Free Will x Infinity =...

[quatona]

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.

Ok, so god created out of the same sentiment out of which you eat Cheetos. Immediate gratification, no further consideration, no major or minor plan, no premeditation, no greater goal etc. etc. Basically hedonism.

I think I have no further questions, then. Unless at some point you start telling me that the result didn´t match god´s expectations or something to that effect.

 

[Resha Caner]

Ok, so god created out of the same sentiment out of which you eat Cheetos. Immediate gratification, no further consideration, no major or minor plan, no premeditation, no greater goal etc. etc. Basically hedonism.

OK, I get the impression that you think I'm being flippant. Such was not my intent. I just don't know what you're looking for.

So, let's go at this with a question from me. Take your idea of "good" parents. Why do they procreate?

 

[quatona]

OK, I get the impression that you think I'm being flippant. Such was not my intent.

Not at all. I simply noted your response and how it renders all my questions I usually have when people present their god concepts pointless.
Of course, I ad mit I was expecting more to be behind such an act that had so incredible consequences - but blame that on my expectations. If that´s all there was to it then be it. Pleasure in creating. Ok.

You know, I hear a lot about god being the mastermind, about god´s expectations, his will, his plans and how they didn´t turn out, how god tried to fix things and stuff. This usually leads to some - as I perceive it - contradictions and that causes critical questions on my part.

God had no plan, he just wanted to have some immediate pleasure out the mere act of creating. He had no expectations regarding the product.
It´s a great and conclusive response.

You know, it´s like when I ask one of my students: "Why did you beat up that guy?". I am expecting some attempt at rationalization, an explanation, a descriptions as to why he felt wronged or threatened by the other guy, how he wanted to protect others, how he was broke and wanted to steal the guy´s money - an actually countless number of possible reasons that would help me understand and continue the discussion.
Now he answers "Well, I did it just for the pleasure of beating him up."
That´s a conclusive answer that doesn´t leave much space for further questions.

So, let's go at this with a question from me. Take your idea of "good" parents. Why do they procreate?

Why would that have to be "good" (in my idea) motives? I haven´t asked for "good" motives to be presented. I have asked for the motives. My evaluation of these motives does nothing to the matter.

Parents procreate for a multitude of reasons:
- Fear of the future, making sure they will be taken care for when they are old.
- Will to power.
- The wish for beings that are dependent on them and don´t question their authority.
- They consider procreating a symbol for their love for each other.
- They are bored and expect children to add meaning to their lives.
- Their partnership is worn out and for some strange reason they expect the child to fix that.
- Peer pressure, the fear not match the expectations. The wish to be like everybody else.
- Their own experiences of "family" that they want to pass on.

These just being the first ones that come to mind. And of course:

- They want the pleasure of procreation/sex now and simply don´t think beyond the moment. It´s just like eating cheetos to them - instant pleasure.(which is actually pretty close to how you describe your god´s motive for creation).

 

[GrayAngel]

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".

Adam and Eve were perfect in the sense that they were complete, and they were blameless. However, they were ignorant of the distinction between good and evil. All they knew was good, and they were incapable of sinning.

Adam and Eve were perfect, but not incorruptible. They fell because Satan made them an offer that sounded very good to them. Adam and Eve knew they had only one tiny rule to follow. They could eat from any tree at all, except for the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Satan convinced them that God didn't want them to eat from that tree because He knew it would make them like God. This wasn't a complete lie, because they were given the ability to see both good and evil.

Imagine if somebody could offer to make you like God. Would you have taken such an offer? I don't think the Mormons would exist if people didn't like the idea of possibly becoming gods.

 

[Resha Caner]

God had no plan, he just wanted to have some immediate pleasure out the mere act of creating. He had no expectations regarding the product.
It´s a great response.

OK. My Cheetos analogy has gone awry. I didn't expect you to take it that way. Rather than fix it, let's just drop it.

I do think the "pleasure" answer is, as you say, conclusive, but I wouldn't tag on the qualifier of immediacy. The creation affords God an eternal pleasure. I'm not speaking of a god who has no involvement with creation afterward.

Why would that have to be "good" (in my idea) motives?

For several reasons. First, it is important to why God finds pleasure in creation. God is not a sadist (1 Cor 13:6 & 1 John 4:8). What is good for God's pleasure is also good for us.

