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

[Just_me_Mike]

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.

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

OK, let me clear this up. God can create something that is very close to himself. One chromosome different for arguments sake. No laws are being violated here.
What we can't speculate on is what would be the outcome of that, and how would it effect God? Would they fight for power?
What I am trying to impress upon you, is once he makes the slightest change to himself, and creates part 2 of himself, who are we to say that that tiny change wasn't enough to create a monster? Afterall what is perfection once it becomes imperfect?

 

[CarlinKnew]

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

No we're not. Determinism states that all events are the result of cause and effect. If your desires are uncaused, determinism is false. Now try and choose to do something you don't want to do; it's impossible. You'd do it because you wanted to do something that you woudn't (normally) want to do. That is the nature of choice; it's a matter of picking that which you want. You can't dispute that.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

No we're not. Determinism states that all events are the result of cause and effect. If your desires are uncaused, determinism is false. Now try and choose to do something you don't want to do; it's impossible. You'd do it because you wanted to do something that you woudn't (normally) want to do. That is the nature of choice; it's a matter of picking that which you want. You can't dispute that.

Unfortunately this does little to explain why God is wrong for disposing or keeping parts of his creation.

 

[Skwim]

No we're not. Determinism states that all events are the result of cause and effect. If your desires are uncaused, determinism is false. Now try and choose to do something you don't want to do; it's impossible. You'd do it because you wanted to do something that you woudn't (normally) want to do. That is the nature of choice; it's a matter of picking that which you want. You can't dispute that.

And why did you want to? Whatever it is it functions as the cause.

 

[CarlinKnew]

OK, let me clear this up. God can create something that is very close to himself. One chromosome different for arguments sake. No laws are being violated here.
What we can't speculate on is what would be the outcome of that, and how would it effect God? Would they fight for power?
What I am trying to impress upon you, is once he makes the slightest change to himself, and creates part 2 of himself, who are we to say that that tiny change wasn't enough to create a monster? Afterall what is perfection once it becomes imperfect?

I don't know what perfect means. But he could create a duplicate of himself but remove all potential of it becoming "a monster". Anyway what does this have to do with my argument? This is getting pretty bizarre.

 

[Storm]

No we're not. Determinism states that all events are the result of cause and effect. If your desires are uncaused, determinism is false. Now try and choose to do something you don't want to do; it's impossible. You'd do it because you wanted to do something that you woudn't (normally) want to do. That is the nature of choice; it's a matter of picking that which you want. You can't dispute that.

I can, actually.

I think the sticking point for me is your proposition that desires are uncaused. Not buying it.

But I also don't think an uncaused element is necessary. Only the freedom to deny instinct.

By way of illustration, I just quit smoking. I didn't want to, not really. But I knew I should.

So, I think the "should" factor is what you're not accounting for.

 

[CarlinKnew]

And why did you want to? Whatever it is it functions as the cause.

According to free will, the desire arises without cause.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Unfortunately this does little to explain why God is wrong for disposing or keeping parts of his creation.

He's wrong because his creation is acting upon desires that they did not cause and are therefore not responsible for.

 

[Storm]

According to free will, the desire arises without cause.

Not necessarily.

The random element isn't the desire, but the choice itself.

 

[CarlinKnew]

I think the sticking point for me is your proposition that desires are uncaused. Not buying it.

Well this is the proposition of free will. I don't buy it either; I buy into determinism.

But I also don't think an uncaused element is necessary. Only the freedom to deny instinct.

If your act of instinct denial is merely an effect in a causal chain, it's not free will; it's subject to determinism.

By way of illustration, I just quit smoking. I didn't want to, not really. But I knew I should.

So, I think the "should" factor is what you're not accounting for

All I see there are two competing desires: the desire to smoke and the desire to do what you know you should do.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Not necessarily.

The random element isn't the desire, but the choice itself.

So choices are random?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I don't know what perfect means. But he could create a duplicate of himself but remove all potential of it becoming "a monster". Anyway what does this have to do with my argument? This is getting pretty bizarre.

So the word perfect means nothing to you?
Try this, something that exists void of any defects that can be examined in the universe of intrinsic laws...Not to be confused with something that can do anything (even illogical things) That would violate reality.

