Nature

[sandwiches]

I feel I do need to apologize. My reply should have ended much sooner than it did, and I regret that. My impression was that you gave a few comments on the form of my post and made a few one-liners, but that there wasn't anything substantive to reply to. In hindsight, the polite thing would have been just to ask you to rephrase ... so I guess I learned something.

With respect to your latest comment, that may be your conclusion, but it misrepresents what I've said (or at least what I meant to say). The problem is, I don't [(edit) know] where to start. Is it:
1) You misunderstood me
2) You understood me, but you think my logic is wrong
3) You understood me, but you don't accept my premise
4) Some combination of the above

Merely restating your opinion in a way that doesn't represent my position isn't going to help. I'm not asking you to be more concise in your sweeping opinion of my position. I get it that you disagree. I'm asking you to focus. So, maybe we should start with the above list, but please don't pick #4. Let's focus on one of the first three.

That's my long reply. Would the short reply have been better? It would have been: please clarify why you disagree.

I'll ask a question and we'll start from there:

Does intervention in an offspring's actions or protection of said offspring by a parent remove the offspring's free will?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yes, I understood your premise. I guess I'm asking you to modify that premise to better suit the point I'm trying to make.

Quit stealing my hypothetical

I get that such a premise fits well with why you think God is culpable. But I don't think that, and I'm trying to clarify why.

Again, this is not either/or. I'm talking about the possibilities. So, I think you answered the first question, but not the second. Even though the mother can't divine that her child will be genocidal, neither can she divine that her child won't be genocidal. So, she is aware that there is some possibility that her child may be genocidal (which is real life rather than hypothetical). Should she conceive?

A bit of calculus solves that: every person the child could kill is countered by every person the child could save.

Touche'. You pose a difficult problem. The best I can do for the moment is to say the "physical" is that constituted of matter and/or energy in some form. But I'm not sure that definition is sufficient for our discussion. Also, I wouldn't say it is a synonym of "natural." I would say more, that "physical" must be contained in everything "natural," but that "natural" is something more than that.

So can you name something that is natural, but not physical?

Again you're trying to distinguish my number sequence from the way QM was acquired. I don't see the distinction. Who is to say my number sequence wasn't the measurement of something "natural?" Give me a premise for that sequence, and then test it (actually I'm not sure I kept the generating function, so I'd have to start over if you took that challenge). Isn't that what you're saying was done for QM?

No. I'm saying the theory exists as four mathematical premises, and everything flows logically from there. These premises were developed from Old Quantum Theory, which was more empirical and arbitrary, but modern theory holds them as axioms.
From these axioms, we can make predictions about the real world. When we go out and test these predictions, we invariably get a success: quantum theory works.

So we have a lot of evidence that quantum mechanics is correct. One of the consequences of quantum mechanics is that it is probabilistic. To reject an indeterminate universe is to reject quantum mechanics - and personally I'm inclined to follow the evidence.

What has surprised me about the history of science is the vast number of theories for natural phenomena, and the poverty of information from which they started. Many of them came from "rational" thought, not really from "observation." And it's not as if one theory was so much more self-evident than another. Often the winner came from the rhetorical (or political, etc.) abilities of its supporters. People are very clever at curve fitting, and then manage to deceive themselves that the result is "real" or "truthful" because of their success. I apologize for repeating myself, but Nagel's argument applies here. Whether it be the First Law or concepts like "stiffness" and the other things I work with on a daily basis, there is nothing that will falsify those concepts. It's all a matter of parsimony.

Let me get this straight: are you saying that the evidence for quantum theory is all just a big hoax? A concious or unconcious attempt by scientists to fit their data to the predictions of quantum mechanics?

So, I don't dispute the usefulness of an idea of randomness. But you still have not proven it.

If we're going into the semantics of 'natural' and 'physical', I should point out that science doesn't 'prove' anything. It evidences theories.

Give me a "theory of randomness." I would think something that is purely random would have a uniform distribution across infinity.

It could have any distribution it pleases, though probably a Gaussian one. Uranium-238 and Carbon-14, for instance, have different probability distribution functions.

I'm sorry for disappointing you. It just seems we have other issues to nail down before this would be of any value. And those issues seem to be the same ones we left unresolved in prior threads. I guess there's no getting round them.

