Free Will x Infinity =...

[quatona]

And I don't want to dispute the above assertion, so don't take this personally either. I believe that is your impression, but ...

I'm not fixing things on the fly. Rather, this is akin to an algebra student calling QM convoluted or incomplete after a physics PhD tries to simplify QM to terms the algebra student can understand.

Now, I'm not claiming I'm the be all and end all of philosophy.

Great, the above paragraph almost sounded like you thought you were.

Rather, my question to you is: You want a "systematic" approach? Really?

Yes, really.

The very fact that this discussion is occurring in an internet forum challenges that statement. The format is not conducive to presenting a formal argument.

I didn´t ask for a formal argument. At this point I don´t want to argue at all. What I am asking for is to structure your view in descending order of importance. First I want to hear that which gives me the framework from which every detail is supposed to make sense.

I've asked this before. Really? You want to get down & dirty and slog through all the details from beginning to end?

No, not really from beginning to end. Rather from the big picture to the details. Because that would allow me to understand the details in view of the big picture. I felt that was clear from my previous post.

 

[Resha Caner]

Great, the above paragraph almost sounded like you thought you were.

Then let me amend the example. Maybe it is more akin to a physics PhD trying to explain QM to a biology PhD. Does that remove the implication of hierarchy and difference in ability? I am fully aware that there are aspects of philosophy in which you are better versed than I. But we approach this problem very differently.

So, understanding may well require backing up a long distance in order to appreciate some fundamental differences.

And I'm not convinced we'll get very far without a certain amount of formality.

1. God´s capabilities are... (which would help us not to confuse your god concept with others).
2. God´s motive and intention behind creating was....
3. God´s strategy in reaching this goal was...
etc. etc.

For example, I could answer all 3 of these questions by handing you a Bible. It might be a flip way of responding, but it's also very fundamental to my position.

For example, I don't know what all of God's capabilities are. He hasn't told them to me, and I probably couldn't grasp them all if He did. What He has revealed (in the Bible), though, is sufficient. So, my position is that I should be able to defend my position from what the Bible says. If I can't, I need to seriously rethink it. However, you could easily defeat that with an equally flip reply about variations in interpretation.

Maybe so, but what isn't open to interpretation? So, I'm still stumped how we establish a basis for answering the question.

 

[Eudaimonist]

In short, I don't agree with the way you chose to rephrase my post.

Let's review:

You: I'll start by saying that I don't believe God knew Adam and Eve would sin.

Me: Non-omniscient God. Check.

You: When they were created, a way was made for them to live the perfect life. And yet, in order for them to have free will, there had to be other possibilities as well. In order for those possibilities to exist, God had to choose voluntary nescience

Me: Correction, voluntary blindness.

nescience [ˈnɛsɪəns]
n a formal or literary word for ignorance [from Late Latin nescientia, from Latin nescīre to be ignorant of, from ne not + scīre to know; compare science]


Now, be honest. Are my comments truly some attempt to twist the meaning of your words? Or have I simply acknowledged their plain meaning?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

Then let me amend the example. Maybe it is more akin to a physics PhD trying to explain QM to a biology PhD. Does that remove the implication of hierarchy and difference in ability?

Don´t get me wrong: I wouldn´t have a problem with an authority teaching me something.
Your analogy once again merely shows that you and I have a different understanding of the situation, of our roles and what we are doing here.
I am interested in your ideas (and particularly in the question what makes sense to you and if that makes sense to me, too) - complex and complicated as they may be, I am not assuming that you are going to teach me complicated facts.

I am fully aware that there are aspects of philosophy in which you are better versed than I. But we approach this problem very differently.

Yes, sure. That´s why I am suggesting that you first give me the framework. That way we will make sure we have and keep on common ground.

So, understanding may well require backing up a long distance in order to appreciate some fundamental differences.

Well, I think we needn´t go into the details in order to detect (appreciate differences). That´s why I am proposing you start from the framework (or big picture, if you will): If that doesn´t make sense to me the details will be irrelevant, anyway.

And I'm not convinced we'll get very far without a certain amount of formality.

I am not sure I really understand what you mean by "formality" in this context.

For example, I could answer all 3 of these questions by handing you a Bible. It might be a flip way of responding, but it's also very fundamental to my position.

For to give me your interpretation of the bible handing me a bible will do nothing. Pretty much everyone here has read the bible.

For example, I don't know what all of God's capabilities are. He hasn't told them to me, and I probably couldn't grasp them all if He did. What He has revealed (in the Bible), though, is sufficient. So, my position is that I should be able to defend my position from what the Bible says. If I can't, I need to seriously rethink it. However, you could easily defeat that with an equally flip reply about variations in interpretation.

Actually, I don´t care at all whether your god concepts and views correspond to the bible or not. All I am looking for is a consistent, coherent view.

Maybe so, but what isn't open to interpretation? So, I'm still stumped how we establish a basis for answering the question.

