Free will, identity, and God’s supposed design limitations

[MolecularGenetics]

Even if our consciousness, personality, and desires are not entirely contingent on the interaction of neurons in our brains, they must still be mostly dependent, since physical changes to human brains are routinely observed to alter them (Ex: the effects hormones have on desires, or the effects of brain damage on personality).

So even if we have “free will,” it is heavily influenced by our neurochemistry and neuroanatomy.

If God is the architect of our brains, then not only has his design caused us to have propensities to engage in certain behaviors and refrain from engaging in other behaviors; but many of those propensities are for behaviors he is said in the Bible to not want us to engage in (such as greed, violence, and adultery) and many others against behaviors he is said to want us to engage in (such as charity and subservience).

This is especially relevant to (but not limited to) Adam, Eve, and the Garden’s “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (if one ascribes to a literal interpretation of Genesis). The designed propensity for greed and against subservience would have doomed them to fall, from the beginning; and an omniscient deity would have known this.

I see only three ways this dilemma can be resolved:

1. God was unable to design us any other way.
2. God actually wants us to refrain from or engage in the behaviors we have been designed with a propensity to refrain from or engage in.
3. God does not exist.

Since (if God exists) he is powerful and knowledgeable enough to have created an entire existent framework (matter, energy, space-time, etc.) from the ground up, it is unreasonable to conclude possibility #1.

Since the Bible says that God does not want greed and violence (or all the suffering they result in), and does want charity and subservience, it is unreasonable to conclude possibility #2, given a Christian framework.

Perhaps I am biased against the possibility of such indifference (at best) in a deity, but I nonetheless find possibility #3 to be the most reasonable.

So my main question is; how can possibility #1 be the most reasonable (given either a Christian framework, or simply a theist framework)?

As a side question; if free will merely means freedom from our brains and from sensory input from the physical world—since what makes a human “his or her self” is heavily determined by (if not solely determined by) the brain—would the loss of our brains, upon death, cause us to no longer be “ourselves?”

 

[drich0150]

I see only three ways this dilemma can be resolved:

1. God was unable to design us any other way.
2. God actually wants us to refrain from or engage in the behaviors we have been designed with a propensity to refrain from or engage in.
3. God does not exist.

Perhaps there is a Fourth option,

But First some very basic definitions:

Sin, Is anything not in the expressed will of God

Evil, is a malicious intent to sin.

(Not all sin is Evil, but all evil is sin.)

Freewill, is the ability to choose something not in the expressed will of God.

We have been given this life and the gift of freewill in order that we may choose, where we wish to spend eternity.. For there to be a real viable choice, there must be at least one unencumbered option to the will of God. There is, and that is to sin. So "Free will" is the ability to choose something not in the expressed will of God, or rather it is the ability to sin.

But, in sin lies a dilemma, because God is Holy we (as sinners) are no longer worthy to occupy the same eternity with God, so even if we openly chose to be with God we could not. (Because none of us could live an entire life and be in God's will all of the time.) Unless we have someone pure and holy Himself that is willing to die in our place (For the wage of sin is death.)

So enter Jesus and the sacrifice He made, that pardoned the sins of the world. so now all who choose to be with God for eternity can have a genuine opportunity to choose to do so.

 

[MolecularGenetics]

Perhaps there is a Fourth option.

Such as? If none others can be identified, then my explanation of why #3 is the most reasonable still stands.

But First some very basic definitions:

Sin, Is anything not in the expressed will of God

Evil, is a malicious intent to sin.

(Not all sin is Evil, but all evil is sin.)

Right. And the definition of sin coincides with my explanation:

Engaging in behaviors God is said in the Bible to not want us to engage in (such as greed, violence, and adultery) and refraining from engaging in behaviors God is said to want us to engage in (such as charity and subservience).
​

Since I am only addressing sin—and since evil is merely a type of sin—the distinction is irrelevant to this issue.

Freewill, is the ability to choose something not in the expressed will of God. We have been given this life and the gift of freewill in order that we may choose, where we wish to spend eternity.. For there to be a real viable choice, there must be at least one unencumbered option to the will of God. There is, and that is to sin. So "Free will" is the ability to choose something not in the expressed will of God, or rather it is the ability to sin.

This argument is exactly what my post explains to be inaccurate, and what I am asking anyone and everyone to explain how I am wrong.

As I explained, even if we have free will, it is quite observably "encumbered:"

Even if our consciousness, personality, and desires are not entirely contingent on the interaction of neurons in our brains, they must still be mostly dependent, since physical changes to human brains are routinely observed to alter them (Ex: the effects hormones have on desires, or the effects of brain damage on personality).

So even if we have “free will,” it is heavily influenced by our neurochemistry and neuroanatomy.

And again, God's design is observed to include propensities to sin. But then we are right back to my 3 possible resolutions.

So again, how can possibility #1 be the most reasonable (given either a Christian framework, or simply a theist framework)?

But, in sin lies a dilemma, because God is Holy we (as sinners) are no longer worthy to occupy the same eternity with God, so even if we openly chose to be with God we could not. (Because none of us could live an entire life and be in God's will all of the time.) Unless we have someone pure and holy Himself that is willing to die in our place (For the wage of sin is death.)

So enter Jesus and the sacrifice He made, that pardoned the sins of the world. so now all who choose to be with God for eternity can have a genuine opportunity to choose to do so.

This remainder is based on the yet-resolved argument that I have made this thread in an effort to resolve.

 

[Chesterton]

So my main question is; how can possibility #1 be the most reasonable (given either a Christian framework, or simply a theist framework)?

