A god can't logically judge you, not even if you have free will

[Storm]

Part of my argument is that choice is a matter of selecting what you want.

In that case, I withdraw the objection.

But, if that's the case, your argument fails. If you have a free choice, you bear responsibility for it.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Because you designed them that way in the first place... If you designed them to lead to their disposal, why did you do that in the first place? That's illogical: "I'm going to design something, and when it works as I intended, I'll throw it away!" or just sadistic if those "parts" feel emotions.

Are you familiar with the law of identity? In order for two things to exist, they must possess a separate identity. Now, if God is perfect (as perfect as something can be) and created something else, could that thing be perfect? If it was it would not have an identity and thus could not be created.
So God can not create something that is perfect, however can create things to be come eternal.
Do you see how that logic works?

 

[CarlinKnew]

In that case, I withdraw the objection.

But, if that's the case, your argument fails. If you have a free choice, you bear responsibility for it.

Well I mean to say that you select that which you want. And according to free will, what you want must arise uncaused. If that's the case, you can't bear responsibility for it.

 

[Storm]

Well I mean to say that you select that which you want. And according to free will, what you want must arise uncaused. If that's the case, you can't bear responsibility for it.

OK, you lost me. I don't see where you're getting the uncaused bit, or why it absolves you of responsibility.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Are you familiar with the law of identity? In order for two things to exist, they must possess a separate identity. Now, if God is perfect (as perfect as something can be) and created something else, could that thing be perfect? If it was it would not have an identity and thus could not be created.
So God can not create something that is perfect, however can create things to be come eternal.
Do you see how that logic works?

No.

First of all I don't know what perfect means, but let's set that aside. If he created a duplicate of himself, and the only difference between himself and his duplicate was, let's say, they were standing 5 feet away from each other. Well that difference in location would be enough to distinguish between the two, and the law of identity would remain unbroken.

Anyway I don't see what this has to do with the argument. And if he wanted to create something to be eternal, why would he need to go through some sort of process? Why would his creation need to "become" eternal; why couldn't he instantly make it eternal?

 

[strikeviperMKII]

If you want to say you found a math equation that you believe relates to religion, that's cool with me. I must admit I'm a little jealous though, I wish I still had that much of an imagination at times!

Sometimes, though, I do think I think too much for my own good.

 

[CarlinKnew]

OK, you lost me. I don't see where you're getting the uncaused bit, or why it absolves you of responsibility.

If what you want is caused, then your choices are subject to determinism and therefore your will is not free. If what you want is uncaused, then you are acting based on something you did not cause, so you can't be responsible for it.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Is any choice we make inevitably affected or even dictated by the choices other people have already made? I think so. I think the choice(s) any particular person might make at any given time are dictated by ongoing cause & effect processes.

In The Matrix Reloaded, there's an important expository scene that involves Neo, Morpheus and Trinity entering a posh restaurant inside the Matrix to meet with Merovingian. The latter then dismisses choice as an illusion created by those with power over those without. We're all slaves to causality, says Merv. Causality is the only real truth, says Merv.

What say you all to this?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

No.

First of all I don't know what perfect means, but let's set that aside. If he created a duplicate of himself, and the only difference between himself and his duplicate was, let's say, they were standing 5 feet away from each other. Well that difference in location would be enough to distinguish between the two, and the law of identity would remain unbroken.

Anyway I don't see what this has to do with the argument. And if he wanted to create something to be eternal, why would he need to go through some sort of process? Why would his creation need to "become" eternal; why couldn't he instantly make it eternal?

Your changing the goal posts here a bit. I have pointed out that God could not create something identical to himself, because it is impossible.

So then, it is only our imagination that begins to ask why didn't he do that or do this. If God wanted to create a particular creation, especially one as complex as this one, the ramifications could be quite complicated.

Even so, as you suggest, why would he even do that, maybe he shouldn't have created anything at all, if it was going to end this way. Now that is entirely a different discussion...

 

[Storm]

If what you want is caused, then your choices are subject to determinism and therefore your will is not free. If what you want is uncaused, then you are acting based on something you did not cause, so you can't be responsible for it.

So, how does the ability to forego what you want factor into your theory?

 

[JustAsking]

Is any choice we make inevitably affected or even dictated by the choices other people have already made? I think so. I think the choice(s) any particular person might make at any given time are dictated by ongoing cause & effect processes.

