Free Will x Infinity =...

[Resha Caner]

How can I know? I don´t know what of your ideas strike you as firm knowledge and which as speculations.

My bad. Let me rephrase. It would require me to add to my theological framework something that was not there before - something you specifically warned against in post #19. The reason I see it as speculation is because of what I mentioned earlier, that I am drawing my position from the Bible. So, if I don't see it in the Bible, it would be speculation for me to comment on it.

FYI, I have lots of favorite speculative answers, but I've learned to avoid them in this forum for exactly the reasons uncovered in this discussion.

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.

To me this is a claim of neutrality, objectivity, value independence, or whatever disinterested, nonpartisan term you would prefer to choose. Whether or not you are convinced of the truthfulness of that position, I am not. Therefore, my challenge is this: If the "value" of a statement is irrelevant to you, then you must demonstrate that in one of two ways. One, you must be able to reply to me in completely neutral terms. Or two, you must adopt my "positive" terms for God in order to demonstrate that you understand me - not because you believe in the god so described by those positive terms, I realize you don't.

Otherwise, it seems like you are deliberately choosing terms you know I will disagree with. Where will that get us?

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.

Since you seem so determined to avoid assuming anything from my answers, let me note that this statement contains at least one assumption - that of "change."

This challenge is independent of the words used. E.g. in the above description there is not a single negatively connotated word.

Why would it matter to you if it did contain one?

That´s entirely made up.

Yeah, didn't I acknowledge that when I said it? In fact, didn't I even acknowledge that it was extreme?

It´s not a description of my approach, it´s a description of your fear.

It was an attempt to make the subtle obvious. Whether it describes your approach or my "fear" is a game of playing off your perceptions against mine. I would assume we've both been in that philosophical swamp before.

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.

AGAIN: I heard you. Your assumptions of my "fear" are clouding your interpretation of what I say. It is not a matter of whether I "fear" a "character assassination." Words with negative connotations imply to me that you do not understand what I said. There is a difference between a theological flaw and a negative connotation. If you come to the point of indicating what you think is a flaw, let me know in nice, big, bold letters. Until then, I'll assume all you're trying to do is understand.

As a digression, yes I could point to examples that are "faintly comparable." In fact I did in post #58. Another example would be your reference to hedonism. Surely you recognize the negative connotations associated with that word. Backing up, that is why I said my Cheetos example had gone awry. You assumed instant gratification, and I associate selfishness and rejection of moral standards with hedonism. None of those aspects fit my idea that God created for pleasure. In fact, I thought we were close at that point because you originally called my reply a good one.

Now, for some reason I don't understand, we're here:

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

I'm not avoiding, so let's try again, starting from this statement:

This is not the intention behind my questions.

I realize that for each statement I make, you profess that I miss your intent. Will you grant that I am not being willfully evasive? If not, this discussion has no point. If so, I can see 2 possible ways forward. The one you choose will help me understand this ever so elusive intent.

One: Accept that I see my "pleasure" answer as sufficient, and ask a follow-up question with the purpose of understanding why I see it as sufficient when you don't.

Two: Insist that there must be another reason behind the "pleasure" reason, and dig it out of me. I'm willing to go there (earlier I thought we were), but you must further acknowledge 2 things. First, even if the answer satisfies you, and whether you care or not, you won't get agreement from me that you've reached an understanding of my position if it reflects negatively on God. Second, adopting this path may well require me to violate what you asked for in post #19. But that is because you see my answer as deficient, not me.

 

[Resha Caner]

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 [1] trivial and one that counts as [2] "beyond trivial".

I think I satisfied #2. For #1, how about "tautology." Defining that word would almost be, uh, a tautology.

Uh, that´s a tough one for me.

You don't have to use it. Suggest something else. I was just trying to avoid forcing you to define something you don't believe in.

May I use a dictionary?

Use any resource you please.

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

How anal do you want me to be? Should I assume you're going to start with a "complete" definition that won't need any additions along the way? Yeah, I know those words. I know the word "number." You're just going to have to jump in, do it, and see where it goes. If we come across a difference in understanding, we'll have to clarify it. Isn't that how it always goes?

 

[quatona]

My bad. Let me rephrase. It would require me to add to my theological framework something that was not there before - something you specifically warned against in post #19.

Ok.

The reason I see it as speculation is because of what I mentioned earlier, that I am drawing my position from the Bible. So, if I don't see it in the Bible, it would be speculation for me to comment on it.