No. 1 seems reasonable to me, because even God was unable to design us in a contradictory way.

The nature of sin is a focusing on, or a turning towards, one's self, to the exclusion of God and other selves. But, if God was going to create a self which was free, He would have to allow that possibility. He couldn't create a being which was free and not free at the same time.

 

[mark46]

God is all-knowing
God is all good
God is all powerful
We have free will
============
So for you, if we cannot understand the paradox, we must conclude that God does not exist.

I am certainly glad that the scientists over the ages haven't taken this approach every time they are faced with something that don't undersatnd.
=============
Perhaps there are many other paradigms to understand that Universe that also involve paradox?

In any case, choosing to be a-theistic, that is, to believe that there is only the material world has its own biases and paradoxes.

By faith alone, you choose to believe that after death, there is nothing. By faith alone, you choose to believe that there are no spiritual events.
===============

I understand the world of agnostic, those unwilling to commit, those who truly do not understand the payoff matrix and choose not to seek Union with the Infinite.

The world of the atheistic, I do not understand. Perhaps you will very lucky and both Christian and atheistic are wrong. Perhaps, we will be reborn and reborn on this Nintendo game we get it right. Or just perhaps this game has only one level, with one choice to make.

===============

Even if our consciousness, personality, and desires are not entirely contingent on the interaction of neurons in our brains, they must still be mostly dependent, since physical changes to human brains are routinely observed to alter them (Ex: the effects hormones have on desires, or the effects of brain damage on personality).

So even if we have “free will,” it is heavily influenced by our neurochemistry and neuroanatomy.

If God is the architect of our brains, then not only has his design caused us to have propensities to engage in certain behaviors and refrain from engaging in other behaviors; but many of those propensities are for behaviors he is said in the Bible to not want us to engage in (such as greed, violence, and adultery) and many others against behaviors he is said to want us to engage in (such as charity and subservience).

This is especially relevant to (but not limited to) Adam, Eve, and the Garden’s “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (if one ascribes to a literal interpretation of Genesis). The designed propensity for greed and against subservience would have doomed them to fall, from the beginning; and an omniscient deity would have known this.

I see only three ways this dilemma can be resolved:

1. God was unable to design us any other way.
2. God actually wants us to refrain from or engage in the behaviors we have been designed with a propensity to refrain from or engage in.
3. God does not exist.

Since (if God exists) he is powerful and knowledgeable enough to have created an entire existent framework (matter, energy, space-time, etc.) from the ground up, it is unreasonable to conclude possibility #1.

Since the Bible says that God does not want greed and violence (or all the suffering they result in), and does want charity and subservience, it is unreasonable to conclude possibility #2, given a Christian framework.

Perhaps I am biased against the possibility of such indifference (at best) in a deity, but I nonetheless find possibility #3 to be the most reasonable.

So my main question is; how can possibility #1 be the most reasonable (given either a Christian framework, or simply a theist framework)?

As a side question; if free will merely means freedom from our brains and from sensory input from the physical world—since what makes a human “his or her self” is heavily determined by (if not solely determined by) the brain—would the loss of our brains, upon death, cause us to no longer be “ourselves?”

 

[mark46]

The simple answer is that God created us in His image, with his characteristics. We are God-stuff. We therefore must have the free will to choose life or death.

Even if our consciousness, personality, and desires are not entirely contingent on the interaction of neurons in our brains, they must still be mostly dependent, since physical changes to human brains are routinely observed to alter them (Ex: the effects hormones have on desires, or the effects of brain damage on personality).

So even if we have “free will,” it is heavily influenced by our neurochemistry and neuroanatomy.

If God is the architect of our brains, then not only has his design caused us to have propensities to engage in certain behaviors and refrain from engaging in other behaviors; but many of those propensities are for behaviors he is said in the Bible to not want us to engage in (such as greed, violence, and adultery) and many others against behaviors he is said to want us to engage in (such as charity and subservience).

This is especially relevant to (but not limited to) Adam, Eve, and the Garden’s “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (if one ascribes to a literal interpretation of Genesis). The designed propensity for greed and against subservience would have doomed them to fall, from the beginning; and an omniscient deity would have known this.

I see only three ways this dilemma can be resolved:

1. God was unable to design us any other way.
2. God actually wants us to refrain from or engage in the behaviors we have been designed with a propensity to refrain from or engage in.
3. God does not exist.

Since (if God exists) he is powerful and knowledgeable enough to have created an entire existent framework (matter, energy, space-time, etc.) from the ground up, it is unreasonable to conclude possibility #1.

Since the Bible says that God does not want greed and violence (or all the suffering they result in), and does want charity and subservience, it is unreasonable to conclude possibility #2, given a Christian framework.

Perhaps I am biased against the possibility of such indifference (at best) in a deity, but I nonetheless find possibility #3 to be the most reasonable.

So my main question is; how can possibility #1 be the most reasonable (given either a Christian framework, or simply a theist framework)?

As a side question; if free will merely means freedom from our brains and from sensory input from the physical world—since what makes a human “his or her self” is heavily determined by (if not solely determined by) the brain—would the loss of our brains, upon death, cause us to no longer be “ourselves?”

 

[MolecularGenetics]

No. 1 seems reasonable to me, because even God was unable to design us in a contradictory way.

I'm not sure what you mean.

The nature of sin is a focusing on, or a turning towards, one's self, to the exclusion of God and other selves. But, if God was going to create a self which was free, He would have to allow that possibility.