I have no problem with your view being an interpretation.
I don´t care whether your answers to these introductory questions are correct or true. I won´t dispute them. I will simply accept them as your view. I am interested in the answers merely as the framework to which I can compare the details that possibly will be discussed later.
Do you get the idea?
I think an answer to the question "What was god´s idea/intention/motive in creating a physical world?" would be a good starting point.

 

[Paradoxum]

Am I having problems dealing with double negatives - or are you having trouble using them?

Its not you its me... I screwed up XD

Forget the first 'don't'.

Fine. So what would be an intelligible motive behind creating something as corruptible and then later recreating it as incorruptible? Why not do things right the first time?

Well there are many theodicies I haven't read.... most in fact. I'm not really a Christian, I just thought I would point out something I thought was obviously wrong.

But to give an answer; I think it must first be remembered that we were created over billions of years and that we are tiny compared to the universe. We might not be the main/ only reason God created the universe. Incorruptible is the only way we could have turned out in a physical universe, in my opinion. So I guess the answer would be that there is value in a physical universe and in coming to know God, not just being made in God.

Sadly the more I think about it the more I doubt God though, as I don't believe my own explanation.

The problem is not that it doesn´t reconcile with a literal understanding, the problem - at least to me - is that the combination of all these explanations pictures god as an entity whose actions make no sense whatsoever. (Eudaimonists has given a detailed - though imo incomplete - list of the theological problems that these explanations leave us with).

Don't really have much I can say to that.

 

[Resha Caner]

Now, be honest. Are my comments truly some attempt to twist the meaning of your words? Or have I simply acknowledged their plain meaning?

That's not something I can definitely answer. But come, now. I know you're smarter than that, so do we have to play these games?

Of course I make mistakes, but I try to choose my words very carefully. If a word has a nuanced meaning I don't like, I don't use it. There are nuanced differences between your phrasing and mine. But I know the pitfalls of accusing you of playing on those nuances. So, I chose not to make any specific accusations ...

and then this post came along and seemed to confirm the very judgements I had inferred from your earlier post:

Christ seems to be the Ace up Yahweh's sleeve. Or at least a King.

No, it's not reconcilable with the idea that Yahweh won't make mistakes in the future, but it could be seen as a proper fix to a big blunder.

So, no, I do not agree you have provided the "plain meaning." As just one example, your choice of the word "blindness" implies a deficiency on God's part (and you appear to confirm your belief in that deficiency with the above quoted post). I chose a word that was intended to convey a conscious decision, not a deficiency. And so I conclude that our different phrasing conveys different meanings. If I am wrong, feel free to clarify what you intended.

 

[Resha Caner]

I think an answer to the question "What was god´s idea/intention/motive in creating a physical world?" would be a good starting point.

We can give it a try. But it should be duly noted that I am skeptical. And, though it may not matter to you, I'm going to try to stick to my base - the Bible. Though I'll not try to be exhaustive. Rather, I'll try to pick the verses that I think are representative.

So, Rev 4:11 is one place where God's reason for creating is given. The NIV translation of that verse says creation was done "by your [God's] will" and the KJV says it was "for thy [God's] pleasure." So, the purpose of creation is to please God.

 

[Davian]

This is like one of those Batman vs Superman arguments.

 

[Resha Caner]

This is like one of those Batman vs Superman arguments.

Batman ... totally.

 

[Davian]

Batman ... totally.

Given time to prepare, Batman always wins.

 

[GrayAngel]

This is like one of those Batman vs Superman arguments.

At the risk of going far off topic...

There is no competition there. Superman could crack Batman in half before he had time to blink. Kryptonite could slow Superman down, but it's a weakness he can overcome. Heck, in Superman Returns, he carried a whole island of the stuff. Yes, he died, but then he just jumped back to life like he was Jesus or something. You just can't kill Superman.

 

[Davian]

This is like one of those Batman vs Superman arguments.

At the risk of going far off topic...

There is no competition there. Superman could crack Batman in half before he had time to blink. Kryptonite could slow Superman down, but it's a weakness he can overcome. Heck, in Superman Returns, he carried a whole island of the stuff. Yes, he died, but then he just jumped back to life like he was Jesus or something. You just can't kill Superman.

But the Superman-Batman universe is not so simple; it has things you must presume to be true (for them), rules to follow, and makes allowances to fit the story whenever needed.

How is this any different to the discussion at hand? Just to get this thread started we had to presume the existence of a deity, free will, heaven, hell, and some mechanism (a 'soul'?) capable of containing and transporting some aspect of our personality to these places. Then all of this has to be fitted into various interpretations of the supporting documentation (the bible in this case).

But I still find the discussion interesting.

 

[grahamsnumber]

Unless, of course, they could commit those acts infinitely fast.

 

[grahamsnumber]

What I don't understand is why Adam chose to sin in the first place. What can free will mean here? It sounds like Adam and Eve were simply broken machines. After all, the choice they made was absolutely disastrous, condemning an entire species to be worthy only of everlasting torment. And I honestly don't mean to sound obnoxious there -- it just seems like that is the story put forth. I'm not really sure what is meant by "free will".