Can't you just state the facts, regardless of whether you think I'll believe them or not?

 

[Resha Caner]

I'll ask a question and we'll start from there:

Does intervention in an offspring's actions or protection of said offspring by a parent remove the offspring's free will?

The simple answer is no. It's not a binary process, but a matter of degree. So, if I rephrased the question as, "Does it reduce (rather than remove) free will?" the answer would be yes.

 

[Resha Caner]

A bit of calculus solves that: every person the child could kill is countered by every person the child could save.

I don't get your point. My question was: knowing the real possibility that a child might do evil things, should parents conceive children? I was looking for a yes or a no in your reply (qualified though it may be), and I don't see it.

So can you name something that is natural, but not physical?

No. For some reason (maybe I was unclear) you've got the question backwards. I could name something that IMO is physical but not natural - an automobile for example. But I doubt you would agree with that distinction.

No. I'm saying the theory exists as four mathematical premises, and everything flows logically from there. These premises were developed from Old Quantum Theory, which was more empirical and arbitrary, but modern theory holds them as axioms.
From these axioms, we can make predictions about the real world. When we go out and test these predictions, we invariably get a success: quantum theory works.

100% success? Or is there still some tweaking to be worked out?

Let me get this straight: are you saying that the evidence for quantum theory is all just a big hoax? A concious or unconcious attempt by scientists to fit their data to the predictions of quantum mechanics?

No. I'm saying there is a possibility for 2 theories to explain the same event. So, theories 1 and 2 both explain event A. On that basis alone, there is nothing but rhetoric for choosing between them - and such has occurred in the history of science. And sometimes the choice was wrong. There was no hoax intended. It was a dogmatic devotion to a certain theory that drove the choices. A typical result is that someone will show that theory 1 explains events A and B, while theory 2 doesn't. The dogmatist of theory 2 then shows that theory 2 explains events A and C, while theory 1 doesn't. After the shouting is over, a synthesis occurs to produce theory 3, which explains events A, B, and C. But then the nut who likes theory 4 shows that theory 3 doesn't explain event D, and the cycle begins again.

And yet, this bugs me. I go back to the multitude of other theories that were discarded at the very beginning and wonder why 1 and 2 were synthesized and not some other combination. It seems an accident of history rather than progress toward the best solution.

The pure ideal is that people are supposed to remain open to questioning their assumptions and correcting their errors. I think you agree with that, and I'm contending you are making an assumption for which there are valid alternatives. In this case, however, I'm not really trying to strike at the scientific implications of your assumption. I'm speaking to the metaphysical implications. So, I'm not proposing "goddidit" as a scientific premise (I wanted to get that in before you accuse me of it). I'm going after the metaphysical - something I believe is involved at the end of every causal chain (and that is one part of DesCartes that I do retain).

If we're going into the semantics of 'natural' and 'physical', I should point out that science doesn't 'prove' anything. It evidences theories.

Yeah, OK. Logical argument is part of that "evidencing" though, in addition to physical data.

It could have any distribution it pleases, though probably a Gaussian one. Uranium-238 and Carbon-14, for instance, have different probability distribution functions.

I would distinguish probability and randomness. Are you accepting my proposed definition of randomness?

 

[sandwiches]

The simple answer is no. It's not a binary process, but a matter of degree. So, if I rephrased the question as, "Does it reduce (rather than remove) free will?" the answer would be yes.

And I agree with you on both counts. So, we're in agreement that intervention by a parent does not remove but merely limits free will.

Having said that, would you agree with me that a good parent is one who does indeed limit what their offspring does and doesn't just let them do as they wish, specially while the parent is wiser and more experienced than the offspring?

 

[Resha Caner]

And I agree with you on both counts. So, we're in agreement that intervention by a parent does not remove but merely limits free will.

Having said that, would you agree with me that a good parent is one who does indeed limit what their offspring does and doesn't just let them do as they wish, specially while the parent is wiser and more experienced than the offspring?

Yes. And I meant to convey earlier that God does intervene to restrain evil (2 Thess 2:4-8). He also provides instruction (2 Tim 3:16). It seemed to me you just don't think he intervenes enough. You don't think he's doing his job. It then becomes a matter of degree. How much should he restrain us?