Second, I wanted it to be your idea so we wouldn't have to argue over whether the parents were justified in what they were doing. I see that as a digression - at least at this point.

Third, if you give me an example of something creating for what you think is a good reason, it will go a long way to helping me understand what you're looking for.

So, is there a "good" reason for parents to procreate? If you think there is never a good reason to have children then we have a very large gulf between us that needs to be bridged.

 

[serenity now]

Holy Schnikies everybody! I completely forgot about this thread! I guess that's what I get for posting it after taking my nightly medication...I'll read over it when I have more time.

Sorry!

 

[quatona]

OK. My Cheetos analogy has gone awry. I didn't expect you to take it that way. Rather than fix it, let's just drop it.

Ok. I have no idea how else you may possibly have expected me to take it, though. And the way I took it can possibly help you to understand how this response "for pleasure" is a bit, well, empty.

I do think the "pleasure" answer is, as you say, conclusive, but I wouldn't tag on the qualifier of immediacy. The creation affords God an eternal pleasure. I'm not speaking of a god who has no involvement with creation afterward.

Imagine your 7 year old son wants a pet animal. I personally would ask him "Why do you want it?". And I don´t want to hear a mere "for fun". I want to know his expectations, his plans, the images and scenarios that are in his mind attached to a future with a pet animal. I want to know to which extent he is aware of the consequences (including those that may turn out to be not so much fun/pleasure). I want to know what in particular he feels will be fun. I want to know to which extent he has thought the whole thing through. I want to know whether his motives are of a more emotional or possibly a more scientific nature. I want to know what deficits in his current life prompt him to want this change. Etc. etc.
The question for a motive beyond "I think it´s fun/pleasure" is not that hard to understand, is it? I mean, we both aren´t teenagers anymore.

For several reasons. First, it is important to why God finds pleasure in creation.

BINGO! That´s the question I meant to ask when asking you for his motives. So please answer it and stop beating around the bush.
(On a sidenote, I´d like to ask you to explain what you mean when saying "pleasure in creation". Do you mean "pleasure in the act of creating" or "pleasure in that which he will have created"? Two entirely different things.

Second, I wanted it to be your idea so we wouldn't have to argue over whether the parents were justified in what they were doing. I see that as a digression - at least at this point.

I have told you before: I am not asking these question in order to criticize your god for his motives. I didn´t even criticize him for doing it out of "pleasure like when eating cheetos". So there is no need for you to customize your answers so that I like them.
At this point I am just trying to understand the basics, the framework of your god concept.
I´ll spare criticism for those parts where I think an inner inconsistency/incoherence/contradiction shows up. I will not argue from my personal preferences. You don´t have to make god´s motives look good or acceptable to me. I just want to learn about the psychological premises.

Third, if you give me an example of something creating for what you think is a good reason, it will go a long way to helping me understand what you're looking for.

No, it won´t, because I am not looking for *good* reasons. I am looking for the reason you ascribe to the god of your concept. Whether I find them good or not is completely irrelevant.

So, is there a "good" reason for parents to procreate? If you think there is never a good reason to have children then we have a very large gulf between us that needs to be bridged.

You are misunderstanding my approach. I am not looking for *good* reasons. Just like I simply gave you reasons that parents have (and didn´t even mention whether I find them good or not). I simply listed reasons without valuating them myself (and without trying to make sure you would like them).
So, since you asked this question in order to find out what I am looking for, no you know. I would like you to answer my question the same way I answered yours: not "good" reasons, not those reasons you feel I approve of, but simply "the" reasons the god of your concept had.

 

[Resha Caner]

I have told you before: I am not asking these question in order to criticize your god for his motives.

And I heard you.

You are misunderstanding my approach.

No, it's not that. It's the basis I referred to earlier. I don't think you're really going to understand me if you insist on this approach ... or I might not be properly answering your questions.

I am not looking for *good* reasons.

Well, whatever. Can you humor me and answer the question?

Imagine your 7 year old son wants a pet animal ...

God is not a small child. He doesn't answer to me.

With that said, I suppose He did ponder the things you mention, or at least something akin to them (Job 38-41). The problem is, I don't see that He has revealed the conclusion of that preponderance. So, to give you anything would just be speculation on my part. I'm not dodging the question. I'm basically saying I've given you about all I can.

Further, it is different from picking a pet. God didn't select a pet from a pre-existing natural pet store. He created the pet store and everything in it for the purpose of His will (or pleasure).

