Free will in heaven?

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, that's very interesting, because I find human needs to be at the very base of all motivations. If you'd like to dig deeper, I'll go there with you, but where would we begin?

We could begin by considering the implications of Thomas Hobbes' philosophy, and in a less direct but still relevant context along with Hobbes, we can also consider the limitations that exist to Maslow's "hierarchy of needs" philosophy (the limitations portion of this are proposed by Pamela Rutledge).

Yup. So where do we even go from here? Do we agree to disagree, or do we go down the rabbit hole and see if there's any base assumption we both share?

I guess we can see where Alice takes us.....? I'll tell you what, though, since I'm the skeptic here about the objectivity of human flourishing, you can take the lead on this side of the conversation.

 

[Chriliman]

I don't understand what this means.



0 is no more or less meaningless than any other finite number. Transfinite numbers are no more or less meaningless than finite numbers. Meaning is subjective and numbers are objective.

So your statement, "Remember the ratio of finite to infinite is 0" is correct by itself but does not serve to complement or bolster the previous statement.



Hopefully the above spells out my take on it.



Then how do you intend to show we have purpose or even that purpose exists?

Meaning is either finite(dependent on finite beings) or infinite(dependent on infinite beings). If the former then meaninglessness is infinite and therefore per your earlier ratio, any meaning we perceive is actually 0, or no meaning at all.

If you don't understand at this point then we can be done because I'm beginning to think our entire conversation has indeed been meaningless.

Edit: In hindsight I probably shouldn't be surprised since I'm speaking with a nihilist.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Meaning is either finite(dependent on finite beings) or infinite(dependent on infinite beings).

False dichotomy as you are asserting the point in question. Furthermore your terms are ambiguous and undefined.

If the former then meaninglessness is infinite and therefore per your earlier ratio, any meaning we perceive is actually 0, or no meaning at all.

This is nonsense. Also, when you say, "0, or no meaning at all," it sounds like you think that meaning, or purpose, has units of measurement. Again I ask, what are those units?

If you don't understand at this point then we can be done because I'm beginning to think our entire conversation has indeed been meaningless.

Edit: In hindsight I probably shouldn't be surprised since I'm speaking with a nihilist.

Ad hominem. Don't put this on me. I don't believe the Bible but that doesn't mean I don't understand it. I understand it better than most Christians. The failure of this conversation is entirely on you and your insistence of spewing nonsense. When I ask for clarity you give definitions that make no sense. You end up retracting them and at the end of it all, you've said nothing.

 

[Chriliman]

False dichotomy as you are asserting the point in question. Furthermore your terms are ambiguous and undefined.

Not a false dichotomy since I'm stating the only 2 options available. Unless you think meaning depends on something other than conscious beings.

You'll need to address this before I address the rest of your post.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Not a false dichotomy since I'm stating the only 2 options available.

I said, "False dichotomy as you are asserting the point in question." If you had simply read the entire sentence you'd have seen that your question was answered before you asked it. Your dichotomy assumes that beings have meaning. This is a point that you tried to justify, but then scrapped the attempt. Why it is that you continue to assume this point is beyond me.

Unless you think meaning depends on something other than conscious beings.

Show me that it even exists at all.

You'll need to address this before I address the rest of your post.

Like I said, I'd already done so before you even posted this.

 

[Chriliman]

I said, "False dichotomy as you are asserting the point in question." If you had simply read the entire sentence you'd have seen that your question was answered before you asked it. Your dichotomy assumes that beings have meaning. This is a point that you tried to justify, but then scrapped the attempt. Why it is that you continue to assume this point is beyond me.



Show me that it even exists at all.



Like I said, I'd already done so before you even posted this.

You’re trying to convey a truth without acknowledging its meaning. How can something be true if it has no meaning?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You’re trying to convey a truth without acknowledging its meaning. How can something be true if it has no meaning?

That's not what I actually said here. I am questioning the idea of living beings having meaning. How it is that you take this to mean that I'm questioning the idea of words having meaning is beyond me.

If you're referring to previous things I've said, you should clarify that because it looks like you're talking about this conversation.

Or are you referring to the part where I said, "Show me that [meaning] even exists at all"?

 

[Chriliman]

That's not what I actually said here. I am questioning the idea of living beings having meaning. How it is that you take this to mean that I'm questioning the idea of words having meaning is beyond me.

If living beings have meaningful words and thoughts in mind then they themselves are meaningful.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

If living beings have meaningful words and thoughts in mind then they themselves are meaningful.

That does not logically follow. Things true of a person's words are not necessarily true of the person. For example:

If living beings have meaningful words grammatically correct statements and thoughts in mind then they themselves are meaningful grammatically correct.

Your conclusion doesn't follow automatically, so you must go through the process of actually demonstrating your position with facts and evidence.

 

[Chriliman]

That does not logically follow. Things true of a person's words are not necessarily true of the person. For example:

If living beings have meaningful words grammatically correct statements and thoughts in mind then they themselves are meaningful grammatically correct.

Meh, I'm not convinced you're correct here. If a person's thoughts and expressions are meaningful then it follows that the person is being meaningful.

I'll leave it at that.

