family.
I ensure that the group of people I know and love or share various connections with are never hungry, homeless, penniless to begin with. It's kind of sad that people such as yourself don't understand how many more lives can be saved just by making sure you go about you business of being a good citizen in the country you reside in. I bring this out specifically because I imagine it will be the thing that brings chastisement despite it be by far the easiest solution to what ails people regardless of their beliefs.
This is way off the rails of the initial discussion though, so to wrap it back around...Most people on this planet are OK. Maybe they are happy based on the help you give.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 13, 2017 17:18:36 GMT
There is NO condition to omnipotence that requires doing anything with it.
I would say it's a contradiction to suggest that an omnipotent person is required to do anything and thus is illogical to suggest as a condition. So okay, either your God knows hes got the juice but doesn't exercise it so he's a lazy deity. Or he doesn't know he's got the juice therefore, he's a fool who doesn't even know himself. The theological, not the atheistic, definition of omnipotence is that God is able to do all that is logically possible. This is an updated version of: God is able to do all. The updated version is alethic logic which answers the question of a too heavy rock for God to lift. These definitions were not made by atheists, they were made by theists and if so then why even mention anything about ability if not to use said ability. It sorta like bragging about it, don't you think?(God's got the juice but no show or tell!) Again, this is simply a presumption you give for a condition that doesn't exist. God can be all powerful and use that power to ensure choice even if that choice is for the individual to do evil. I think the biggest problem is that most people simply can't understand what it means to have even some power plus are used to be forced to do things against their will that it is hard for them to understand that allowing people to do things against your will when you have the power to stop it is a pretty good indicator of power. However, the problem becomes even bigger because people not only think that God should be allowed to allow us to be evil, but he should stop the evil that we choose to do, PLUS we want to define evil instead of following God's definition. It's a scam meant to box God into a bunch of silly requirements he was never obligated to follow in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 13, 2017 17:32:20 GMT
Again God cannot be all powerful while being required to use his power in a particular way. That statement eliminates any logic from the original statement.
In addition, the problem is the atheist pretends that the only tissue is evil existing which is silly. They look at it weird because, again, they simply must put a condition on something that doesn't need it. It's ridiculously binary as if God can't love the good and hate the bad and allow choice which is a completely normal function of life for humans. Yet for some reason, the person who is wiser and more powerful cannot live by those guidelines he gave us.
In order for God to be loving, he would need to allow choice. Choice does not mandate evil which is why making evil the primary condition goofy.
Rather there is simply an option away from the best choice by God's standards. God being all powerful has nothing to do with our choices since he is not in anyway obligated to assist us in those choices. The love was shown simply in allowing the choice which is always a far more compassionate view of life than automating everything. In human terms, it's the difference between having a pet dog and a pet laptop.
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Mar 13, 2017 17:40:21 GMT
So okay, either your God knows hes got the juice but doesn't exercise it so he's a lazy deity. Or he doesn't know he's got the juice therefore, he's a fool who doesn't even know himself. The theological, not the atheistic, definition of omnipotence is that God is able to do all that is logically possible. This is an updated version of: God is able to do all. The updated version is alethic logic which answers the question of a too heavy rock for God to lift. These definitions were not made by atheists, they were made by theists and if so then why even mention anything about ability if not to use said ability. It sorta like bragging about it, don't you think?(God's got the juice but no show or tell!) Again, this is simply a presumption you give for a condition that doesn't exist. God can be all powerful and use that power to ensure choice even if that choice is for the individual to do evil. I think the biggest problem is that most people simply can't understand what it means to have even some power plus are used to be forced to do things against their will that it is hard for them to understand that allowing people to do things against your will when you have the power to stop it is a pretty good indicator of power. However, the problem becomes even bigger because people not only think that God should be allowed to allow us to be evil, but he should stop the evil that we choose to do, PLUS we want to define evil instead of following God's definition. It's a scam meant to box God into a bunch of silly requirements he was never obligated to follow in the first place. It not so much as God being evil per se but whether he is powerful enough not to have evil as an option at all. Is evil something beyond his control? Freewill basically means: if free to do then free not to do. Given that we, supposedly God's creation, have this option, does God himself have this option in that he is free to do or not to do? You say we mustn't presume the mind of God (I knew we'd end up here) then what makes, say your assumption about God more valid than mine, besides the fact that you believe and I don't? If it is a scam as you say, to box God in, aren't you worried that the spirit of Patrick Swayze might come to us and say: nobody puts God in the corner?