BINGO! That´s the question I meant to ask when asking you for his motives. So please answer it and stop beating around the bush.
(On a sidenote, I´d like to ask you to explain what you mean when saying "pleasure in creation". Do you mean "pleasure in the act of creating" or "pleasure in that which he will have created"? Two entirely different things.

In that context I meant the latter, but it could be both. With respect to the act of creation, I also happen to enjoy creating things. So, I could speculate that the reason God finds pleasure in the act of creation is similar to mine. I could even base that speculation on Gen 1:27, but it would remain speculation.

Earlier in the discussion you mentioned your impression that often times people make up their answers as they go. I've tried not to do that. At the same time, I'm always open to adding new things to my theological views.

So, while I still think my original answer was sufficient, I'll speculate that the reason for God's pleasure in the things of creation (specifically us) is love. I could base that on Matt 22:34-40, 1 Corinthians 13:13, and 1 John 4:8. But I wouldn't claim that is a complete answer because I don't know for sure.

Even moreso, if "pleasure" is an empty answer, I would think "love" is just as empty.

 

[quatona]

No, it's not that. It's the basis I referred to earlier. I don't think you're really going to understand me if you insist on this approach ... or I might not be properly answering your questions.

Ok. Then let´s call the whole thing off.

Well, whatever. Can you humor me and answer the question?

"For pleasure".

God is not a small child.

I didn´t mean to say god was a small child.
The point of my exercise was to demonstrate what sort of reasons are subsumed under "for pleasure".

He doesn't answer to me.

Also not my point. You are here speaking on behalf of the god of your concept. The conversation about motives (as reflected in my example) is not between you and god but between you (explaining god) and me.

With that said, I suppose He did ponder the things you mention, or at least something akin to them (Job 38-41). The problem is, I don't see that He has revealed the conclusion of that preponderance. So, to give you anything would just be speculation on my part. I'm not dodging the question. I'm basically saying I've given you about all I can.

Would it be accurate to summarize this wordy explanation with a short "I don´t know, sorry."?

Further, it is different from picking a pet. God didn't select a pet from a pre-existing natural pet store. He created the pet store and everything in it for the purpose of His will (or pleasure).

Sure, it is different. This is not pertinent to the point of the example, though - hence completely irrelevant. Point of the example was merely to show you that "for pleasure" hides a lot of different motives. I am interested in the motives, not in an almost tautological common-place. That´s all. All other aspects of my example are just irrelevant for the point. I could have chosen any two persons and whatever desire for an example.

In that context I meant the latter, but it could be both.

Thanks for a straight answer. Very helpful.

With respect to the act of creation, I also happen to enjoy creating things.

You can´t create things. You manipulate stuff. You found that difference worth pointing out above.

So, I could speculate that the reason God finds pleasure in the act of creation is similar to mine. I could even base that speculation on Gen 1:27, but it would remain speculation.

I´m not sure why it is important for you to find god´s motives similar to yours. I am sensing you are still misunderstanding my motives.

Earlier in the discussion you mentioned your impression that often times people make up their answers as they go. I've tried not to do that. At the same time, I'm always open to adding new things to my theological views.

Yes, you are correct. This is a very serious concern of mine. I have been open about my motives and honest when trying to destroy your paranoia when it came to possible criticism of the character of the god of your concept.
Vice versa, I will also be honest and open about the stuff I won´t let you get away with. In fact the main point of this my approach is to make sure you don´t make up stuff as you walk along. I want the basic answers first, and I won´t tolerate any spontaneous adjustments. In this case: I want to hear the motives first - exactly to make sure you don´t at some point invent some new motive just because it solves a momentary argumentative problem (and I have to do all the work and find out if it is reconcilable with your theological framework). Again: please don´t take it personal. It´s just that I have done this all too long. It´s frustrating.

You know, above you gave me a back-handed "I don´t know" for an answer. Call me paranoid, but I am sure at some point you will spontaneously come up with an answer just because it suits your momentary argumentative needs. I call that "making things up as you go".
You have told me that it´s hard to explain a complex theological system such as yours. This suggests to me that this system already exists and is fully thought through. I am not expecting you to extemporate or improvise.

