...and now for something completely different: Free Will!

[KWED]

Can god do illogical things?

Depends if that god is constrained by our conception of "logic".

 

[Wildswanderer]

Even if that were true, your god still created a world where diseases could arise. Telling me that this happened because some people did something they were told not to do does not change that fact.

Again, this world is the test... not the reward. Suffering has to be possible here, or there would be no test.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Not if he doesn't include the capacity for violent sexual assault on children into the original design of humans.
Which raises the question, why did god design humans with the capacity for mindless cruelty?

He designed men with the capability for great good or much evil because he wants us to make our own choices. There's no choosing good if there's no other possibility.

 

[KWED]

I understand the notion that god wouldn't want to take over anyone's mind and override their free-will. What baffles me is why this god doesn't just give this wicked scumbag who assaults children a heart attack and be done with him. Why let him spend his life assaulting child after child and then take his life when he's an old man?

Indeed. It's almost as if god doesn't care about the suffering of children. Although he does go out of his way to save some (apparently) - which makes his indifference towards the others even worse.
Baffles me why anyone has any respect for such a god.

 

[Wildswanderer]

In a universe where the impulse to harm a child for sexual gratification simply does not exist, not being able to succumb to that non-existent impulse does not restrict free will.

God must have created the potential for that impulse for a reason. As a big fan and defender of god, can you think why he might have done that? (Remember that it can't be "free will" because if the ability to experience that impulse does not exist, then free will is not restricted. Free will only applies to possible choices)

Free will would certainly be restricted if what God created for good could not be used for evil.
What you are asking for is perfect humans incapable of doing wrong. You only pick a certain sin because most everyone agrees that one is wrong. But if you were honest you'd have to apply the same standard to all wrong, even destructive thoughts that never result in actions. That would eliminate freedom of choice.

 

[KWED]

He designed men with the capability for great good or much evil because he wants us to make our own choices.

Why not design us so that we have to choose between great good, medium good, small good, and no good. Even include a little questionable behaviour if you must. But why include the capacity for abhorrent behaviour when there was no need?
It's like saying that a restaurant can't have something really tasty on the menu unless it also has a really disgusting choice. It's complete nonsense.

There's no choosing good if there's no other possibility.

So you believe that we can only be kind to children if we also have the ability to rape them?
That is very odd.

 

[stvdv]

You disagree with all three models?

Hmm. Okay. no problem. Cheers.

Mostly how they phrase it. They are making general claims in the definitions already, as if it applies to all people, which usually is not right, and very hard to prove. And definitely beyond their knowledge

 

[Wildswanderer]

Indeed. It's almost as if god doesn't care about the suffering of children. Although he does go out of his way to save some (apparently) - which makes his indifference towards the others even worse.
Baffles me why anyone has any respect for such a god.

The funny thing is, your compassion is too small. You want God to eliminate what you find offensive, without understanding that all sin is offensive to God. Don't you care about how the murderer or molester is destroying himself by his actions?
God cares about all. That's why he offers redemption to all.
A God who would die to save those who choose him is a God worthy of more than respect. He's worthy of worship.

 

[firedragon]

Mostly how they phrase it. They are making general claims in the definitions already, as if it applies to all people, which usually is not right, and very hard to prove. And definitely beyond their knowledge

Is it not what your article speaks of in many ways?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Why not design us so that we have to choose between great good, medium good, small good, and no good. Even include a little questionable behaviour if you must. But why include the capacity for abhorrent behaviour when there was no need?
It's like saying that a restaurant can't have something really tasty on the menu unless it also has a really disgusting choice. It's complete nonsense.

So you believe that we can only be kind to children if we also have the ability to rape them?
That is very odd.

There's no such thing as a little good or a little evil. All sin is offensive to a perfectly Holy God.
The impulse that allows you to hate a person is the same impulse that would allow you to torture that person if you could. There's no little sins. That's just your arbitrary judgement.

 

[KWED]

Free will would certainly be restricted if what God created for good could not be used for evil.

Why?

What you are asking for is perfect humans incapable of doing wrong.

No I'm not. I'm saying that god should have raised the bar somewhat for the worst possible choices. Why couldn't forgetting a child's birthday be the worst behaviour towards them, rather than raping and murdering them? It was god's decision to make man capable of torturing children. He didn't have to.

You only pick a certain sin because most everyone agrees that one is wrong. But if you were honest you'd have to apply the same standard to all wrong, even destructive thoughts that never result in actions. That would eliminate freedom of choice.

You still don't get it do you? Lets' try something simpler...

Imagine that there are 20 different styles of shoe in existence.
I put the 20 different styles before you and ask you to pick a pair.
Imagine that instead of 20 styles, only 10 styles exist.
I lay out the 10 styles and ask you to choose.
Has your free will will been restricted?
Obviously not.