The issue is not possibility—the issue is the needless creation of propensity to refrain from behaviors God is said to want and to engage in behaviors God is said not to want. I see no reason to believe that the same deity that designed and created space-time from the ground up is somehow incapable of creating an alternate hormonal system, for instance (the sky's the limit, when you can literally tailor reality itself to your liking).

He couldn't create a being which was free and not free at the same time.

Well, in essence he necessarily has; we posses all kinds of propensities (to sin and to refrain). My point is that the current set needn't be as sin-inducing as it is. Hence, the dilemma.

 

[MolecularGenetics]

God is all-knowing
God is all good
God is all powerful
We have free will

The simple answer is that God created us in His image, with his characteristics. We are God-stuff. We therefore must have the free will to choose life or death.

I have no problem with you believing that; but I intended this thread to be a critical analysis of the idea. For the specific reasons I explained, I find it inconsistent and unreasonable.

So for you, if we cannot understand the paradox, we must conclude that God does not exist.

No, for anyone applying the scientific method, one tentatively runs with the model that best fits the data.

I am certainly glad that the scientists over the ages haven't taken this approach every time they are faced with something that don't undersatnd.

I am quite familiar with the scientific method, and I am curious to know where I have deviated from it. I have approached this issue by examining every model I can think of, and then assessing how reasonable each one is. When I did so, I came to the reasoned conclusion that #1 best fits my observations.

I'm very glad scientists over the ages have taken the same approach.

Perhaps there are many other paradigms to understand that Universe that also involve paradox?

Anything can be called a paradox, given the right assumptions. One could likewise explain away just about any observation of the physical world as a paradox to an endless supply of models. In science, that's where parsimony comes in.

So it's important to take all data seriously. Which is what I am doing.

In any case, choosing to be a-theistic, that is, to believe that there is only the material world has its own biases and paradoxes.

No, there are atheists that believe in the supernatural; such as ghosts. Also, people don't choose what they believe. Try beliving something on command, and you'll find that it doesn't work that way. Our brains get sensory data; they process it, and it influences us (if not fully causes us) to percieve ceartin things as evidence for or against certain propositions, and to find certain lines of argumentation persuasive enough for us to believe.

And then there is the issue of definition variation. I, for instance, neither perceive sufficient reason to believe that a deity exists—nor sufficient reason to believe that a deity does not exist. that makes me either an agnostic atheist (the definition I use) or just an agnostic (as I am, given the definition you are using here). Both are established (to different extents) and valid definitions, by the way.

[1] By faith alone, you choose to believe that after death, there is nothing. [2] By faith alone, you choose to believe that there are no spiritual events.

Both of those are misconceptions. Let's examine the data:

1. Alterations to the interaction of neurons in the portions of the brain that are correlated with consciousness invariably results in altered consciousness—including the loss of conciseness, upon a lack of interaction. This effectively established causality. So the reasonable conclusion is consciousness is an emergent property of neural interaction, and that a peppermint loss of neural interaction (death) results in a permanent lack of consciousness. No faith required.
2. Assuming a narrow enough definition of 'spiritual' to include only the supernatural; there are atheists that neither perceive sufficient reason to believe that forces outside of this universe exist (as string theory posits)—nor sufficient reason to believe that that such forces do not exist.

I understand the world of agnostic, [1] those unwilling to commit, [2] those who truly do not understand the payoff matrix [3] and choose not to seek Union with the Infinite.

Since, given the definition of 'atheist' you're using, I'm an agnostic, I must say, no; that is a gross misunderstanding of a diverse position.

1. I am not unwilling to commit—I simply do not perceive sufficient reason to justify doing so.
2. I definitely understand the system of bribes and threats present in various religions. But fortunately, I also understand the difference between risk and hazard.
3. I don't choose to refrain from believing in the existence of a deity anymore than I choose to refrain from believing that there exists a rock formation in the likeness of Beethoven on the far side of the moon, which contains exactly 15 rocks no more than a meter in diameter—I don't believe because I do not perceive sufficient reason to justify doing so.

The world of the atheistic, I do not understand. Perhaps you will very lucky and both Christian and atheistic are wrong. Perhaps, we will be reborn and reborn on this Nintendo game we get it right. Or just perhaps this game has only one level, with one choice to make.

Yes. Or perhaps the solipsists got it right, and the physical world is an illusion. But I'm not interested in wild speculation.

 

[drich0150]

Such as? If none others can be identified, then my explanation of why #3 is the most reasonable still stands.

My intentions were to show you that you were somewhat on the right track with your reasoning but simply have come to the wrong conclusions. Your answers appear to be based solely on secular reasoning, and as such will not allow anything of a spiritual nature to be introduced. So the 4th option would be hybrid of what you have deduced and what scripture tells us. The 4th option was intended to be my message taken as a whole.

Engaging in behaviors God is said in the Bible to not want us to engage in (such as greed, violence, and adultery) and refraining from engaging in behaviors God is said to want us to engage in (such as charity and subservience).

your response shows someone quick to judge, or categorize a message and dismiss anything not attune to your argument. Are you here to "explore Christianity" (Learn) or are you here to teach whatever it is you believe?

The portion you commented on can be made to fit what you originally said if you ignore the context in which it was placed.

Since I am only addressing sin—and since evil is merely a type of sin—the distinction is irrelevant to this issue.

Perhaps you should reread the definition of Evil, and then follow up with your list of "sins." Some of the examples you have listed are indeed examples of Evil. (Even if you only wish to speak of sin) Because of this, the definition of Evil proves itself to be necessary just because I had to just make that distinction.

This argument is exactly what my post explains to be inaccurate, and what I am asking anyone and everyone to explain how I am wrong.