In The Matrix Reloaded, there's an important expository scene that involves Neo, Morpheus and Trinity entering a posh restaurant inside the Matrix to meet with Merovingian. The latter then dismisses choice as an illusion created by those with power over those without. We're all slaves to causality, says Merv. Causality is the only real truth, says Merv.

What say you all to this?

I buy this to an extent. We are what our experience makes us. That being said, even though your experiences for the last 10 years lead you to lean certain ways during certain choices, nothing stops you from flipping a coin at random to choose an outcome.

 

[CarlinKnew]

You seem to be stuck in determinism. That is that all things are preset including our will to learn and alter our behavior. By your definitions there is nothing for us to determine. Your definitions rely on all things being predetermined. If we exclude all external to self things you are arguing that our will is predetermined.

No, I assumed free will for my argument, and free will necessitates indeterminism.

I am suggesting the possibility of intelligence which would imply that as we learn the more intelligent we may become allowing us to make different choices. However, we must also realize that even though one may see advantage in new choices they may revert and not alter behavior. Thus will is at risk of being overrun by habit.

Yeah, we learn and make different choices. I'm not disputing that.

I have posted on this forum that the first step to freedom is discipline. Discipline is the first choice we make. It has been said that the lack of discipline is what deceives us into sacrificing what we want most for what we want right now.

You see? You're still picking based on what you want. Choice follows from desire. Desire must be uncaused for free will to be. If your choices follow from something you did not cause (and are therefore not responsible for) then you are not responsible for your choices.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

nothing stops you from flipping a coin at random to choose an outcome.

OK so this limits the choices to two choices, it is still influenced by the coin, which we are in control of. It won't be able to decide unless we flip it, and when we flip it, we have granted the possibility of two choices. Not truly random is it?

 

[CarlinKnew]

Your changing the goal posts here a bit. I have pointed out that God could not create something identical to himself, because it is impossible.

Changing the goal posts? I directly addressed your argument. He could create a duplicate of himself as long as there was at least one trivial difference between himself and the duplicate; for example their locations.

So then, it is only our imagination that begins to ask why didn't he do that or do this. If God wanted to create a particular creation, especially one as complex as this one, the ramifications could be quite complicated.

Shouldn't be too much of a sweat for a god.

Even so, as you suggest, why would he even do that, maybe he shouldn't have created anything at all, if it was going to end this way. Now that is entirely a different discussion...

That's fine.

 

[CarlinKnew]

So, how does the ability to forego what you want factor into your theory?

You can only choose to forego something you want in order to achieve something you want more.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

He could create a duplicate of himself as long as there was at least one trivial difference between himself and the duplicate; for example their locations.

How do you know this subtle creation would be capable of what God's intentions were with say... this Earth?

Shouldn't be too much of a sweat for a god.

But it is, that is the point. God could not do anything that is impossible, no matter how powerful he is. You seem to not be getting that.

 

[JustAsking]

OK so this limits the choices to two choices, it is still influenced by the coin, which we are in control of. It won't be able to decide unless we flip it, and when we flip it, we have granted the possibility of two choices. Not truly random is it?

Not necessarily. It depends on the purpose of the flip.

If I'm offered a final job offer and the answer is either "I accept" or "I decline" a coin doesn't limit anything. The coin just removes my choice in the outcome.

 

[CarlinKnew]

How do you know this subtle creation would be capable of what God's intentions were with say... this Earth?

I don't follow you. You said a god couldn't create a copy of himself because that would violate the law of identity. Well as long as this copy had a small difference, for example a difference in location, the law of identity wouldn't be violated.

But it is, that is the point. God could not do anything that is impossible, no matter how powerful he is. You seem to not be getting that.

What did I claim a god could do that is impossible?

 

[Storm]

You can only choose to forego something you want in order to achieve something you want more.

Aannnnnnnnnnd, we're back to "but that's determinism."

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Not necessarily. It depends on the purpose of the flip.

If I'm offered a final job offer and the answer is either "I accept" or "I decline" a coin doesn't limit anything. The coin just removes my choice in the outcome.

Sure, but two things to consider.
1)If it is in the power of the employer to make that decision you have no free will in regards to that choice.
2)If the employer says it is upto you, and you decide to flip the coin, I submit, you would never flip the coin if you weren't prepared to do the job, so essentially you were already OK with it flipping either way, which points out how your choice to flip the coin was ultimately influenced by your initially internalizing that either way you would be OK.