Well, umm, that is a problem between you and you.
Where you draw your opinions is not my problem nor concern.
I´m operating from and with your opinions, and no matter where you may have drawn them I consider them your opinions.

FYI, I have lots of favorite speculative answers, but I've learned to avoid them in this forum for exactly the reasons uncovered in this discussion.

In this paragraph - when you say "speculative answers", do you mean stuff you believe but don´t know, or do you mean what you said you meant above: stuff that you spontaneously add to your thelogical framework?

To me this is a claim of neutrality, objectivity, value independence, or whatever disinterested, nonpartisan term you would prefer to choose. Whether or not you are convinced of the truthfulness of that position, I am not.

No, I am not claiming neutrality. I am claiming that the values you or I ascribe to a reason are of no relevance for my approach. I am simply checking the coherence and consistency of your god concept.
I think I am capable of completely ignoring my own value judgements when it comes to checking whether a certain procedere fits the goal. E.g. I think I would be able to discuss whether Hitler´s plans and actions were the best to reach his goals (although I am disgusted beyond words by his goals) in the same way I could discuss the same thing about Gandhi (whose goals I find very positive).

Therefore, my challenge is this: If the "value" of a statement is irrelevant to you, then you must demonstrate that in one of two ways. One, you must be able to reply to me in completely neutral terms.

Impossible for me to do because I don´t know what you feel are neutral terms.

Or two, you must adopt my "positive" terms for God in order to demonstrate that you understand me - not because you believe in the god so described by those positive terms, I realize you don't.

You mean I have to adopt your value judgements? Are you kidding me?

Otherwise, it seems like you are deliberately choosing terms you know I will disagree with. Where will that get us?

Excuse me. When you ask me a question - I will answer in the terms that reflect my thoughts.

Since you seem so determined to avoid assuming anything from my answers, let me note that this statement contains at least one assumption - that of "change."

I´m not sure I understand. Are you submitting that creating a world where there has none before could possibly be considered "no change"? From no world exisiting to a world existing - what would be a change if that isn´t?

Why would it matter to you if it did contain one?

Sigh. It doesn´t matter to me. You are the one insisting that the value connotation of my words matter to you, and that you are concerned with me always picking negatively connotated words. So this was an attempt to describe the scenario in words that I hoped didn´t strike you as negative.

Yeah, didn't I acknowledge that when I said it? In fact, didn't I even acknowledge that it was extreme?

And you felt that a completely made up analogy that you admit doesn´t resemble anything I have said and was on top extreme would help clarifying anything?
What was the point of posting this?

It was an attempt to make the subtle obvious. Whether it describes your approach or my "fear" is a game of playing off your perceptions against mine. I would assume we've both been in that philosophical swamp before.

I´m sorry, but when it comes to discerning my goals I am world´s leading authority, and you are not. This is not a matter of my perception. You are misunderstanding my goals, you admit to trying to protect yourself from something I know I am not having in mind. It has nothing to do with me. It´s something between you and you. I apologize for using the word "fear", though. There are other possible explanations.

However, it definitely should concern me when I come across as a. so intimidating and b. so dishonest. I will have to think about that - clearly my communication skills leave a lot space for improvement there. Plus, this is not a basis for a good conversation. I´m afraid I can´t fix that right now, and particularly not when suspicion has already taken hold of you. Sorry!

AGAIN: I heard you. Your assumptions of my "fear" are clouding your interpretation of what I say. It is not a matter of whether I "fear" a "character assassination." Words with negative connotations imply to me that you do not understand what I said. There is a difference between a theological flaw and a negative connotation. If you come to the point of indicating what you think is a flaw, let me know in nice, big, bold letters. Until then, I'll assume all you're trying to do is understand.

I did, and I tried to say it in nice (please spare me the use of big bold letters). When I said it in nice you found fault with my attempt to avoid negatively connotated terms. Ok, here it is again (ok, I´ll do you the favour and use big bold red letters:
At this point, I am wondering how the perfection of a perfect being with nothing imperfect around is reconcilable with the desire of said perfect being for to change something.

As a digression, yes I could point to examples that are "faintly comparable." In fact I did in post #58. Another example would be your reference to hedonism. Surely you recognize the negative connotations associated with that word.