As I explained, even if we have free will, it is quite observably "encumbered:"

This argument is only valid if one sets a base line for all of humanity, and expects humanity to perform to obtain a certain level of.. I don't know let's say righteousness/holiness.

Again, Christianity is not about right and wrong relationship with God. It about a decision to love, and free will is about one's ability to make that decision. that is unless you still believe that we are all either brain damaged or all so awash with hormones that we are not to be held accountable for what we decide to do with ourselves.

And again, God's design is observed to include propensities to sin. But then we are right back to my 3 possible resolutions.

Only if you wish to close your mind to any other possibilities.

So again, how can possibility #1 be the most reasonable (given either a Christian framework, or simply a theist framework)?

Your number one was never a viable option. It is simply a statement that can not ever be proved or disproved, because the fact remains whatever God's other options were, we were constructed in our present form.

that said, what makes your option no.1 not viable is the lack of any qualifying statements. in short your option 1 at best, is incomplete. I could speculate and say, it's incomplete because of a genuine lack of understanding, or maybe because you have an alternate agenda, and only want to push an argument that you have prepared yourself for, but again it is only speculation. either-way i would go with option 4 because It picks up where your options fall short.

This remainder is based on the yet-resolved argument that I have made this thread in an effort to resolve.

"the remainder" is meant to be taken in with the rest of the message as a whole. to dissect my message speaks of one who can not, or is not prepared to speak on the topic that is being discussed.

If you wish to discuss the topic you brought to this forum in it's complete form, then I invite you to respond. If for some reason you are unable to respond to the message as a whole i reserve the right to also pick and choose from your offerings what it is I wish to discuss.

As a side question; if free will merely means freedom from our brains and from sensory input from the physical world—since what makes a human “his or her self” is heavily determined by (if not solely determined by) the brain—would the loss of our brains, upon death, cause us to no longer be “ourselves?”

to be fair i decided to address your OP as a whole since i am asking you to do the same.

You argument does not account for the spirit or the soul. you seem to assume that because Medical science has not located the soul it does not exist. given the relatively young nature of medical science, don't you think this position to be at least a little presumptuous?

 

[MolecularGenetics]

"the remainder" is meant to be taken in with the rest of the message as a whole. to dissect my message speaks of one who can not, or is not prepared to speak on the topic that is being discussed.

That is incorrect. When the source marital is publicly and easily assessable, quotation is the most efficient method of response. It actually reduces the incidence of inadvertent misrepresentation. It makes sure that anything left out of the response is visible, and gives the whole thing structure. It allows you to address every facet of a person's response. I've been using it for years.

If you wish to discuss the topic you brought to this forum in it's complete form, then I invite you to respond. If for some reason you are unable to respond to the message as a whole i reserve the right to also pick and choose from your offerings what it is I wish to discuss.

That is an unreasonable request. Of course I am able, but it would be unorganized and inefficient. It would be one big, rambling word-stew.

Well, anyway. I have thoroughly responded to every issue you have said, so if you wish to continue accusing me of "not [being] prepared to speak on the topic that is being discussed," or anything else, feel free.

I'm used to people insulting me and leveling unfair criticisms against me, despite my maintenance of civility.

My intentions were to show you that you were somewhat on the right track with your reasoning but simply have come to the wrong conclusions. Your answers appear to be based solely on secular reasoning, and as such will not allow anything of a spiritual nature to be introduced. So the 4th option would be hybrid of what you have deduced and what scripture tells us. The 4th option was intended to be my message taken as a whole.

I mean no disrespect, but your message merely restated the argument I addressed. That is why I re-posted the gist of it.

your response shows someone quick to judge, or categorize a message and dismiss anything not attune to your argument. Are you here to "explore Christianity" (Learn) or are you here to teach whatever it is you believe?

I am here to learn about and discus the specific topic on which I am inquiring. To insinuate that I am here only to "teach" is unjustified, given that I have read every sentence and responded to every response relevant to my question.

The portion you commented on can be made to fit what you originally said if you ignore the context in which it was placed.

To what are you referring? And where did I ignore context? Bear in mind that I quoted your post in its entirety—albeit piecemeal.

Perhaps you should reread the definition of Evil, and then follow up with your list of "sins." Some of the examples you have listed are indeed examples of Evil. (Even if you only wish to speak of sin) Because of this, the definition of Evil proves itself to be necessary just because I had to just make that distinction.

I never said I only wished to speak of the sins that are not also evil. As you said:

Not all sin is Evil, but all evil is sin.

Thus evil is a classification of sin, in this context; so to talk of evil is necessarily to talk of sin. Since that is all I intended, I have no need to draw a distinction between the two.

This argument is only valid if one sets a base line for all of humanity, and expects humanity to perform to obtain a certain level of.. I don't know let's say righteousness/holiness.

As I explained, the baseline is the desires of God, which is a premise of the argument this addresses. If one does not posit that God has any desires, then this argument is irrelevant.

Again, Christianity is not about right and wrong relationship with God. It about a decision to love, and free will is about one's ability to make that decision. that is unless you still believe that we are all either brain damaged or all so awash with hormones that we are not to be held accountable for what we decide to do with ourselves.

The physical world is not democratic. If you want to know what's going on, you need to test hypotheses. It isn't as if I just frivolously chose to believe certain things about the neurological effect of hormones and brain damage—it is that those models of reality best fit the data.

Only if you wish to close your mind to any other possibilities.

I am open to alternate possibilities; as evidenced by the fact that I examined as many as I could think of here, and that I explicitly asked for others.

Your number one was never a viable option. It is simply a statement that can not ever be proved or disproved, because the fact remains whatever God's other options were, we were constructed in our present form.