Thanks,

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Meh, I'm not convinced you're correct here. If a person's thoughts and expressions are meaningful then it follows that the person is being meaningful.

I'll leave it at that.

Thanks,

That doesn't mean a person is meaningful.

Most languages wouldn't say, "I am jumping" but rather "I jump." English is clumsy in its use of the verb "to be." It shouldn't be used for action verbs. It should only be used for describing some innate state of existence. If I'm currently jumping or "being meaningful" that does not describe my innate state of existence. Conversely, if I said, "I am fat," then that would be describing my innate state of existence. That's the proper way to use the "to be" verb.

Another problem with this conversation is that the term "meaning" is also ambiguous. "Meaning" can refer to either purpose or to definition. Those are not the same thing. I would assume that your use here has always been in reference to the former. Should I have assumed you were referring to the latter and then played games with you? I'm earnestly digging here and you seem to be giving me the run-around at every opportunity.

You've demonstrated the ability to be honest, both here and on other threads. You've demonstrated the ability to admit when you're wrong. I don't need you to do that; I just want you to be honest and either show me that purpose exists objectively or else tell me it cannot be done. You can still insist that purpose exists, so that way you're not admitting that you're wrong. You can insist that purpose exists but just that it cannot be shown to exist. In that case we'd take it from there.

 

[gaara4158]

We could begin by considering the implications of Thomas Hobbes' philosophy, and in a less direct but still relevant context along with Hobbes, we can also consider the limitations that exist to Maslow's "hierarchy of needs" philosophy (the limitations portion of this are proposed by Pamela Rutledge).

I guess we can see where Alice takes us.....? I'll tell you what, though, since I'm the skeptic here about the objectivity of human flourishing, you can take the lead on this side of the conversation.

Ah, Hobbes is a name I had to google to remember what he was about. Man, the research assignments I get from people here are no joke
Anyway, after some Googling, it seems Hobbes didn't believe humans, in their natural state, truly had a common basis for morality, and therefore morality can't be objective. If we're talking in the strict, unanimous sense of "common," then he's right, and that's fine. What I'm arguing for here isn't an objective basis for morality that's as plain or measurable as the width of a leaf, but rather a strong basis that any rational, self-interested person would agree to. I actually go back and forth on whether this is strong enough to call "objective," but I remain firm in calling it "good enough."
I find that I'm pretty aligned with him as far as motivations go, so I'll need further clarification if you think there's something beyond human needs driving all motivation that Hobbes would have pointed out.

Your article was a good read, and it makes sense that social structures would play such an integral role in all categories of human needs. We are, after all, a social species that arose from a long line of social predecessors. Our intrinsic wants and needs are generally oriented toward cooperation and self-preservation. That's why I'm confident that most people would agree on what a moral system should aim to achieve, even if this consensus is not unanimous.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ah, Hobbes is a name I had to google to remember what he was about. Man, the research assignments I get from people here are no joke
Anyway, after some Googling, it seems Hobbes didn't believe humans, in their natural state, truly had a common basis for morality, and therefore morality can't be objective. If we're talking in the strict, unanimous sense of "common," then he's right, and that's fine. What I'm arguing for here isn't an objective basis for morality that's as plain or measurable as the width of a leaf, but rather a strong basis that any rational, self-interested person would agree to. I actually go back and forth on whether this is strong enough to call "objective," but I remain firm in calling it "good enough."

While I sympathize with your attempt here, and I understand what you're getting at, and while I hate to sound like Nihilist Virus in saying this, "good enough" isn't good enough. My intention here is to delve into what Hobbes actually thought, and I don't think that he can just be waved away.

I find that I'm pretty aligned with him as far as motivations go, so I'll need further clarification if you think there's something beyond human needs driving all motivation that Hobbes would have pointed out.

I may have to look some things up since it's been a while since I read Hobbes, but I think he intended to say that Nature is politically wild and not very conducive to mankind's more noble instincts without a "Leviathan" to bring order and Rule to society. It's not objective, but rather a kind of pragmatic means to an end.

I have to think that our notions about subjectivity are in themselves somewhat subjective without some bigger epistemological and/or hermeneutical framework by which we can construct our meaning(s) about it and our meaning(s) about objectivity.

Your article was a good read, and it makes sense that social structures would play such an integral role in all categories of human needs. We are, after all, a social species that arose from a long line of social predecessors. Our intrinsic wants and needs are generally oriented toward cooperation and self-preservation. That's why I'm confident that most people would agree on what a moral system should aim to achieve, even if this consensus is not unanimous.

The trick is for you to show that this is actually what people do in the world on a universal scale, especially when it comes to things like Human Rights and so forth.

I leave this for now. I'm still in the process of moving and my books will be locked up until at least this coming Saturday, so think over what it is you feel you need to assert to make define how your subjectivity works and how it may play into any objectivity of common ethics that in turn play into some (still ethereal) notion about "human flourishing."

Interesting discussion, gaara!

 

[Hawkins]

As far as I can tell, most Christians believe in free will. They also believe that one cannot sin in heaven. How would you reconcile those beliefs?