To me, the word hedonism doesn´t have any more or less negative connotation than 'Pleasure. Just like when I eat cheetos.' remark. Let´s be honest - had it been me who had said "your god has been creating a world for his pleasure - just like other people eat cheetos" you would have been upset because I used negatively connotated comparisons. So please. It´s not the term hedonism that created a negative connotation, it was your description.

Backing up, that is why I said my Cheetos example had gone awry.

And I was willing to forget about it. But now that you come up with my response to it, it´s there again.

You assumed instant gratification, and I associate selfishness and rejection of moral standards with hedonism.

You know, neither am I responsible for your associations nor can I predict them.

None of those aspects fit my idea that God created for pleasure.

Then why did you use the cheetos analogy in the first place. What connotation do you associate with eating cheetos for pleasure that you feel are designed to denote selflessness, long-term responsibility for your actions or the acceptance of moral standards?
I admit freely that "pleasure in eating cheetos" and hedonism was my association. I´m still wondering what deep values you associate with the pleasure in eating cheetos.

In fact, I thought we were close at that point because you originally called my reply a good one.

I did explain why I found that a conclusive answer, didn´t I? A god who created a physical world (with all the tremendous effects and consequences as we encounter them - including incredible amounts of suffering and drama) for pleasure - just like the pleasure you seek from eating cheetos - leaves no further questions. It would be a perfect explanation. It would explain all the issues we have to face as a consequence perfectly. It would also explain perfectly why god at a later point felt he had to do something about it. Just like when you eat cheetos for pleasure and at some point realize you have gotten fat and better replace cheetos by exercises.
(Sure, all that doesn´t give me an overly positive impression of your god - but I wasn´t looking for a god I like. I was looking for a motive that made sense in light of the result etc. And the idea that god didn´t put any more thought into creating the world than other people put in eating cheetos would have definitely explained pretty much everything. So I was satisfied with that answer as I initially understood it. Remember, my criterium for a "good" answer is not that I like it or find it uplifting, but that it explains things that otherwise would be left unexplained. Don´t mistake that for being happy about a negative god.)

Now, for some reason I don't understand, we're here:

The reason why we are here (despite my initial satisfaction with your answer) can be easily explained: You told me you didn´t mean it the way I understood it, and you asked me to forget about it.

I realize that for each statement I make, you profess that I miss your intent.

At this point I would even go beyond that. You have admitted to suspecting me of being dishonest about or unaware of my intent.

Will you grant that I am not being willfully evasive?

Sure, and nowhere have I said or implied you were being willfully evasive.
I said you were careful about protecting your inner image of a positive god (and understandably so) - and this is an obstacle to understanding my questions as they are meant.

One

: Accept that I see my "pleasure" answer as sufficient, and ask a follow-up question with the purpose of understanding why I see it as sufficient when you don't.

I have spent paragraphs upon paragraphs on that exercise. I have given countless examples as to how "pleasure" can and has to be specified in order to give it meaning and to tell you what sort of answer I am looking for. Unfortunately all you detected in those examples were your own value connotations - which totally got in the way of understanding the mere intended criterion "specifications".
I am sorry, but as long as you are concerned with your own value connotations more than anything else, I won´t be able to make myself understood. Even more so if you insinuate me of using the examples for the very purpose of the value connotations you perceive in them.

Two:

Insist that there must be another reason behind the "pleasure" reason, and dig it out of me. I'm willing to go there (earlier I thought we were), but you must further acknowledge 2 things. First, even if the answer satisfies you, and whether you care or not, you won't get agreement from me that you've reached an understanding of my position if it reflects negatively on God.

That really seems to be the main difference of your and my epistemology: For you your value judgement comes first and dictates what conclusions are allowed , and for me it is absolutely irrelevant. Again: I do understand that your main concern is to keep the god of your concept likeable, but don´t expect me to feel under the same pressure. I am not responsible for your value judgements.

Furthermore, seeing that pointing out contradictions in the concept of an allegedly perfect, all-good, omni-whatnot can always be interpreted as "reflecting negatively on god", the exclusion of anything that "reflect negatively" on your god means stacking the deck to a point that forces me to accept anything you say for a premise.

So I´ll have to reject this one.

(Of course, you are free to disagree with whatever you disagree with, and you are invited to voice this disagreement. I am wondering why you even mentioned that).

Second, adopting this path may well require me to violate what you asked for in post #19. But that is because you see my answer as deficient, not me.