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Mar 13, 2017 17:51:15 GMT
Again God cannot be all powerful while being required to use his power in a particular way. That statement eliminates any logic from the original statement. So then why say God is omnipotent. What is your definition of omnipotence? Are we debating or are we gossiping? Why are we left with the choices, while God does nothing because this is all you have said really? What about God's choices? If we are not to know the mind of God then how all this assumption of omnipotence and freewill? Just out of curiosity are you more deist than theist?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2017 18:46:12 GMT
I don't believe that free will is possible in the sense that it is traditionally understood. I think that either our choices are completely predetermined. I recently read an article about 'unexpected' decisions possibly being linked to quantum uncertainty, but even that wouldn't really be 'free' will, it would just be random will. Because we wouldn't be in control of the indeterminacy; the indeterminacy would be in control of us. Either way, I think that there is no doubt that free choice is an illusion. It's incoherent. If there's no free will, then can there be culpability? Should we dispense with court trials because the defendant can always plea "well, I didn't really have any choice in the matter"? This seems to be sliding into solipsist territory. Just because you don't like the conclusions it doesn't make it untrue. Yes, there is no ultimate human culpability, because we are all products of factors beyond our conscious control. However, punishment for criminals is still a necessary evil in order to keep the majority of the population safe, and act as a causal factor to deter others from committing crime. So punishment is neither just nor fair, but a lesser evil than the alternative.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2017 18:50:35 GMT
There are many problems with this. Firstly, devoutly religious people suffer very badly in this world as well. Secondly, God has determined from the outset of the universe who is going to believe in him, and who is going to believe which branch of that theology. If he had presented himself to all of us, and created a universe in which none need suffer even so much as a pinprick, then that would be a loving God. It's true that everything that happens to wicked people could happen to righteous people. However there are two flaws to your premiseThat has nothing to do with love and you are mandating rules that are not in evidence. 1. This has nothing to do with God loving the righteous. 2. It requires mandates that are not in evidence nor should be expected. It's all well and good that ones think thy know what God should do for them, it's an entirely different matter to actually think it's something he should adhere to. It's also annoying that people seem to think that just because there is suffering, that means everyone is suffering and miserable. Most everyone's doing pretty OK It has to do with God having created the conditions for harm and suffering, when you combine the fact that humans could not have willed harm into existence (especially not harms caused by the natural world, such as disease, extreme weather, drought, tsunamis, etc). And "most everyone's doing pretty OK" is a myopic American perspective, when the majority of the people in the world struggle to live a hand-to-mouth existence. There is a lot of discontentment even in wealthy nations such as the US, and this is evidenced by social problems, crime and hatred/scapegoating of the poor.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 13, 2017 19:24:31 GMT
If there's no free will, then can there be culpability? Should we dispense with court trials because the defendant can always plea "well, I didn't really have any choice in the matter"? This seems to be sliding into solipsist territory. Just because you don't like the conclusions it doesn't make it untrue. Yes, there is no ultimate human culpability, because we are all products of factors beyond our conscious control. However, punishment for criminals is still a necessary evil in order to keep the majority of the population safe, and act as a causal factor to deter others from committing crime. So punishment is neither just nor fair, but a lesser evil than the alternative. If it was something that I don't like, I would just say that I don't like it. I've got better things to do than type out such a simple sentiment into something longer and I don't think you've seen that in these conversations.
I am saying that the premise of defining what God is inherently flawed unless you believe it is not.
The argument is not really about evil existing as much as it is about God existing with the assumption that he must fall within some pretty silly parameters. Due to that it makes the whole argument fall apart.
The best argument is If God is willing to prevent evil, has the power to prevent evil, but allows choice, then God is loving.
Freedom is a better state than imprisonment even if it comes with greater risk.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Mar 13, 2017 19:25:52 GMT
Seriously?
