Possible Worlds and Free Will

[Chriliman]

You do sound very unsure about your theology.

If you were sure about your theology, instead of all the evasion and obfuscation you should be able to give me a yes or no answer to this:

Does your theology hold me responsible for things beyond my control, such as belief?

No because we are all expected to believe something if we have good reason to believe it. As soon as we find a better reason to believe something else then we are expected to believe that new thing. This is how belief works and often times evidence will cause us to believe something even if we can't prove it to be true.

 

[Davian]

No <snip>

Cool. Now, in this post, you refered to your hypothetical diety as "the ulitmate judge".

For what would I be judged, if not what I believe?

 

[Chriliman]

Cool. Now, in this post, you refered to your hypothetical diety as "the ulitmate judge".

For what would I be judged, if not what I believe?

Assuming you would be judged by an all authority God, I think it's obvious that you'd be judged for believing the lie that He is not real.

 

[quatona]

Assuming you would be judged by an all authority God, I think it's obvious that you'd be judged for believing the lie that He is not real.

Ah, it´s obvious.
Take that, Davian!

 

[Chriliman]

Ah, it´s obvious.
Take that, Davian!

isnt that a logical conclusion if we assume an all authoritative God is real?

 

[Eudaimonist]

isnt that a logical conclusion if we assume an all authoritative God is real?

No.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chriliman]

No.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Please explain.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Please explain.

There is nothing in your premise that leads logically to your conclusion. It's a non sequitur.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chriliman]

There is nothing in your premise that leads logically to your conclusion. It's a non sequitur.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Is that because you refuse to assume that God can have the highest authority? Because if we assume that, then my logic does make sense.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Is that because you refuse to assume that God can have the highest authority? Because if we assume that, then my logic does make sense.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm judging the logic of what you had written, not saying whether or not I agree with your premise.

I'm saying that God being the highest authority does not logically lead to the conclusion that "you'd be judged for believing the lie that He is not real."

That's a non sequitur. There's nothing in the premise that makes the conclusion inevitable on logical grounds.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chriliman]

No, I'm not saying that. I'm judging the logic of what you had written, not saying whether or not I agree with your premise.

I'm saying that God being the highest authority does not logically lead to the conclusion that "you'd be judged for believing the lie that He is not real."

That's a non sequitur. There's nothing in the premise that makes the conclusion inevitable on logical grounds.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Let's assume I'm the highest authority in existence.

If I'm the highest authority in existence and my only goal is to give eternal life to all my creation and I see there are some of my created beings who use their free will to insist I'm not real even though I've tried and tried to convince them that I am real, don't you think that's going to upset me and cause me to take action on these created beings in an attempt to convince them?

God may not yet be planning to take drastic action against you in order to convince you, He may have other plans for you before that happens in order to convince you without drastic action.

 

[Eudaimonist]

If I'm the highest authority in existence and my only goal is to give eternal life to all my creation and I see there are some of my created beings who use their free will to insist I'm not real even though I've tried and tried to convince them that I am real, don't you think that's going to upset me and cause me to take action on these created beings in an attempt to convince them?

No, it doesn't. It would make you a vain and petty deity.

There is no logical reason why God would have to be that way or take such action.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chriliman]

No, it doesn't. It would make you a vain and petty deity.

There is no logical reason why God would have to be that way or take such action.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Is it really vein and petty to want to give eternal life free from evil to all creation?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Logically, false dichotomies would not exist where there is only truth.

Wow... really... I just can't...

Ok, truth time. I'm seriously trying to give you good advice here. I mean it. You're not equipped to be posting in the Philosophy forum. You're making yourself look terrible. You're giving non believers ammunition to point to and say "here's what Christianity does to you". If you're not going to read a basic logic book, at least read some Christian writings by authors with Philosophy backgrounds. Try Charles Hartshorne.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Is it really vein and petty to want to give eternal life free from evil to all creation?

Of course not, but that's not something logically implicit in God being authoritative. If God is an authority on morality and justice, all God has to do is make it reasonably obvious what justice and morality mean in terms of human life. There is no need to believe that God exists.

And if God wants to make people believe in his existence, it should be pretty easy. Jesus has an open invite to join me for coffee and cinnamon buns at any reasonable daylight hour. All he has to do is to "poof" into my living room. I would be suitably impressed.

If this is what you mean by "drastic action", I'm all for it.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chriliman]

Of course not, but that's not something logically implicit in God being authoritative. If God is an authority on morality and justice, all God has to do is make it reasonably obvious what justice and morality mean in terms of human life. There is no need to believe that God exists.

And if God wants to make people believe in his existence, it should be pretty easy. Jesus has an open invite to join me for coffee and cinnamon buns at any reasonable daylight hour. All he has to do is to "poof" into my living room. I would be suitably impressed.

If this is what you mean by "drastic action", I'm all for it.


eudaimonia,

Mark

That would be possible, but if Jesus poofed into your living room and convinced you to believe and told you to go tell everyone, would you expect an atheist to believe you?

 

[Davian]

Assuming you would be judged by an all authority God, I think it's obvious that you'd be judged for believing the lie that He is not real.

Did you not just say that I would not be judged for things beyond my control?

 

[Eudaimonist]

That would be possible, but if Jesus poofed into your living room and convinced you to believe and told you to go tell everyone, would you expect an atheist to believe you?

No, and I would respect them for not believing. It shows that they have integrity.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

isnt that a logical conclusion if we assume an all authoritative God is real?

No, it´s not a logical conclusion. In order for it to be a logical conclusion, there´d have to be some unspoken premises or steps in your deduction.
But this is the philosophy forum, and not the Logic101 forum.

 

[quatona]

That would be possible, but if Jesus poofed into your living room and convinced you to believe and told you to go tell everyone, would you expect an atheist to believe you?

Well, firstly I myself wouldn´t know how to tell that it´s Jesus (and not e.g. a Jesus imposter or Satan in disguise). I mean just because the guy looks like the image on a toast doesn´t mean he´s Jesus.
If assuming for a moment these identity problem had been solved - I certainly wouldn´t expect anyone to believe me. I am pretty sure I wouldn´t suddenly forget that exceptional claims based on non-intersubjective evidence need to be met with utter skepticism.