Freewill is a capability. It is more like the processor of a computer. It is capable of processing a list of options from the very positive (God end) to the very negative (Satan end). A covenant sets a standard that you can choose back and forth but in the end mostly you will only choose the positive above the mark 0 (which is the achievement of holiness).

In Heaven, you retain the same capability but the negative list will no longer be the same. Even when there is a negative end (New Covenant as an eternal covenant accepts repentance, that is, of not deadly sins), it won't be to the extent of "Satan choices". Alternatively under our consent, God may remove the whole negative options completely as a part of the predestination of the saved. Somehow we deserve to be a "robot" that way.

Moreover, God foresees the future, for anyone who will sin in the future most likely he's been removed during the earthly stage. That's part of God's job in designing a covenant for the identification of the righteous. That's the point of "everyone is invited but not everyone is chosen". It's more like a marriage which requires the husband to choose the wife while the wife also chooses the husband. Plus at some point under the equal status of a "God options" and "Satan options", you are somehow captive by the "Satan options".

 

[gaara4158]

While I sympathize with your attempt here, and I understand what you're getting at, and while I hate to sound like Nihilist Virus in saying this, "good enough" isn't good enough. My intention here is to delve into what Hobbes actually thought, and I don't think that he can just be waved away.

We can definitely delve there as long as you’re willing to take the lead here, as the one with a degree in a philosophical discipline. A moral system based on meeting human needs isn’t good enough to keep a society together, I agree (and more on that next), but it’s good enough to evaluate the morality of any given behavior, and that’s generally what we’re looking for when we argue for the need for an objective morality.

I may have to look some things up since it's been a while since I read Hobbes, but I think he intended to say that Nature is politically wild and not very conducive to mankind's more noble instincts without a "Leviathan" to bring order and Rule to society. It's not objective, but rather a kind of pragmatic means to an end.

Would the State count as that sort of Leviathan? That’s what we see across the board, historically speaking. Moral instincts do ultimately fail to direct behavior on a societal level, so it becomes necessary to introduce law enforcement and a judicial system to maintain order. These things must in turn be governed themselves, and many forms of government have been tried. I don’t want to get into a political science discussion, but hopefully we can agree that governments arise to meet public, human needs. Even in groups operating outside the law of the land, we see ringleaders and codes of conduct aimed at preserving the group, and individuals join such groups to meet their own needs. I know it’s a huge part of philosophers’ job description to be as convincing as possible, but I’m really finding myself in Hobbes’ corner thus far.

I have to think that our notions about subjectivity are in themselves somewhat subjective without some bigger epistemological and/or hermeneutical framework by which we can construct our meaning(s) about it and our meaning(s) about objectivity.

Yes, and that might be one of the biggest problems in my discussions regarding objective morality here. On the one hand, I fear the idea of objective morality can lead to the justification of atrocities for some “greater good,” which we have indeed seen committed for religious and nonreligious reasons alike. I am admittedly motivated to label morality subjective for this reason. On the other hand, I’m having trouble nailing down just what it means to call something objective. “Independent of human minds” doesn’t seem to cover it, since human minds can still be studied objectively. Maybe you can help?

The trick is for you to show that this is actually what people do in the world on a universal scale, especially when it comes to things like Human Rights and so forth.

I leave this for now. I'm still in the process of moving and my books will be locked up until at least this coming Saturday, so think over what it is you feel you need to assert to make define how your subjectivity works and how it may play into any objectivity of common ethics that in turn play into some (still ethereal) notion about "human flourishing."

Interesting discussion, gaara!

I’m enjoying this too, and I’ll mention to my other interlocutors in this thread that I haven’t abandoned those discussions, I’m just strapped for time. I’d tag them but mobile is making that difficult.

 

[joinfree]

As far as I can tell, most Christians believe in free will. They also believe that one cannot sin in heaven. How would you reconcile those beliefs?

You are free to choose between good things and actions.

 

[cvanwey]

You are free to choose between good things and actions.

I too would like to hear your answer to this poster's question? How do you reconcile the following?

'As far as I can tell, most Christians believe in free will. They also believe that one cannot sin in heaven. How would you reconcile those beliefs?'

***************

Your given 'response' accounts for nothing the poster asked of you. Please actually give it some thought, and attempt to make an honest assessment of the presented and applied paradox.

 

[gaara4158]

You are free to choose between good things and actions.

Sounds a bit like Henry Ford’s famous quote about the Model T. “Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black.”

 

[Eloy Craft]

I too would like to hear your answer to this poster's question? How do you reconcile the following?

'As far as I can tell, most Christians believe in free will. They also believe that one cannot sin in heaven. How would you reconcile those beliefs?'

***************

Your given 'response' accounts for nothing the poster asked of you. Please actually give it some thought, and attempt to make an honest assessment of the presented and applied paradox.

Those beliefs are reconciled in post #19. Jesus demonstrated free will on the cross. It is paradoxical since His feet and hands were nailed to the wood. In this life free will is tested by the One who is free will. The opportunity to freely choose His will, if we choose it, is rewarded by the next level of freedom. That freedom is described in post #19.

 

[holo]

You are free to choose between good things and actions.

Then the question is why we can choose evil on earth. What's the point?