Don't presume to pronounce me unhappy. You don't know me that well.
I, too, am happy because I am alive. I am a cancer survivor; advances in medical science cured me of what killed many of my relatives before me.I am a cancer survivor; advances in medical science cured me of what killed many of my relatives before me.
I think the bigger issue is that you can be happy all the time when other human beings are in pain or danger, and you make no effort to alleviate that situation. I think the bigger issue is that you can be happy all the time when other human beings are in pain or danger, and you make no effort to alleviate that situation. I spend a large part of my time helping others that are not as fortunate as I am. What do you do for others?
You've repeatedly stated that I am wrong about most people being happy.
I assumed you knew that from personal experience. If you had told me you were an exception to the rule, then I wouldn't have assumed anything so my apologies.
I think the bigger issue is that you can be happy all the time when other human beings are in pain or danger, and you make no effort to alleviate that situation. This never came up in the conversation did it?
Yep, medical science is great and congratulation on being cured
Are you wanting to prepare volunteer notes?
I think arguments that are based primarily on bragging about oneself are flawed, but it's what you're asking...
In addition to money & other resources given to charity which is pretty easy, I spent years as a prison volunteer (Tough job.), helped with literacy programs for people with learning disabilities, am part of a book donation program that sends books to poor countries across the world but primarily in Africa, & usually sign up for whatever community outreach programs my employers offer.
None of that matters in comparison to the more important aspects of my life which is friends and family.
I ensure that the group of people I know and love or share various connections with are never hungry, homeless, penniless to begin with. It's kind of sad that people such as yourself don't understand how many more lives can be saved just by making sure you go about you business of being a good citizen in the country you reside in. I bring this out specifically because I imagine it will be the thing that brings chastisement despite it be by far the easiest solution to what ails people regardless of their beliefs.
This is way off the rails of the initial discussion though, so to wrap it back around...Most people on this planet are OK. Maybe they are happy based on the help you give.
No, I don't want to prepare or compare volunteer notes; I don't brag about what I've done.
"It's kind of sad that people such as yourself don't understand how many more lives can be saved just by making sure you go about you business of being a good citizen in the country you reside in."
I am a good citizen in the country I reside in. Again, you don't know me that well, and I am not about to attempt to compare our individual contributions. You are a good citizen; good for you. So am I.
It helps when humans take care of other humans because I have no evidence for a 'loving' god that takes care of humans.
Traveler: God has been mighty good to your fields, Mr. Farmer. Farmer: You should have seen how He treated them when I wasn't around. Anonymous
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2017 19:37:12 GMT
Just because you don't like the conclusions it doesn't make it untrue. Yes, there is no ultimate human culpability, because we are all products of factors beyond our conscious control. However, punishment for criminals is still a necessary evil in order to keep the majority of the population safe, and act as a causal factor to deter others from committing crime. So punishment is neither just nor fair, but a lesser evil than the alternative. If it was something that I don't like, I would just say that I don't like it. I've got better things to do than type out such a simple sentiment into something longer and I don't think you've seen that in these conversations.
I am saying that the premise of defining what God is inherently flawed unless you believe it is not.
The argument is not really about evil existing as much as it is about God existing with the assumption that he must fall within some pretty silly parameters. Due to that it makes the whole argument fall apart.
The best argument is If God is willing to prevent evil, has the power to prevent evil, but allows choice, then God is loving.
Freedom is a better state than imprisonment even if it comes with greater risk.
Reply to Wrong Post. Nevertheless, the problem with your post is that you've failed to demonstrate that free will is compatible with the laws of nature, or even logic. Our will is shaped by myriad factors that began before we were even born. When we make a decision, we do not choose which thoughts to think and which past experiences, predilections and biases feed into our eventual decision. Another problem is that a God who was both omnibenevolent and omniscient would refrain from creating a universe until he was able to guarantee the safety of all of his creations. Given that the universe had no pressing need for sentient life to begin with (and therefore no sentient life forms are feeling deprived of life), God has created a mess where there need be none.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 13, 2017 19:38:51 GMT
tpfkar Irretrievably irrational.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 13, 2017 19:40:26 GMT
You've repeatedly stated that I am wrong about most people being happy.