So, while I still think my original answer was sufficient, I'll speculate that the reason for God's pleasure in the things of creation (specifically us) is love. I could base that on Matt 22:34-40, 1 Corinthians 13:13, and 1 John 4:8. But I wouldn't claim that is a complete answer because I don't know for sure.

I really love the answer "I don´t know and I don´t want to speculate". What, however, I do not love so much is when you (general "you" here) later will start speculating about the things you at this point claimed you didn´t want to speculate about. Just a friendly warning.

Even moreso, if "pleasure" is an empty answer, I would think "love" is just as empty.

Well, in the first place it is not an answer to my question. I asked for god´s reasons to create the world and all. At this point (when god decided to create) there didn´t exist anything he could possibly love. He had yet to create it, after all.
But maybe you are using "love" in a special meaning. In which case I would kindly ask you to define your keyterms properly so I can get an idea.

 

[serenity now]

It depends what you mean by free will.

I'm afraid I'm not experienced enough in philosophical debates to come up with a rigid definition of free will. I mean basically whatever we have here on earth resembling free will will also be there in heaven.

I don't agree that the probability of someone doing something evil is very small. It must be zero. This doesn't necessarily go against free will because, for one, we will lose our physical body and therefore our animal instincts: a major cause of evil. Secondly it could be considered that we would become perfected in union with God. God would be such a clear and powerful part of us that we would have no will to sin.

I'll give you a point with the animal instincts for now; didn't think of that one (although saying the probability of evil must be zero seems like speculation). But the second point has me wondering why we have to be so good to get into heaven in the first place if we're just going to end up perfect with God anyway. If God wants us to end up perfect and in union with him why not create us that way to begin with?

This also assumes there is time in heaven. An eternal afterlife has problems, but then so does an atemporal one. In the former, I cannot conceive of life without ending. Ten billion years being nothing in the grand scheme of things. Its almost so absurd so to make nonsense. Of course this doesn't prove it not true. As for the latter, it has to be asked in what sense we are alive and ourselves if we have no time.

I agree this part is really hard to conceive of for temporal beings like us, especially me. We'll call this one a draw okay?

I hope you don't mind the points I have made then.

I thought you were agnostic. Whose side are you on anyway?

I agree with Paradoxum. You have an implicit assumption that free will somehow requires us to do evil. If evil is required, it's not really free will. That was the whole point of Martin Luther's On the Bondage of the Will.

Well I'm only going off of probability here. I just was thinking that over time even good people when faced with an infinite number of situations will eventually "lose their cool" so to speak. And if the probability of evil is actually zero (is that what you're arguing?) then that would mean evil is not a choice for a particular person. Wouldn't that violate free will too?

There are 2 types of "sin", and people only seem to ever think of one kind - the actual act of commiting evil. Luther spoke of a second kind - a corruption we carry with us from birth. It is not that free will leads us to sin, but rather that we are like a broken machine. A broken machine will never do its task correctly.

So, part of faith in Christ - the "born again" aspect people speak of - is to be recreated perfectly. It is only then that we truly have free will - that we are free from our brokenness and can do things in a God-pleasing way. In a sense it means we can finally do things the way we really want to do them and don't have to worry about messing up all the time.

Yeah I knew something like that in the back of my mind but don't know nearly enough about it to introduce it into my ramblings. Salvation through grace right? As opposed to through works?

 

[serenity now]

How come mankind - once created perfectly - became a bunch of broken machines? And why would that not happen again? And if it can´t happen again - why didn´t God create us that way (perfect in the sense of uncorruptable) the first time?

One of the (many) rough drafts of this post ended somewhat like this but I can't remember how exactly. Except my question would have been more like "How can God be considered perfect if something he created ended up imperfect?" Like if I were a watchmaker or something, I wouldn't be considered a perfect watchmaker if the watches I made didn't work.

 

[quatona]

One of the (many) rough drafts of this post ended somewhat like this but I can't remember how exactly. Except my question would have been more like "How can God be considered perfect if something he created ended up imperfect?" Like if I were a watchmaker or something, I wouldn't be considered a perfect watchmaker if the watches I made didn't work.

Well, yes, that´s a slightly different question, though.
Actually, the analogy would be even more concise if the watch-maker would be considered a perfect watch-maker although his watch refuses breaks down the first time it is used.
In my opinion, this is the reason why there is so much emphasis on the "free-will" defense. It is meant to solve this problem: A watch doesn´t have "free-will" so the responsibility for the malfunctioning remains with the watch-maker. However, as soon as you give your created objects "free-will" (whatever that might mean - and I have yet to see a coherent philosophical definition) the responsibility for the malfunctioning lies entirely with the created objects.
Needless to say that I find this line of reasoning less than convincing. Don´t shoot the messenger.