My "number one" is a possibility (as are the others). Do you mean to say that #1 is an impossibility simply because it is untestable? Not only would be an indefensible position for a theist to take, but all the options are untestable. I would certainly never use the flawed argument that an untestable God cannot exist.

that said, what makes your option no.1 not viable is the lack of any qualifying statements. in short your option 1 at best, is incomplete.

I don't follow. I have explained influence and propensity, the discrepancy between the observable reality and what God is said in the Bible to want, and have listed three possibility. It seems you're brushing off this most common Christian counterargument I've seen (that #1 is the solution).

How is it incomplete? What do you even mean by that? Can you summarize possibility #3 so that I know that you know what I mean by is?

I could speculate and say, it's incomplete because of a genuine lack of understanding, or maybe because you have an alternate agenda, and only want to push an argument that you have prepared yourself for, but again it is only speculation.

My intention was get responses that actually address this dilemma for the Christian model.

...either-way i would go with option 4 because It picks up where your options fall short.

I read your entire message all the way through three times, and I see nothing that isn't part of what my original post addresses. Can you please (as I have done in other threads) concisely and clearly state your possibility #4, so that I can understand?

You argument does not account for the spirit or the soul. you seem to assume that because Medical science has not located the soul it does not exist. given the relatively young nature of medical science, don't you think this position to be at least a little presumptuous?

Soul is ill-defined, and often (as with dualism) untestable, due to its supposed supernatural components (or entity). What I am talking about is one's identity.

Alterations to the brain (including everything from experience to brain damage) are observed to cause changes in personality, consciousness, perception, etc. To say that these things are heavily influenced by (if not solely caused by) the brain is not at all speculative.

 

[theVirginian]

4. satandidit.

Discussions of evil in the world and the dual personality we seem to have aren't complete without including this punk. It's like watching a movie with a critical character edited out.

Plugging him into the equation gives credit where it's due and straightens out #2. Man wasn't created with an evil side to refrain from, satan introduced it. He takes the good things that God does, counterfeits them in a perverted form, then repackages them in a way that appeals to our body and/or mind.

The ironic thing about the fall is that if Adam and Eve had turned satan's offer down, they would have learned exactly the same thing- the difference between good and evil, and would have learned it in cooperation with God instead of in rebellion.

 

[drich0150]

That is incorrect. When the source marital is publicly and easily assessable, quotation is the most efficient method of response. It actually reduces the incidence of inadvertent misrepresentation. It makes sure that anything left out of the response is visible, and gives the whole thing structure. It allows you to address every facet of a person's response. I've been using it for years.

the dissection is not what was in question. It was the dissection of my message for the purposes of addressing what you thought was relevant and the discarding rest as irrelevant, that is the issue. If your going to dissect then do it as a whole.

Well, anyway. I have thoroughly responded to every issue you have said, so if you wish to continue accusing me of "not [being] prepared to speak on the topic that is being discussed," or anything else, feel free.
I'm used to people insulting me and leveling unfair criticisms against me, despite my maintenance of civility.

the only liberties taken were simple observations, and maybe some speculation as to why you would address apart of my message, and not the whole. if you wish to elevate your status to a martyr then do so on a legitimate pretense.

I mean no disrespect, but your message merely restated the argument I addressed. That is why I re-posted the gist of it.

As I had said I purposely used or rehashed your argument, and then extended it to further explain God's plan as explained through the Gospel. So yes i did use apart of your argument as a (failed) attempt to connect with your thought process so that i could continue your incomplete thought.

It seems evident that you do not see your thought as incomplete other wise you may have been able to identify the the subtle variations in my version, that concluded in a 4th option.

I am here to learn about and discus the specific topic on which I am inquiring. To insinuate that I am here only to "teach" is unjustified, given that I have read every sentence and responded to every response relevant to my question.

So when does a student get to decide what is relevant and what is not? It sounds to me if one is making that decision, then he is not here to learn, If one is not here to learn then what? (Since you wish to eliminate your role as a teacher.)

To what are you referring? And where did I ignore context? Bear in mind that I quoted your post in its entirety—albeit piecemeal.

I literally spelled it all out once, if this is a genuine concern then simply go back to page 1.

Thus evil is a classification of sin, in this context; so to talk of evil is necessarily to talk of sin. Since that is all I intended, I have no need to draw a distinction between the two.

In my original post i had no way of knowing that. Because you were classifying Evil and sin together I decided to make that distinction just in case the conversation when in that direction. Just trying to cover my bases.

As I explained, the baseline is the desires of God, which is a premise of the argument this addresses. If one does not posit that God has any desires, then this argument is irrelevant.

God's expressed desire is that we (Given our ability to choose) will choose to spend an eternity with Him.

It isn't as if I just frivolously chose to believe certain things about the neurological effect of hormones and brain damage—it is that those models of reality best fit the data.

Ok, even if you believe what you do, do you also believe that the majority of us are so awashed with hormones, or are so brain damaged that we can not be held accountable for our choices in life?

I do not disagree with your statement as a whole. But, i can not agree that the majority of the population of earth falls into the gist of your argument. I would say that you speak to the exception and not the rule when it comes to an average humans brain function.

I am open to alternate possibilities; as evidenced by the fact that I examined as many as I could think of here, and that I explicitly asked for others.

Then may i suggest that you do not discard any other "options" other than the ones you presented in your OP. (Even if you feel they are not relevant.)

My "number one" is a possibility (as are the others). Do you mean to say that #1 is an impossibility simply because it is untestable?