There were several points in post #19. Which of them are you planning to "violate"? If it´s my request not to make up stuff as you walk along (i.e. to "speculate") when you initially had rejected an answer or a specification with reference to your unwillingness "to speculate"?
Rejected, sorry. I´m not going to play "chasing theological tails" with you.

Thus, this our conversation seems to have come to an end. Thanks for your time and your efforts - they were very much appreciated.

 

[Paradoxum]

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'm also don't know enough about the philosophy of free will to come up with a definition so its all good.

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?

Yay, I get a point

Saying the probability of evil being zero is speculation, but so is this whole thing. I would just think that is a reasonable speculation, assuming there is a heaven. I don't really have an amazing answer for why we were created in this way rather than in heaven. All I can say is that perhaps there is some worthwhile value in living a life in time and being able to make choices like we do. Also there might be considerations other than us, such as the beauty of the universe.

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

I wouldn't class myself as anything at the moment. Sometimes I'm atheist, at others agnostic and at others theist. I currently down to thinking God's existence is 50/50 and I fluctuate up and down depending on my mood.So whose side am I on... my side

 

[quatona]

I think I satisfied #2. For #1, how about "tautology." Defining that word would almost be, uh, a tautology.

Ok.

You don't have to use it. Suggest something else. I was just trying to avoid forcing you to define something you don't believe in.

No, I´m quite fine with it. Saying "it´s a tough one" wasn´t meant to say I found fault with it or something.

Use any resource you please.

Ok.

How anal do you want me to be?

May I remind you that this is an exercise you asked me to perform (in order to make a point of which I don´t know what it actually is).
I don´t want anything in this. I am just doing you a favour. You are the boss (unlike in the other conversation, where I insisted on making my own choices ).

Should I assume you're going to start with a "complete" definition that won't need any additions along the way? Yeah, I know those words. I know the word "number." You're just going to have to jump in, do it, and see where it goes. If we come across a difference in understanding, we'll have to clarify it. Isn't that how it always goes?

Ok:
When you count - what you are using there are "numbers". They are symbols used to communicate how many objects we are talking about.

 

[Resha Caner]

At this point, I am wondering how the perfection of a perfect being with nothing imperfect around is reconcilable with the desire of said perfect being for to change something.

Is there only one perfection? If we define a perfect circle, does that mean we can't define a perfect equilateral triangle?

 

[Resha Caner]

I don´t want anything in this. I am just doing you a favour.

You needn't.

 

[serenity now]

Saying the probability of evil being zero is speculation, but so is this whole thing. I would just think that is a reasonable speculation, assuming there is a heaven. I don't really have an amazing answer for why we were created in this way rather than in heaven. All I can say is that perhaps there is some worthwhile value in living a life in time and being able to make choices like we do. Also there might be considerations other than us, such as the beauty of the universe.

I guess it comes down to what is really meant by a probability, which I unfortunately do not know. It just seems to me that a probability of zero means something is impossible, whereas a probability of greater than zero, no matter how miniscule, means something can happen. And if there is true free will (again, as I understand it) there has to be at least a possibility of evil otherwise it is not free will. As long as you have finite time, something can have a probability greater than zero but still never happen.

I think the problem comes when introducing infinity; one learns about probability as a largely theoretical thing, but when you remove time from the equation everything theoretical is suddenly practical and everything seems to happen at once! The more I think about it the less sense my argument makes though, so I'd better stop...

I wouldn't class myself as anything at the moment. Sometimes I'm atheist, at others agnostic and at others theist. I currently down to thinking God's existence is 50/50 and I fluctuate up and down depending on my mood.So whose side am I on... my side

Fair enough!

 

[Resha Caner]

And if there is true free will (again, as I understand it) there has to be at least a possibility of evil otherwise it is not free will.

There are many definitions of free will. Not all assume as you do.

 

[GrayAngel]

^^^Would it help if you thought of free will as a continuum rather than as something rigid? With zero free will, you have no choice, and you do as you're programmed. With total free will, you can do anything imaginable, including both good and evil.

In Heaven, free will would be something in between zero and total free will, in which the person has limited choices (only good), but they still have the freedom to choose.

 

[quatona]

You needn't.

I know that´s why I called it a favour and not an obligation or duty.

 

[quatona]

Is there only one perfection? If we define a perfect circle, does that mean we can't define a perfect equilateral triangle?