In any case, it should be noted that giving his creatures "free-will" and thereby miraculously getting rid of any responsiblity impies the fact that god´s main interest in creating wasn´t the functionality of his creation. There must have been a greater good. (You will hear a lot about creatures without "free-will" being like robots, and how robots aren´t capable of loving, and how god wants to love and be loved back and so on and so forth).
All this, however, doesn´t seem to go well with the idea that god - although allegedly having given the responsibility into the hands of his creatures - later reappears as the final authority who fixes things (salvation, sacrifice,heaven, hell).

Morale of the story:
If you want your creation to function the way you want, don´t give it "free-will".
If you want your creation to have "free-will" don´t complain or be surprised when it doesn´t function the way you had in mind.
If you are later going to infringe on the "free-will" of your creation when it turns out to malfunctions, anyway, you would have been better adviced not to give it "free-will", in the first place.
Particularly when you are of the omniscient, omnipotent and unchanging kind.
Unless, of course, if you want drama for drama´s sake.

 

[Resha Caner]

Well, in the first place it is not an answer to my question. I asked for god´s reasons to create the world and all. At this point (when god decided to create) there didn´t exist anything he could possibly love. He had yet to create it, after all.
But maybe you are using "love" in a special meaning. In which case I would kindly ask you to define your keyterms properly so I can get an idea.

It is always a bit perplexing when something that seems obvious to me is handed back to me as if it's a complete mystery. If you want to say that God didn't love the thing before it was created, but only the idea, fine. Whatever. I knew what love was before I knew my wife, my kids - before they "existed" for me. Though you only think of hypothetical gods, surely you can grasp the possibility that a god knew of love before the thing it created began to exist. Honestly, it seems like you're being intentionally difficult.

Such as ...

"For pleasure".

OK, though you point out to me over and over how I don't understand and don't answer your questions, you won't give me an example to help me along.

"Would it be accurate to summarize this wordy explanation with a short "I don´t know, sorry."?

My summary of our discussion would go like this:
You: Why did God create?
Me: For his own pleasure.
You: Not good enough.

I really love the answer "I don´t know and I don´t want to speculate". What, however, I do not love so much is when you (general "you" here) later will start speculating about the things you at this point claimed you didn´t want to speculate about.

Fine. I won't speculate. I thought maybe you were trying to do a little back-and-forth to see if I would clarify or elaborate on my answer in a way that you would accept as a "reason." I was willing to try to rephrase - even to consider that maybe my answer needed to include answers to peripheral questions. My bad.

About the only thread of hope for this that I see left is to say some things it is not. God's reason was not:
* Because He was lonely
* Because He was bored
* Because He wanted to rule over other living things
* Because He was incomplete
* Because He was compelled by His nature
* Because it was an experiment

 

[Resha Caner]

... "free-will" (whatever that might mean - and I have yet to see a coherent philosophical definition) ...

Hmm. I'd like to see an example of something beyond the trivial that you think has been defined comprehensively.

Oh, but wait ... (biting tongue, biting tongue).

 

[quatona]

It is always a bit perplexing when something that seems obvious to me is handed back to me as if it's a complete mystery.

Yes, isn´t it?
That´s btw. exactly the reason I wanted to start from the deep end and not from the details: It allowed us to acknowledge early that we have serious communication and terminology issues that prevent mutual understanding.

If you want to say that God didn't love the thing before it was created, but only the idea, fine. Whatever.

Does this "whatever" mean "makes no difference to me"?

I knew what love was before I knew my wife, my kids - before they "existed" for me.

Sure, but you didn´t love them at that point. So you didn´t act out of love - but we could say you acted out of the desire for love.

Though you only think of hypothetical gods, surely you can grasp the possibility that a god knew of love before the thing it created began to exist.

Surely.

Honestly, it seems like you're being intentionally difficult.

That´s regrettable but I am afraid I can´t do anything about your feelings.
I am trying to be clear and I am trying to make you try to be clear.

I assure you I´m not being intentionally difficult, I simply am that way. It comes naturally to me. Seeing that you warned me that understanding your theology would be difficult I am not convinced that this my condition is inappropriate for the task at hand.