I assumed you knew that from personal experience. If you had told me you were an exception to the rule, then I wouldn't have assumed anything so my apologies.
I think the bigger issue is that you can be happy all the time when other human beings are in pain or danger, and you make no effort to alleviate that situation. This never came up in the conversation did it?
Yep, medical science is great and congratulation on being cured Are you wanting to prepare volunteer notes?
I think arguments that are based primarily on bragging about oneself are flawed, but it's what you're asking...
In addition to money & other resources given to charity which is pretty easy, I spent years as a prison volunteer (Tough job.), helped with literacy programs for people with learning disabilities, am part of a book donation program that sends books to poor countries across the world but primarily in Africa, & usually sign up for whatever community outreach programs my employers offer.
None of that matters in comparison to the more important aspects of my life which is friends and family.
I ensure that the group of people I know and love or share various connections with are never hungry, homeless, penniless to begin with. It's kind of sad that people such as yourself don't understand how many more lives can be saved just by making sure you go about you business of being a good citizen in the country you reside in. I bring this out specifically because I imagine it will be the thing that brings chastisement despite it be by far the easiest solution to what ails people regardless of their beliefs.
This is way off the rails of the initial discussion though, so to wrap it back around...Most people on this planet are OK. Maybe they are happy based on the help you give.
No, I don't want to prepare or compare volunteer notes; I don't brag about what I've done.
"It's kind of sad that people such as yourself don't understand how many more lives can be saved just by making sure you go about you business of being a good citizen in the country you reside in."
I am a good citizen in the country I reside in. Again, you don't know me that well, and I am not about to attempt to compare our individual contributions. You are a good citizen; good for you. So am I.
It helps when humans take care of other humans because I have no evidence for a 'loving' god that takes care of humans.
Traveler: God has been mighty good to your fields, Mr. Farmer. Farmer: You should have seen how He treated them when I wasn't around. Anonymous
All I'm saying is that being a good citizen is sufficient.
I shouldn't be made to feel guilty if I don't help out people thousands of miles away from me...even though I do. Those are not the primary indicators of a good person.
I don't care whether you have evidence for God or not. If you think that happiness is here on earth as is, then that's OK with me.
However, if you are thinking that mankind is overall pretty miserable, then you do it no favors by pretending they don't have evidence just because you don't.
I's a waste of time paying attention to the bad, which will always be here especially if it's something as slight as something one just disagrees with.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 13, 2017 19:43:55 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2017 20:05:42 GMT
tpfkar Irretrievably irrational. If one accepts that humans have free will, then it would be 'irretrievably irrational' to claim that termites do not. Both humans and termites behave in such ways that are dictated by events occurring around them, by the way their brain is 'wired', and by myriad unchosen factors. Even computers have free will based on the idea that 'free will' = the ability to make choices.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Mar 13, 2017 20:13:53 GMT
No, I don't want to prepare or compare volunteer notes; I don't brag about what I've done.
"It's kind of sad that people such as yourself don't understand how many more lives can be saved just by making sure you go about you business of being a good citizen in the country you reside in."
I am a good citizen in the country I reside in. Again, you don't know me that well, and I am not about to attempt to compare our individual contributions. You are a good citizen; good for you. So am I.
It helps when humans take care of other humans because I have no evidence for a 'loving' god that takes care of humans.
Traveler: God has been mighty good to your fields, Mr. Farmer. Farmer: You should have seen how He treated them when I wasn't around. Anonymous
All I'm saying is that being a good citizen is sufficient.
I shouldn't be made to feel guilty if I don't help out people thousands of miles away from me...even though I do. Those are not the primary indicators of a good person.
I don't care whether you have evidence for God or not. If you think that happiness is here on earth as is, then that's OK with me.
However, if you are thinking that mankind is overall pretty miserable, then you do it no favors by pretending they don't have evidence just because you don't.
I's a waste of time paying attention to the bad, which will always be here especially if it's something as slight as something one just disagrees with.
I am going to let you have the last word here, so I can go back to listening to Blues and Bach organ music. The lows and the highs, as it were.
|
|