 

[sandwiches]

Yes. And I meant to convey earlier that God does intervene to restrain evil (2 Thess 2:4-8). He also provides instruction (2 Tim 3:16). It seemed to me you just don't think he intervenes enough. You don't think he's doing his job. It then becomes a matter of degree. How much should he restrain us?

You're correct. I don't think that the God of the Bible, if he exists, does enough to curb evil and suffering. Now, to answer your question: I would say that he should be at least as good a parent as good human parents are. They go to extreme lengths to protect their kids to the best of their abilities. So, at least to the extent that a human parent does plus the extent that his abilities, knowledge, and wisdom endow him.

 

[Resha Caner]

You're correct. I don't think that the God of the Bible, if he exists, does enough to curb evil and suffering. Now, to answer your question: I would say that he should be at least as good a parent as good human parents are. They go to extreme lengths to protect their kids to the best of their abilities. So, at least to the extent that a human parent does plus the extent that his abilities, knowledge, and wisdom endow him.

And so you are questioning your spiritual father just as a child questions his physical father. That isn't surprising. Is this part of what causes your unbelief - that God doesn't seem to do enough?

Did you ever question your earthly guardian as a child? Did that cause you to question his/her existence?

 

[sandwiches]

And so you are questioning your spiritual father just as a child questions his physical father. That isn't surprising. Is this part of what causes your unbelief - that God doesn't seem to do enough?

Did you ever question your earthly guardian as a child? Did that cause you to question his/her existence?

Considering that my parents could ground me and spanked me a few times, I have no reason to question their existence.

Now, to the point, two questions:

1) Should we not hold our infallible, omnipotent, omniscient, 'spiritual father' to, at least, the same standard for good parenting as we hold our earthly, fallible parents?

2) Should we never question our parents?

After all, that's why we have free will, right? Unless we were given free will with the condition that we have to think and act the 'the right way.'

 

[quatona]

And so you are questioning your spiritual father just as a child questions his physical father. That isn't surprising.

Actually, yes, it would be surprising. Children typically defend their parents - even when their parents abuse and mistreat them in horrible ways.

 

[Resha Caner]

Considering that my parents could ground me and spanked me a few times, I have no reason to question their existence.

You may think these are silly questions, but I would still like you to answer them. A) Did you ever question your earthly guardian as a child? B) Did that cause you to question his/her existence?

As it stands, I will assume your answers are: A) yes, B) no. If not, please correct me. The next question would be: C) In one of these cases where you questioned your parents, did you later change your mind and decide they were correct?

Now, to the point, two questions:

1) Should we not hold our infallible, omnipotent, omniscient, 'spiritual father' to, at least, the same standard for good parenting as we hold our earthly, fallible parents?

2) Should we never question our parents?

After all, that's why we have free will, right? Unless we were given free will with the condition that we have to think and act the 'the right way.'

It's hard for me to answer these until you answer my questions. For #2, though, I can at least say that it's acceptable to question. As you imply, it seems an integral part of free will to question things. What also seems important, though, is the form of any action that might follow the answer.

 

[sandwiches]

You may think these are silly questions, but I would still like you to answer them. A) Did you ever question your earthly guardian as a child? B) Did that cause you to question his/her existence?

As it stands, I will assume your answers are: A) yes, B) no. If not, please correct me. The next question would be: C) In one of these cases where you questioned your parents, did you later change your mind and decide they were correct?

Yes and no, as you guessed. And yes, I have changed my mind and decided they were correct about some thing. Likewise, I've changed my mind and decided they were wrong about other things.

It's hard for me to answer these until you answer my questions. For #2, though, I can at least say that it's acceptable to question. As you imply, it seems an integral part of free will to question things. What also seems important, though, is the form of any action that might follow the answer.

Now that I've answered, you can answer my questions.

 

[Resha Caner]

Yes and no, as you guessed. And yes, I have changed my mind and decided they were correct about some thing. Likewise, I've changed my mind and decided they were wrong about other things.

So, whether or not God's intervention was sufficient is no reason to question his existence. I would say that what you are really questioning is whether his wisdom is as all-ecompassing as he claims. But even though you may question it, that is yet again not sufficient reason to say he is not God (or, for the analogy, that the parent is not the parent). As you stated earlier for the parent/child, the assumption is that the wisdom of the parent is more than the child. So, even if the child questions, the decision still defaults to the parent. There are going to be times when the child thinks he/she is correct and simply isn't.