The knowledge that even subtle differences in terminology can make a great difference is not alien to you - as your recent conversation with Eudaimonist demonstrated.

OK, though you point out to me over and over how I don't understand and don't answer your questions, you won't give me an example to help me along.

Well, I did. I gave you exactly the sort of answer that I was looking for. I listed the reasons.
You, however, didn´t want to answer the question for the reasons. Instead you would have preferred to answer the question for *good reasons*.
Plus, your chart at the end of your post shows me that you (finally?) did understand my question. It´s just unfortunate for me that you can only think of reasons that god had not but not of reasons he had.

My summary of our discussion would go like this:
You: Why did God create?
Me: For his own pleasure.
You: Not good enough.

This summary is pretty much accurate - with the disclaimer that "not good enough" doesn´t mean "not good enough a reason" but "not good enough an answer".

About the only thread of hope for this that I see left is to say some things it is not. God's reason was not:
* Because He was lonely
* Because He was bored
* Because He wanted to rule over other living things
* Because He was incomplete
* Because He was compelled by His nature
* Because it was an experiment

Well, something about his situation must have been deficient. Else he wouldn´t have changed things.
(Above you said god created out of (the desire for) love. Personally, I think that´s very close to "because he was lonely". But I admit your wording sounds more positive.)

But to give you an idea how difficult I am (you ain´t seen nothing yet ;-) ), I will arbitrarily take one of your points and work with it.
God´s reason to create was not because he wanted to rule over other living things.

Now, just like - as you said - we have to assume that god could imagine what love is without there yet being an object to love, we surely have to assume that god was aware that being the creator of living things would inevitably come with the position of ruling over them. Would you say that he simply accepted this as an unfortunate by-product of creation? Did this prospect somewhat take a little away from his pleasure in creating or was he merely indifferent towards this consequence?

 

[quatona]

Hmm. I'd like to see an example of something beyond the trivial that you think has been defined comprehensively.

Good question! I will put some thought into the answer.
But first:
Where does "trivial" end and where does "beyond trivial" begin, for purposes of this question?

 

[Resha Caner]

Where does "trivial" end and where does "beyond trivial" begin, for purposes of this question?

I doubt I could define it comprehensively enough to satisfy you.

I'll throw out a suggestion. Define "number" for me. If you don't like that one, suggest something else. That way you can guarantee my agreement before you put any effort into it.

 

[Resha Caner]

Does this "whatever" mean "makes no difference to me"?

My evasive answer that follows is meant to include this question. And, so you don't have to try reading subtext, there was some sarcasm in that statement. In fact, all the sarcastic comments that follow are a lead up to the final passage at the end of my post.

Plus, your chart at the end of your post shows me that you (finally?) did understand my question.

I think I always understood the question. You just didn't like the answer. Didn't we agree on that via my summary?

It´s just unfortunate for me that you can only think of reasons that god had not but not of reasons he had.

As I said in my post, the combination of your rules and mine forced me to answer that way.

But to give you an idea how difficult I am (you ain´t seen nothing yet ;-) ), I will arbitrarily take one of your points and work with it.
God´s reason to create was not because he wanted to rule over other living things.

Now, just like - as you said - we have to assume that god could imagine what love is without there yet being an object to love, we surely have to assume that god was aware that being the creator of living things would inevitably come with the position of ruling over them. Would you say that he simply accepted this as an unfortunate by-product of creation? Did this prospect somewhat take a little away from his pleasure in creating or was he merely indifferent towards this consequence?

Wouldn't this question require me to speculate?

I gave you exactly the sort of answer that I was looking for. I listed the reasons.
You, however, didn´t want to answer the question for the reasons. Instead you would have preferred to answer the question for *good reasons*.

And so we come to the climax of the post. You appear to be claiming that your response to my posts is value-neutral. Maybe you are trying to respond that way - think it's possible to respond that way. I don't believe a value-neutral response is possible.

I'll go even further. I think each time you counter me (and the same was true of Eudaimonist) that you insert a negative connotation - even if you don't see it that way. So, I was trying to circumvent that. I asked you to give me something that you believed carried a positive connotation and, for the sake of argument, I would agree to accept it as such.

As an example, take this statement (emphasis mine):

Well, something about his situation must have been deficient. Else he wouldn´t have changed things.