No i am saying no.1 is an impossibility because as i said No1 is incomplete.

what if I presented you with 2 options:

1. we can continue this conversation civilly
-or-
2. we can continue this

Why is option 2 not a viable option?

As a member of the Faith, Option one is not a viable because it is not complete. Even from a scientific perspective option one is incomplete because there is no way of verifying your assertion. in it's present form, it is a fact-less, baseless belief.

I don't follow. I have explained influence and propensity, the discrepancy between the observable reality and what God is said in the Bible to want, and have listed three possibility. It seems you're brushing off this most common Christian counterargument I've seen (that #1 is the solution).

How is it incomplete? What do you even mean by that?

See the above paragraph.

Can you summarize possibility #3 so that I know that you know what I mean by is?

option 3 is complete in that you believe that God does not exist. There is nothing more to summarize.

My intention was get responses that actually address this dilemma for the Christian model.

there isn't a christian model that explains why you decided to list 3 options to try and explain why and how God works through free will. one can only speculate.

I read your entire message all the way through three times, and I see nothing that isn't part of what my original post addresses.

I will simplify my explanation as you have done for us.
Option 4: God created us this way not because He had to, but because it pleased Him to do so.

What I am talking about is one's identity.

Alterations to the brain (including everything from experience to brain damage) are observed to cause changes in personality, consciousness, perception, etc. To say that these things are heavily influenced by (if not solely caused by) the brain is not at all speculative.

Perhaps a brain is simply the physical element that facilitates the activities of the soul. The "Soul" being (For a lack of a better understanding) all of the neural/electrical activity that medical science simply attributes to functional brain. As we all know energy can not be destroyed, it only changes state. So when we die our brains cease activity because our essence or our identity has changed state.

Our identities are not physically written or stored on our brain matter like a hard drive, it is stored in the neural/electrical activity that is contain with in our brains. (Or so says the discovery channel) so when we leave our brains we (the electrical activity) cease to be active in our current state. We move on, leaving this body, this world, this life behind.

 

[Chesterton]

I'm not sure what you mean.

Omnipotence is limited by being unable to do contradictory things. God cannot do nonsense. He cannot make a being which is free and limited at the same time, just as He cannot make a circle which is a square at the same time; both ideas are nonsensical.

The issue is not possibility—the issue is the needless creation of propensity to refrain from behaviors God is said to want and to engage in behaviors God is said not to want. I see no reason to believe that the same deity that designed and created space-time from the ground up is somehow incapable of creating an alternate hormonal system, for instance (the sky's the limit, when you can literally tailor reality itself to your liking).

Propensity is not the problem, how we react to propensity is the problem. If it is true that a man can be born with a genetic propensity for pedophilia or alcoholism or theft or whatever, the Christian understanding is that God will not judge that man the same as a man who was not born with such evil propensities.

A sin is the misuse of a created faculty which was intended for good. If you look at the old Christian list of the seven great virtues and sins, the two lists correspond. For example, the necessary conscious reflection upon the self which, used properly, would lead to the virtue of humility, is also able to lead to the sin of pride. Next on the lists, respectively, are generousity and greed. Again, they have their source in the same recognition - that everyone needs material resources in order to survive. And again the important thing is how you respond. Do you give to those who need, or do you horde for yourself? And so on.

Honestly, in my life I've wondered the same thing I think you're saying: I've wondered "if God wanted me to be good in certain ways, why didn't He just make me want to be good in those certain ways?". But it goes to the idea of freedom again. I hope this isn't stupid, but I'm thinking of an old Cheap Trick song "I Want You To Want Me", which is a very different idea from all the songs which are called "I Want You". God doesn't just want us to be good. He could have made us good. But making us good would be bad, pointless. He wants us to be the type of beings who want to be good. And God wants us to want Him.

Well, in essence he necessarily has; we posses all kinds of propensities (to sin and to refrain). My point is that the current set needn't be as sin-inducing as it is. Hence, the dilemma.

The propensity is one thing; the will which decides how to respond to the propensity is a separate thing. At the most basic level, think of hunger. We have a great propensity to want to eat, but the physical act of eating is an act of will. The propensity can't make you eat. (People on "hunger strikes", such as Bobby Sands, have starved themselves to death.)

 

[Joveia]

Even if our consciousness, personality, and desires are not entirely contingent on the interaction of neurons in our brains, they must still be mostly dependent, since physical changes to human brains are routinely observed to alter them (Ex: the effects hormones have on desires, or the effects of brain damage on personality).

So even if we have “free will,” it is heavily influenced by our neurochemistry and neuroanatomy.

I don't think that you can use those two examples in that sense.

Consider sexual desire, which is very powerful and leads a lot of people to do evil things for sex, like be unfaithful in marriage, and so on. Some people have argued that God should have made our hormones weaker so we weren't so interested in sex.

But there are problems there:

1) Hunger is another powerful desire, but it's not 'relational' in the way that sex is. Because sex is by definition relational, it needs to have a greater capacity for misuse than a desire like hunger. So the ability for our sexual desire to be twisted is a function of its 'relational' nature rather than its strength.
2) Sexual desire inside marriage is a wonderful thing. It's key to the whole institution of marriage. But to be so good in its proper context, outside of its proper context its ability to damage people must be very powerful as well.
3) Without strong sexual desire the population of humanity would be a lot less, which would mean a lot fewer people in heaven.

So our hormones are a good thing overall not a bad thing God should have changed.

Secondly, it's very rare for someone's personality to change due to brain damage (in a way that's not age related). If it's Alzheimer's then they go to heaven if they were a Christian beforehand. If someone has an intellectual disability then they go to heaven. It's really rare for someone to suddenly become evil because they were in a car accident. So although I don't know why God allows this to occasionally happen, it's not really that big of an issue in the world.