We do not allow children to choose their parents. We do not let them say, "Well, my parents aren't doing what I think they should, so I'll switch parents." We don't let them say, "My parents are irrelevant, so I'll ignore them." For the majority of the cases in disputes between parent and child, the parent is the one making the right choice.

Now that I've answered, you can answer my questions.

So, my answer to question #1 is no - we are not allowed to set any standard for God. You are not thinking in terms of parent/child. For that case, in the majority of disputes, the parent makes the right decision. As that gulf widens ... i.e., as the wisdom of the parent becomes the wisdom of God, the probability that the authority is making the right decision becomes absolute.

I would propose that in offering your question, you are thinking in terms of a government that sits as judge above the parents. As a society, we hope to have a greater wisdom than a single individual (though that doesn't always happen). Regardless, as a society we reserve the right to hold parents accountable to a certain standard. But again, that means we are placing a government over the parent as judge. That can't be done with God.

I can only think of 2 possibilities:
1) The questioner is in the role of child and is expected to obey God
2) The questioner is in fact wiser, and should therefore take their role as god and supplant the lesser god.

Which brings us back to my question from post #66. You think God has not intervened enough. Because of my answer to question #2, I have no problem with you challenging that. But your response to the answer, I think, determines who you think you are. Do you see yourself in the role of the child who needs to accept parental authority, or do you see yourself as wiser than God?

(Edit: Another objection you started to raise was sort of a "free will is useless if God punishes us for all but the right choice" kind of thing. I guess I would say there is more than one acceptable choice. Suppose I need to get from point A to point B, but my car is out of gas. I could buy more gas, walk, ask a friend for a ride, take the bus, etc. There are multiple acceptable choices. There are also multiple bad choices. I could steal the gas, steal another car, hijack someone, etc. So, God's expectation that after we question we will obey does not render free will useless.)

I would say you are the first of the two possibilities I listed above. You will probably take some modified, qualified version of the second (since I don't believe God exists, yes, I think I am wiser than what people wrote in the Bible - or something like that). But we have already established that just because you think you are wiser is not sufficient reason to place yourself above the Bible. So, you'll need some other reason.

In the mean time, since we have looped back to that post #66 question. You answered:

I would say that he should be at least as good a parent as good human parents are. They go to extreme lengths to protect their kids to the best of their abilities. So, at least to the extent that a human parent does plus the extent that his abilities, knowledge, and wisdom endow him.

Is it really ability? Or is it ability qualified by principle? Was Abu Ghraib acceptable to protect the U.S. (let's assume it actually did afford the U.S. some protection)? According to the principles of some, though the U.S. had the ability, principles trumped those abilities. The same is true of the Patriot Act. Whether you agree with those specific examples or not, surely you see my point. Do you agree? Is it not, as opposed to what you said earlier, actually ability qualified by principle?

If not, then God is allowed any extreme to prevent what he says in the Bible is offensive to him.

 

[sandwiches]

So, whether or not God's intervention was sufficient is no reason to question his existence. I would say that what you are really questioning is whether his wisdom is as all-ecompassing as he claims. But even though you may question it, that is yet again not sufficient reason to say he is not God (or, for the analogy, that the parent is not the parent). As you stated earlier for the parent/child, the assumption is that the wisdom of the parent is more than the child. So, even if the child questions, the decision still defaults to the parent. There are going to be times when the child thinks he/she is correct and simply isn't.

We do not allow children to choose their parents. We do not let them say, "Well, my parents aren't doing what I think they should, so I'll switch parents." We don't let them say, "My parents are irrelevant, so I'll ignore them." For the majority of the cases in disputes between parent and child, the parent is the one making the right choice.

Quite honestly, I don't even know where the existence of God came into this topic but that's NOT why I don't believe in God.

So, my answer to question #1 is no - we are not allowed to set any standard for God. You are not thinking in terms of parent/child. For that case, in the majority of disputes, the parent makes the right decision. As that gulf widens ... i.e., as the wisdom of the parent becomes the wisdom of God, the probability that the authority is making the right decision becomes absolute.

So, would you say that a parent who knowingly allows harm to come to his child when he could have prevented it is a bad parent, yes or no?