Unless you are suggesting that the current state of affairs in god´s creation is "perfection" I fail to see the relevance of this question for the issue at hand.
But maybe I´m simply misunderstand your analogy. Please tell which two elements in my question are represented by "perfect circle" and "perfect equilateral triangle" in your analogy.

 

[serenity now]

In Heaven, free will would be something in between zero and total free will, in which the person has limited choices (only good), but they still have the freedom to choose.

If God can guarantee such a place, why didn't he do so with earth and Adam and Eve? From what I know of the Book of Genesis God's original intention for earth was something like that.

 

[quatona]

If God can guarantee such a place, why didn't he do so with earth and Adam and Eve? From what I know of the Book of Genesis God's original intention for earth was something like that.

That would be my question, as well.

 

[Paradoxum]

I guess it comes down to what is really meant by a probability, which I unfortunately do not know. It just seems to me that a probability of zero means something is impossible, whereas a probability of greater than zero, no matter how miniscule, means something can happen. And if there is true free will (again, as I understand it) there has to be at least a possibility of evil otherwise it is not free will. As long as you have finite time, something can have a probability greater than zero but still never happen.

I don't think free will means you have to be able to do evil. If something evolved to only to want to do good, then we would still consider it free. It many be physically possible for it to do evil, but as it has no desire to, it never will. The same is true of God and therefore us when we are in union with God...... from a Christian point of view.

 

[quatona]

I don't think free will means you have to be able to do evil. If something evolved to only to want to do good, then we would still consider it free. It many be physically possible for it to do evil, but as it has no desire to, it never will. The same is true of God and therefore us when we are in union with God...... from a Christian point of view.

Ok, but the question basically remains the same:
If god is capable of making it happen that people - despite having the physical capacity to do evil - don´t have and never will have a desire to (are unable to), why didn´t he do that right in the beginning?

 

[Resha Caner]

Unless you are suggesting that the current state of affairs in god´s creation is "perfection" I fail to see the relevance of this question for the issue at hand.
But maybe I´m simply misunderstand your analogy. Please tell which two elements in my question are represented by "perfect circle" and "perfect equilateral triangle" in your analogy.

It doesn't matter. I could have asked about a square and a hexagon. Do you have an answer to the question?

 

[quatona]

It doesn't matter.

Sure it does matter. It´s supposed to be an analogy of sorts, right? What is it an analogy for, in relation to the question to which you responded with your question?

I could have asked about a square and a hexagon. Do you have an answer to the question?

Sure, a hexagon and a square are different concepts, and as such have different requirements to meet, by definition. The basic requirements for perfection of a geometric figure are the same for all of them, though.

Do you have an answer to the two questions that remained unanswered so far?

 

[Tinker Grey]

It doesn't matter. I could have asked about a square and a hexagon. Do you have an answer to the question?

Perhaps the quatona's question can be asked this way (forgive me, quatona): What sort of perfection is it that entails a lack that can be fulfilled? Aristotle, IIRC, had it that the supreme being in its perfection did nothing at all except contemplate itself as it is completely fulfilled in and of itself. As such, creation is an accidental emanation from the supreme being that it itself was perhaps unaware of.

 

[GrayAngel]

If God can guarantee such a place, why didn't he do so with earth and Adam and Eve? From what I know of the Book of Genesis God's original intention for earth was something like that.

Again, I don't believe in free will, because it's not in the Bible. I'm just trying to make things simpler for those who are arguing for it, since the conversation doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

I've offered the explanation that the reason for Adam and Eve's sin, as well as the sins of the angels, was because of their lack of genuine love for God.

The angels were created in Heaven, but Satan led 1/3 of them to rebel. Why would they do that? Well, most importantly, they didn't know life without God. I think it's because they had never been in a situation where they could see how helpless they are, feeling in their hearts a deep and personal need for God.

Adam and Eve were no different. They were ignorant of evil, and so they did not know life without God. Normally, they might not have even thought of eating from the tree, except that Satan came and tempted them. They wanted what he had to offer, despite their knowledge that they would be betraying God.

Unlike the angels or Adam and Eve, we are born into a broken world that is plagued with sin. It's through this life that we come to realize our need for a savior, and this is what leads us into genuine love and faithfulness: the kind that would never want to return to a life without God.

Be careful with the phrase "original intention." Although Eden was the picture of God's ideal world, God was not ignorant of the events that would take place, and He was not taken by surprise. As a matter of fact, the fall of man was one essential step of His plan.