If God is the architect of our brains, then not only has his design caused us to have propensities to engage in certain behaviors and refrain from engaging in other behaviors; but many of those propensities are for behaviors he is said in the Bible to not want us to engage in (such as greed, violence, and adultery) and many others against behaviors he is said to want us to engage in (such as charity and subservience).

But if someone is really arrogant towards you then you likely would feel some degree of offense at it - such as 'What gives them the right to be so arrogant?' But I don't see how you can feel that if their arrogance is a result of inanimate forces. If it's a result of inanimate forces you should treat them like a little child who isn't responsible for his/her actions, with no anger or offense. The fact we do feel offense at evil in the world shows that pretty much no one believes this in their actions, even if we believe it intellectually.

Our actions show that we believe in 'neuroplasticity'. We believe that over a period of time we can shape our brain's chemistry to reflect the values of our 'free will'. So the evildoer should have adopted different values when they were younger, so their brain chemistry wouldn't reflect a complete lack of empathy for others.

[*]God actually wants us to refrain from or engage in the behaviors we have been designed with a propensity to refrain from or engage in.

I think there's a lot of scientific evidence that we can change the structure of our brain over time. Here is a great article on the scientific evidence for this - click 'show transcript'. Link.

The reason why anyone would choose to feel pride, hate, rage, and so on is the same reason why we do things like get a job, drive safely, and eat. It's because we think that sometimes pride, hate, rage and so on are in our self-interest, and we think that by being evil, we can get what we want.

There's good self-interest like driving carefully, and bad self-interest like murdering someone for their money. The issue with sin is that we constantly choose to forget this distinction because we have needs and wants (like food, friends, shelter) and messing other people around will sometimes fulfill them better. And God had to make us this way, because if we had no needs and wants we would be self-contained social islands, which is not a better situation.

 

[MolecularGenetics]

You wanted a lump-sum response, drich0150, so here it is. It's been a while since I responded in this fashion, so let's see if it will be the "unorganized and inefficient" "rambling word-stew" I anticipated:

I only responded to what my OP didn't already address. So I didn't discard anything, and have no intention of being needlessly redundant. I'm not here to be simply be a "student" or a "teacher;" but am actually here for two-way discussion, which includes attributes of both. I don't think given negative propensities absolve us of responsibility, but that they would be better off never made, if at all possible (there's #1 again). At least when I speak of the effect of neuron interaction on consciousness, etc, I speak to the rule. I have discarded no alternative option that I hadn't already addressed (in my OP, for instance).

Well, it wasn't as bad as I thought, but it's still far less organized and efficient than I am comfortable with. And there are some points you made that I find too important not to quote and respond to:

No i am saying no.1 is an impossibility because as i said No1 is incomplete.

what if I presented you with 2 options:

1. we can continue this conversation civilly
-or-
2. we can continue this

Why is option 2 not a viable option?

As a member of the Faith, Option one is not a viable because it is not complete.

Now I see what your misconception is; there are two types of incompleteness a statement can have:

1. An incomplete formation of the proposition that a statement conveys, forming an incoherent sentence fragment (although your example didn't portray that, as it is both true that "we can continue this" and true that "we can continue this conversation civilly," since #1 conveys a compete action, and #2 conveys a complete action in a specific manor)
2. A complete formation of a statement and of its conveyed proposition that incompletely encompasses the portion of reality that the proposition addresses

Every model incompletely encompasses the portion of reality that it describes and that does not and cannot make it impossible. A good example is based on part of Isaac Asimov's eloquent explanation of The Relativity of Wrong (as the essay is titled):

Here are three statements:

1. The earth is spherical.
2. The earth is a spheroid with a bulge at its equator.
3. The earth is a spheroid with a slightly uneven bulge at its equator.

As with your example—strictly speaking—all of them are wrong, as they fail to precisely describe reality. But in a far more useful sense of the term, they are all right, yet posses varying degrees of accuracy and inaccuracy; some convey more information than others.

What you haven't explained is just what crucial portion of reality that #1 incompletely encompasses.

Even from a scientific perspective option one is incomplete because there is no way of verifying your assertion. in it's present form, it is a fact-less, baseless belief.

You answered "no" to my question; "Do you mean to say that #1 is an impossibility simply because it is untestable?" But you then said that #1 is "incomplete because there is no way of verifying your assertion." Given that you used the term incomplete to denote nonviable type 1 incompleteness, and given that you have just described a lack of testability, you are saying that it's impossible because it's untestable. Yet you did not acknowledge that no possibility relating to the perception of a supernatural being is testable.

Consider the following:

Given the uncertainty principal, we cannot measure the location and velocity of a subatomic particle. Factor in wave-particle duality and the results of Young's double slit experiment, and the proposition that electrons simultaneously posses fixed values for both is untestable. Yet it is plainly obvious that this doesn't make it impossible—it just makes it impossible for us to know.

Bear in mind that I am presenting possibilities, rather than making an assertion as to their validity. So #1 cannot be impossible simply because it is an untestable and incompletely encompasses what it describes—it just means that it's impossible for us to know one way or the other.

I will simplify my explanation as you have done for us.
Option 4: God created us this way not because He had to, but because it pleased Him to do so.