I would hope that you'd say yes. I think any reasonable person would say yes if asked this question in isolation. So, if we can make a judgment call based on those actions or lack thereof, why do you insist that God's actions are exempt?

I would propose that in offering your question, you are thinking in terms of a government that sits as judge above the parents. As a society, we hope to have a greater wisdom than a single individual (though that doesn't always happen). Regardless, as a society we reserve the right to hold parents accountable to a certain standard. But again, that means we are placing a government over the parent as judge. That can't be done with God.

I'm not placing anything before anything else. I am using the standards we use for morality and good and applying them to God. If God is exempt from this, then you can't claim he's good, benevolent, or anything else. it goes both ways. Either he's inscrutable and we can't say he's a bad parent nor a good parent, or we can judge him on his actions and say he's good or bad, depending.

I can only think of 2 possibilities:
1) The questioner is in the role of child and is expected to obey God
2) The questioner is in fact wiser, and should therefore take their role as god and supplant the lesser god.

As lowly mortals, we'll never reach God's wisdom and knowledge. So, how will we ever know if what he's doing is the right thing or not?

Which brings us back to my question from post #66. You think God has not intervened enough. Because of my answer to question #2, I have no problem with you challenging that. But your response to the answer, I think, determines who you think you are. Do you see yourself in the role of the child who needs to accept parental authority, or do you see yourself as wiser than God?

I accept some parental authority but this authority has to be earned. It's not an inherent property of being a parent. If God exists, so far, he hasn't earned my respect for his authority. Now, unless you believe that we should be like babies or toddlers who unquestionably accept whatever their parents tell them as absolute truth but that would not go with free will nor with God granting us the power of reason.

(Edit: Another objection you started to raise was sort of a "free will is useless if God punishes us for all but the right choice" kind of thing. I guess I would say there is more than one acceptable choice. Suppose I need to get from point A to point B, but my car is out of gas. I could buy more gas, walk, ask a friend for a ride, take the bus, etc. There are multiple acceptable choices. There are also multiple bad choices. I could steal the gas, steal another car, hijack someone, etc. So, God's expectation that after we question we will obey does not render free will useless.)

It does because you have only the illusion of choice. If I told you: "You can either sing this song for me or I'll kill your child." Would you say that you have a real choice? But for God is more like "You can do whatever you want! Except that if you don't do exactly this and this, you'll burn in hell for all eternity, but hey! You're free to do it anyway!" Ummm... thanks for the choice, I guess.

I would say you are the first of the two possibilities I listed above. You will probably take some modified, qualified version of the second (since I don't believe God exists, yes, I think I am wiser than what people wrote in the Bible - or something like that). But we have already established that just because you think you are wiser is not sufficient reason to place yourself above the Bible. So, you'll need some other reason.

I think I have more knowledge in certain aspects than the people who wrote the Bible. In others I'm sure they were wiser than me. Also, I don't think that BECAUSE I don't believe in God I am wiser than the authors of the Bible. I don't even see the connection. If anything, it's the opposite, the Bible is demonstrably wrong in many aspects, THEREFORE, the claims of the God mentioned there are most likely not true.

In the mean time, since we have looped back to that post #66 question. You answered:

Is it really ability? Or is it ability qualified by principle? Was Abu Ghraib acceptable to protect the U.S. (let's assume it actually did afford the U.S. some protection)? According to the principles of some, though the U.S. had the ability, principles trumped those abilities. The same is true of the Patriot Act. Whether you agree with those specific examples or not, surely you see my point. Do you agree? Is it not, as opposed to what you said earlier, actually ability qualified by principle?

If not, then God is allowed any extreme to prevent what he says in the Bible is offensive to him.

I agree that it's ability qualified by principle. However, I would be surprised if you found anyone who thinks that creating things that can harm your children, sending those things their way, and allowing those things to harm them and not do anything about it is anything but evil.

 

[Gracchus]

As a human embryo develops, part of the process is selective cell death. (apoptosis) For instance the embryo has, for a while, webbing between the fingers, and these cells die.

When the baby is born, part of it, the placenta, becomes less than useless and dies and is thrown away.

Should the cells of the embryo that die blame the baby? So, should the humans who suffer and die blame God?