 

[KWED]

There's no such thing as a little good or a little evil.

So you think that keeping a few pence in the wrong change in a shop is the same level of evil as raping and murdering a child?
You really don't have an argument here.

All sin is offensive to a perfectly Holy God.

So why did he create humans with the capacity to sin?

The impulse that allows you to hate a person is the same impulse that would allow you to torture that person if you could. There's no little sins. That's just your arbitrary judgement.

So in your opinion there should only be one punishment action. Jaywalking and child murder both deserve the same penalty.
So which is it? A small fine for child murder, or death for jaywalking?

 

[KWED]

I wish some would post here so I could argue with them.

Take a position on an issue. I will argue with you.

 

[stvdv]

You disagree with all three models?

I miss God and Spirituality in these definitions. Hence they don't work for me, as Free Will and destiny have everything to do with God from my POV

It's actually quite simple imo

Destiny only applies to those bound to the Law of Karma. Free Will only applies when one is not bound by the Law of Karma

Note: Free Wil <> Free choice
Free Will pertains to Spiritual POV
Free Choice pertains to Material POV

 

[KWED]

You see a bird on the road and you think you should stop your car and save it from getting smashed in to pieces. You slow down. You are late for work. You pick work over a life. It's determined based on you and a whole lot of causes that caused it's outcome which causes another outcome that ultimately determined your action. Your thoughts are within your mind and you made a decision, that's right, but that was determined and you only think that you made a decision based on your free-will.

That's determinism from an atheistic perspective.

No it isn't. Your example doesn't even make sense.

 

[firedragon]

I miss God and Spirituality in these definitions. Hence they don't work for me, as Free Will and destiny have everything to do with God from my POV

It's actually quite simple imo

Destiny only applies to those bound to the Law of Karma. Free Will only applies when one is not bound by the Law of Karma

Note: Free Wil <> Free choice
Free Will pertains to Spiritual POV
Free Choice pertains to Material POV

Of course. In these philosophical definitions God and spirituality etc are missing in logical reasoning. But I am just saying its basically the same thing. The word spiritual and God is absent. And even in the inverse, with out taking the bottom up approach to definitions, it is still true.

Interesting to know the position of your theology because I have not been very familiar. Thanks.

 

[KWED]

Sometimes I'm sure God does strike down the evil.

Why only sometimes? You have already stated that there is no "degree of sin", so what is the criteria god uses to decide which child to save from rape and torture, and which to ignore?

At the very least thier deeds will come back to hurt them. It's not karma, it's the natural result of sin.

That doesn't help the victims though.

 

[KWED]

Nope. Taking one action necessary makes it impossible to take an opposite action. Once God created the physical world he created a situation where he could not do whatever he wants. Having a physical reality is a limitation within itself. For free will to exist God has to decide to limit his actions in this reality. So apparently God wanted to give us free will more than he wanted to control everything. This is why he had to become one of us to offer us salvation.
God has to tolerate our inclination to sin for the time being because his greater desire is for us to be capable of choosing him. He still hates sin but it's worth the sacrifice because it gives love a chance to be real.

Why did god create anyone in the first place? All this talk of saving us, etc is meaningless because there is no reason for us to exist in the first place. We are only here because god decided to create us.
Why did he do that, knowing that most people would suffer terribly through no fault of their own.

 

[paradox]

Depends if that god is constrained by our conception of "logic".

god cannot make logical absurdities such as making 1 + 1 = 3 or drawing a squared circle.

Why did god create anyone in the first place?

out of love toward creation he made us, while hatred leads to destruction of things and life.

 

[ppp]

I think I can choose freely what I want/desire and it is based on what I think is good and desirable.

I don't see how that is possible. I cannot choose to desire to have my thumbs cut off. I cannot choose to desire to eat a live slug. Can you/?

Perhaps it is wrong explanation for why suffering is allowed. I have understood suffering is allowed, because people wanted to know evil. In the beginning people rejected God, because they wanted to know evil like God knows, which is why they were expelled to this first death that is like Matrix, a virtual reality where we can experience also evil and learn what it truly means, while our soul is still safe and can't be destroyed by anything of this world.

By that reasoning you are claiming that my free will doesn't count. Only the free will of the people in your Eden story. I didn't choose evil. I didn't choose suffering. I am being forced to live out their freely chosen fantasies.

So, all though this may be painful at some times, this is only a short lesson.

Go to the children's cancer ward and explain to them and their parents that the they chose evil and that they chose to suffer and that they should learn their lesson for their freely chosen audacity. That is a monstrous and evil sentiment that I have no choice but to reject.,