What this has to do with your thread is you claim God can't judge something it creates, even if it has free will (whatever that is???). God judging something it creates doesn't violate any sensible law.
If you create a turd in the toilet you can judge to keep it or flush it.
So as I have been trying to point out, God can not create something that is perfect, so God must be selective in what it creates.

You have pointed out how he could have created something very close to himself, and I simply pointed out that that may have had more dire results than what your thread suggests. I am simply asking you to expand your mind. If I sounding bizarre for that, than I will refrain from posting on your thread.

 

[CarlinKnew]

So the word perfect means nothing to you?
Try this, something that exists void of any defects that can be examined in the universe of intrinsic laws...Not to be confused with something that can do anything (even illogical things) That would violate reality.

Defects are subjective. I might think a moist loaf of bread is defective while a mold colony, if it had thoughts, might think the bread is perfect!

What this has to do with your thread is you claim God can't judge something it creates, even if it has free will (whatever that is???).

(It means choices are not subject to determinism).

God judging something it creates doesn't violate any sensible law.
If you create a turd in the toilet you can judge to keep it or flush it.
So as I have been trying to point out, God can not create something that is perfect, so God must be selective in what it creates.

Yes, being selective in what it creates would be logical. However, creating non-selectively and then selecting later would be illogical.

You have pointed out how he could have created something very close to himself, and I simply pointed out that that may have had more dire results than what your thread suggests. I am simply asking you to expand your mind. If I sounding bizarre for that, than I will refrain from posting on your thread.

He could prevent the dire results if he wanted. We're talking about a god, remember?

 

[Storm]

Well this is the proposition of free will. I don't buy it either; I buy into determinism.

But it's not. The proposition of free will is that we have a free choice. Not that we're slaves to totally random desire.

If your act of instinct denial is merely an effect in a causal chain, it's not free will; it's subject to determinism.

Agreed, but not what I'm saying.

All I see there are two competing desires: the desire to smoke and the desire to do what you know you should do.

OK, you win. You have an unbeatable semantic trump card. But you still don't grasp free will.

 

[Storm]

So choices are random?

I would favor "free" over "random," but close enough.

 

[CarlinKnew]

But it's not. The proposition of free will is that we have a free choice. Not that we're slaves to totally random desire.

Same thing. Free choice means it's undetermined, and for it to be undetermined it must be uncaused.

Agreed, but not what I'm saying.


OK, you win. You have an unbeatable semantic trump card. But you still don't grasp free will.

Haha ok, well maybe you'll help me understand some day.

 

[CarlinKnew]

I would favor "free" over "random," but close enough.

So how can you be responsible for your choices if they're random?

 

[Storm]

Same thing. Free choice means it's undetermined, and for it to be undetermined it must be uncaused.

Haha ok, well maybe you'll help me understand some day.

So how can you be responsible for your choices if they're random?

Well, that's why I said "free" instead. They're not totally random, they're determined by one's will.

I think it might help to step back from the debate and look at the context. The concept of free will is rooted in a theology that's pretty alien to both of us. It's a choice between two opposing natures, the base animal and the pure soul. Want and should. You might think of it as the ability to override instinct with intellect.

Does that help?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

He could prevent the dire results if he wanted. We're talking about a god, remember?

Carlin, your missing the point. God can not do illogical things. God can not make a square circle, God can not be duplicated. We talked about that. The law of identity, cause and effect.
As soon as God made something less then perfect, there are things that will happen. What those things are you and I can't fathom entirely, but to assume God can control them is asking God to do something that is impossible.

Look at it like an equation.

{God creates something other than himself} + {God controls all the bad parts} = God creates God.

That is a false equation, because God can not create himself, and if God created something that was all good and no imperfection as you are suggesting, it would be equal to God creating himself. Which forms the intrinsic self-contradiction law.

God can not control something from deviating, once he creates it. He should be able to control shortly after it is created, but he can't make it something it is not.

Logically, we can then ask OK, so if this is true why did God have to wait x-billions of years to end suffering etc... Again a different discussion, but as far as I can tell your OP simply holds no water...

 

[ChristineES]

I disagree. Free will is defined by free choice. You're just slapping a theological label onto your native position, namely that we have no real control over our actions. That's not free will.

That's what I keep trying to say. If we have a choice, one of those choices can be "no".