 

[Resha Caner]

So, would you say that a parent who knowingly allows harm to come to his child when he could have prevented it is a bad parent, yes or no?

I would hope that you'd say yes. I think any reasonable person would say yes if asked this question in isolation. So, if we can make a judgment call based on those actions or lack thereof, why do you insist that God's actions are exempt?

First, I think the question becomes meaningless when asked "in isolation." As a generalization I would answer yes, but I think that's a pretty meaningless answer. Later in your post it seems you agree these things must be qualified by principles.

I'm not placing anything before anything else. I am using the standards we use for morality and good and applying them to God. If God is exempt from this, then you can't claim he's good, benevolent, or anything else. it goes both ways. Either he's inscrutable and we can't say he's a bad parent nor a good parent, or we can judge him on his actions and say he's good or bad, depending.

Who is the "we" and where did these "morals" come from? I stand with Bonhoeffer that it is a mistake to claim any real truth value for our morals. All our deeds are "dirty rags." Morals serve some utilitarian purposes, but the real question we need to be asking ourselves is, "Does this please God?" Further, I didn't say God is exempt. I said we are not his judge. God tells us the principles by which he will act, and then he upholds them.

Then, I don't think I ever said the principles were universal. So, the principles to which God subscribes are not the same as those to which we subscribe - just as a parent operates differently than a child. Maybe you think that's unfair, but it's even a principle in the U.S. Constitution - that Congressmen are not subject to everything a normal citizen is.

As lowly mortals, we'll never reach God's wisdom and knowledge. So, how will we ever know if what he's doing is the right thing or not?

We won't. And why does it matter? Suppose you did find out that God broke his word. What would you do about it?

I accept some parental authority but this authority has to be earned. It's not an inherent property of being a parent. If God exists, so far, he hasn't earned my respect for his authority. Now, unless you believe that we should be like babies or toddlers who unquestionably accept whatever their parents tell them as absolute truth but that would not go with free will nor with God granting us the power of reason.

I don't agree with your conclusion that this is only an illusion of free will. We've already agreed a parent can restrict a child and such is only reduced free will, not the abolition of it. But, OK. As far as you're concerned, God has not done enough. So, you expect God to eliminate every possibility of disobedience on our part. IMO, that is abolition of the will. That is how far he would have to go to meet your criteria. If you want abolition of the will, I suppose you should pray for it.

Also, he has not earned your respect. There is a subtle Biblical point attached to that attitude that I didn't catch for quite some time. God's answer to that attitude is not necessarily as "fire and brimstone" as it is sometimes portrayed. In essence, his answer is, "OK. If you think I have not earned your respect. If you don't think I exist, or I am irrelevant, I will leave you to yourself." Now, what are the implications of this? It means he will no longer restrain evil for you - and that is hell.

I agree that it's ability qualified by principle. However, I would be surprised if you found anyone who thinks that creating things that can harm your children, sending those things their way, and allowing those things to harm them and not do anything about it is anything but evil.

But this is not what I said. I have said that God didn't create evil. Free will gives us options, and it is then we who create evil. I am also saying that, in order to give us free will, God limited himself. Therefore, he doesn't foreknow all our choices because he chose not to foreknow them. However, he does say that he can make good come from evil once our evil choice is made. An example is Joseph. From this you conclude God is not worthy. I say the only alternative would be for God to abolish the will, and the result would be a world undeserving of his interest. Being Lutheran, I feel compelled to do 2 more things (whether you find it relevant or not). First, I need to point out that the idea of God purposefully limiting himself is not mere speculation. It is scriptural (Phil 2:5-8, Heb 2:9). Second, even when mistakes are made (though we are not freed from consequences) God will forgive us. So, it's not as if bad choices automatically condemn someone.

 

[bricklayer]

I refrain from using nature as a noun.
I am careful to refer to the nature of creation.
Creation exists for the purpose of revealing God's nature.

 

[Gracchus]

I refrain from using nature as a noun.

But, it is a noun. I have not seen it used as a verb. The adjective would be "natural", and the adverb would be "naturally".

I am careful to refer to the nature of creation.

There: You used it as a noun, the object of a preposition.

Creation exists for the purpose of revealing God's nature.

And there you used it as the direct object of a verb in a dependent clause.

Perhaps you were trying to say something else?