As I originally thought; this is precisely what my OP addresses. Hopefully this summery of my OP will make this clearer:

We have propensities to do things that God is said in the Bible to not to want us to do. Thus, if we assume the Christian premises that 1) God exists; 2) God designed us; and 3) the Bible accurately describes God's will, when it says he desires certain things (like obedience and a lack of murder for instance), then given that our design causes us to have certain propensities for doing what he is said to dislike, either he had no other way of making us, such that we would still have the free will he wanted us to have (#1), or he doesn't really want what the Bible says he wants (#2).

As I said, the common proposed resolution, such as the one Joveia made here, is to posit #1. In fact, Joveia made the best case I've seen for #1, and I'm starting to reconsider the position I took in my OP (seriously, nice post, Joveia—I'll try to respond soon).

Perhaps a brain is simply the physical element that facilitates the activities of the soul. The "Soul" being (For a lack of a better understanding) all of the neural/electrical activity that medical science simply attributes to functional brain. As we all know energy can not be destroyed, it only changes state. So when we die our brains cease activity because our essence or our identity has changed state.

Our identities are not physically written or stored on our brain matter like a hard drive, it is stored in the neural/electrical activity that is contain with in our brains. (Or so says the discovery channel) so when we leave our brains we (the electrical activity) cease to be active in our current state. We move on, leaving this body, this world, this life behind.

Changes to or interruption of the complex interaction of neurons cause changes to or interruption of consciousness, perception, etc. Thus all indications are that they're emergent properties of neuron interaction. So not only is it is reasonable to think that a permanent loss of interaction (via death, for instance) would result in a permanent loss of consciousness; but even if there is an untestable supernatural component, it is reasonable to think that the loss of the brain would translate into a massive change in consciousness, perception, perception, etc—everything that we identifies as "us."

 

[MolecularGenetics]

There are more responses coming in than I anticipated (that's a good thing, by the way ). So, it might take me a while to respond to those (Joveia, Chesterton, theVirginian) whom I haven't already responded to (drich0150, mark1); but I will eventually do so.

Anyway, thanks to all 5 of you.

 

[drich0150]

You wanted a lump-sum response, drich0150, so here it is.

I did not necessarily want a lump sum response, as i have said your dissection of my post was not an Issue, The only Issue was when you dissected my original post you spoke to certain portions of it and labeled the rest of it "being needlessly redundant." My issue was unless you viewed my original statement as a whole then what you did address could be made to say anything you wanted. Truth be told I dissect nearly every post I respond to, but I do it as a whole and I generally do not disregard entire paragraphs I do not want to deal with.

What you haven't explained is just what crucial portion of reality that #1 incompletely encompasses.

Take your option 1 and my abbreviated option 4 and subtract the difference. If your looking for more biblical detail then add the details I left in my first post.
Your making all of this way more complicated than it needs to be.

May I suggest that you start simple, (lay a foundation) and the built upon it, rather than taking your working academic models and trying to make them fit a faith based line of reasoning.

Consider the following:

Given the uncertainty principal, we cannot measure the location and velocity of a subatomic particle. Factor in wave-particle duality and the results of Young's double slit experiment, and the proposition that electrons simultaneously posses fixed values for both is untestable. Yet it is plainly obvious that this doesn't make it impossible—it just makes it impossible for us to know.

Consider the following:

In Your OP you acknowledged the belief in God's gift, of freewill. just for arguments sake this is our subatomic particle. In your three options you have given 3 possibilities as to where a specific "subatomic" particle lies. When in truth the answer is no matter why God decided to create us the way He did, ultimately He created us in the way that pleased Him to do so.
As with the location of subatomic particles, God created us this way for a reason. It is not impossible for us to know why, it is just impossible to know why (with any measure of certainty) in this life. Consequently this is also why your option one is incomplete.

We have propensities to do things that God is said in the Bible to not to want us to do. Thus, if we assume the Christian premises that 1) God exists; 2) God designed us; and 3) the Bible accurately describes God's will, when it says he desires certain things (like obedience and a lack of murder for instance), then given that our design causes us to have certain propensities for doing what he is said to dislike, either he had no other way of making us, such that we would still have the free will he wanted us to have (#1), or he doesn't really want what the Bible says he wants

I haven't read Joviea's post yet, but may i suggest another option (one that is specifically addressed in scripture) The Bible (as a rule book) is simply a standard that has been given to us, to outline the perfect standard which one must follow perfectly, in order to earn true righteousness. (the right to stand before a Holy God)

The true intent of the rule book was not to have people try and live a perfect life, so that they may earn a place next to God. The rules were given so that we may see the impossibility in trying to earn righteousness. Because we all have sinned, and because if we break one of God's rules we are told it is like breaking all of them. So enter the bit I left in my OP about the blood sacrifice of Jesus.

In short we have been given God's law not as a way to earn righteousness, but to point to the need of a savior.

Changes to or interruption of the complex interaction of neurons cause changes to or interruption of consciousness, perception, etc. Thus all indications are that they're emergent properties of neuron interaction. So not only is it is reasonable to think that a permanent loss of interaction (via death, for instance) would result in a permanent loss of consciousness; but even if there is an untestable supernatural component, it is reasonable to think that the loss of the brain would translate into a massive change in consciousness, perception, perception, etc—everything that we identifies as "us."

Perhaps, at some point both find out for ourselves.

 

[Jpark]

Never mind.

 

[drich0150]

Sin, is a part of God's perfect will. Contrary to what you Christians believe, suffering, sin, and all evil that entered the world is a part of God's perfect will.

If you re-read what i wrote carefully, you will see i didnot say: Sin was not apart of God's perfect will. I said: "anything not in God's expressed will (Or the law) was a sin." I went on to say, sin was apart of God's over all design because of the Choice God has given us through free will.

 

[Jpark]

Never mind.