Do you honestly expect me to accept a statement like that given my position that God is perfect? Yet, if I try to explain, you pull the "you're inventing as you go" card.

As a last attempt to explain the problem that lies between us, let me give this example - an admittedly extreme one, but hopefully clear.

Actor A = Unbeliever in parental procreation, whose position is "children evolved."
Actor B = Believer in parental procreation, whose position is "procreating children is 'good'"

Actor A: Why do parents procreate?
Actor B: Because children please them.
Actor A: Ah, so parents are pedophiles.

 

[quatona]

My evasive answer that follows is meant to include this question. And, so you don't have to try reading subtext, there was some sarcasm in that statement. In fact, all the sarcastic comments that follow are a lead up to the final passage at the end of my post.

Ok, sorry for taking the whole stuff seriously.

I think I always understood the question. You just didn't like the answer. Didn't we agree on that via my summary?

No, I don´t see how I agreed with that when saying "this is not good enough an answer". Maybe it would have been more clear had I insisted to paraphrase my response as "this is not an answer to the question as I meant to ask it."

Wouldn't this question require me to speculate?

How can I know? I don´t know what of your ideas strike you as firm knowledge and which as speculations.
(If you´d ask me I would say all god concepts are speculations. But this conversation is not about my ideas but about your god concept.)

And so we come to the climax of the post. You appear to be claiming that your response to my posts is value-neutral.

No, all I am claiming is that to me it is irrelevant what value you or I give to those reasons. I have given a couple of reasons independently of how I value them. If you feel under the pressure that god´s reasons must be "good" reasons in your value system: I understand why that is. But this is of no interest to me.
If you can´t find any reasons that you feel are good, that´s not my problem. If you are eager to customize the reasons you name to my value system, that´s not my problem, either.
I told you I won´t hold your god´s reasons against his character or against you. This is not the intention behind my questions.

Maybe you are trying to respond that way - think it's possible to respond that way. I don't believe a value-neutral response is possible.

So which value do you think did I give to each of the reasons I have listed? Are you a psychic or something?

I'll go even further. I think each time you counter me (and the same was true of Eudaimonist) that you insert a negative connotation - even if you don't see it that way. So, I was trying to circumvent that. I asked you to give me something that you believed carried a positive connotation and, for the sake of argument, I would agree to accept it as such.

Yes, I do understand that you are under the need of picturing your god as positive. I, however, am not, and, as I said and promised before, I am not out to criticize the god of your concepts for the reasons you ascribe to him. This is not at all the my intention or approach.

Do you honestly expect me to accept a statement like that given my position that God is perfect?

Firstly, so far I didn´t even know that your position was that your god is perfect. We haven´t talked about that.
But, yes: I think it would indeed be a challenge to explain how a perfect god (and since being all there is, in a perfect setup) would desire a change.
This challenge is independent of the words used. E.g. in the above description there is not a single negatively connotated word.

Yet, if I try to explain, you pull the "you're inventing as you go" card.

Please don´t anticipate comments I haven´t given to explanations you haven´t made.

Actor A = Unbeliever in parental procreation, whose position is "children evolved."
Actor B = Believer in parental procreation, whose position is "procreating children is 'good'"

Actor A: Why do parents procreate?
Actor B: Because children please them.
Actor A: Ah, so parents are pedophiles.

That´s entirely made up. It´s not a description of my approach, it´s a description of your fear.
Could you possibly point me to any statement of mine about the god of your idea that is even only faintly comparable to "Ah, so parents are pedophiles?". Anything that resembles a character assassination?
AGAIN: I am not out to make your god look bad. Not at all. Nowhere in this thread have I done that, and on top you had my word that I won´t do it.
I do understand that your primary filter is "god (and his reasons) must be good" - but please don´t project that problem upon me.

In any case, I now have a clear idea why you carefully avoid to answer my question.

 

[quatona]

I doubt I could define it comprehensively enough to satisfy you.

I didn´t ask for a comprehensive definiton. I asked you to help me get an idea what you mean. I asked you to give me a line of distinction, e.g. by giving me a word that counts as trivial and one that counts as "beyond trivial".

I'll throw out a suggestion. Define "number" for me. [/quote]
Uh, that´s a tough one for me.

May I use a dictionary?

Do you (the person who wants to learn the meaning of "number") already know the words "one, two, three", or "many" or "more"?