 

[quatona]

So, Rev 4:11 is one place where God's reason for creating is given. The NIV translation of that verse says creation was done "by your [God's] will" and the KJV says it was "for thy [God's] pleasure." So, the purpose of creation is to please God.

Well, uum, that´s not saying much, is it? With god being the only entity around - by who else´s will and for whom else´s pleasure could it possibly have been performed?
So what´s the pleasure god expected from creating the world? I mean, the question "what was god´s purpose in creating?" is not really THAT hard to understand.

 

[Eudaimonist]

So, no, I do not agree you have provided the "plain meaning." As just one example, your choice of the word "blindness" implies a deficiency on God's part

I said voluntary blindness. You used a word that means ignorance (which does no less of a job implying deficiency than blindness), and that God chose this ignorance. In the context of an omniscient being, ignorance means blindness. God was no longer capable of seeing the future of humanity with clarity.

I said that this blindness/ignorance was voluntary, so I was not suggesting that he was anything less than capable of omniscience and infallibilty if he saw fit to exercise those powers. Any "defiency" is self-imposed.

So, I have stuck to your plain meaning. I didn't imply deficiency, but chosen limitations.

(and you appear to confirm your belief in that deficiency with the above quoted post).

I don't believe your God exists, whether perfect or fallible. Let's be clear on that.

The context of that quote was my reply to quatona. I had said that I believe that the myth writers of A&E did not view God as having omniscience. He was a fallible God who did not have instant, perfect foresight of future events. Quatona had then asked me "how exactly is this premise reconcilable with the idea that (non-omniscient) Yahweh will be able to do things more successfully (i.e. perfectly/incorruptible) in the future?" I suggested that his plan B (Christ) could be seen as a perfect fix to a blunder (that blunder being the expectation that freewilled A&E wouldn't fall from grace). My statement was made in that context.

That said, any God that chooses not to exercise omniscience accepts fallibility and everything that goes with it.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Resha Caner]

I don't believe your God exists, whether perfect or fallible. Let's be clear on that.

There was never any doubt of that on my part.

You used a word that means ignorance

"Ignorance" is a synonym meant to help explain the meaning of the word. No synonym, though, is a perfect substitution. If it were, there would be no need for two separate words. I assumed you understood that. I chose the word I wanted to use. In addition, I added a disclaimer expressing my concern that the term would be misunderstood. As such, I expected this to be a process, not a one-shot deal.

So ...

God was no longer capable of seeing the future of humanity with clarity.

That said, any God that chooses not to exercise omniscience accepts fallibility and everything that goes with it.

neither of these statements fits how I see it.

 

[Eudaimonist]

"Ignorance" is a synonym meant to help explain the meaning of the word. No synonym, though, is a perfect substitution.

What I understand is that there are plenty of interchangable synonyms in the English language. I don't know how you define the word if you don't mean ignorance. Please define it for me so I don't have to engage in mindreading.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Resha Caner]

Well, uum, that´s not saying much, is it?

Then I still don't understand what you're looking for. It's a trite example, but I like Cheetos. It gives me "pleasure" to eat them. That's it. Nothing more to say. I think it's pretty clear what is meant when I say, "I like Cheetos." I don't understand how I would express any other purpose or goal. You could launch into a discussion of biochemistry and explain to me the physical reaction that connects Cheetos to my perception of pleasure, but that's irrelevant to the question because it's not something I take into consideration when I choose to eat them.

If you're expecting me to give you some measure of pleasure a la Jeremy Bentham, then I'll need to explain how I think his efforts a failure.

If it's something else you're looking for (e.g. my god created this universe because he wanted a one up on another god that created another universe) than I need a better definition of what you're looking for. I'm not trying to be difficult. I just thought the answer I gave was sufficient.

 

[Resha Caner]

Please define it for me so I don't have to engage in mindreading.

I find mindreading to be useful, so you should consider better developing that talent.

"Nescience" means nescience. It's not the word I want to focus on but the concept. If, once you understand me, you have a better label for the concept (shrug) OK.

The idea is like a lever and fulcrum. If I have a lever of x length and the fulcrum is at y position and I want to lift z weight, I can calculate how much force I must apply to lift the weight. My "will" is to lift the weight. What I don't need to know (and can therefore choose to ignore) is the color of the lever. That "ignorance", however, in no way impinges on the accomplishment of my will. So, I can give "free will" to the lever maker to paint the lever any color he chooses.

(Here is where the anology starts to get a bit silly, but I need to complete it)

Suppose, however, that I hate the color pink and expressly tell the lever maker of my displeasure with that color. The lever maker still has free will, and he can still deliver what I've asked. The lever can be red, green, blue, ... an infinite number of colors - just not pink.

So, suppose the lever maker delivers a pink lever. Further suppose that I have promised I will use whatever lever he delivers. I don't know what color he will deliver, but when it is delivered, I see it. I can still use the pink lever to accomplish my will, and I still keep my promise, so my "perfect" end is still accomplished. Yet the lever maker "sinned."