God wants us to love darkness and evil!

[ratiocinator]

Nothing "justifies" your life, its a gift from the God that you are complaining about.

So you assert, without the slightest hint of a justification.

You have a concept of what God should be which is at odds with how things really are. Its your God that's not existing.

I don't have any god(s). I am merely saying that a god in the sense of an just and loving, omnipotent, and omniscient creator of everything is inconsistent with the world we observe.

 

[RestlessSoul]

No idea what you're even trying to say here. A symphony generally has a composer and a conductor and the subject is whether god (if it exists) wants evil and suffering.

Think of it as a jazz orchestra. A collective composition, a swinging cocktail of harmony and discord.

Who knows what the composer, conductor or instrumentalists want? I doubt whether they do themselves, until they find it. Even then, the most sublime harmonies fail to sustain for long. Then there is discord, then maybe silence...

 

[ratiocinator]

Nowhere did God command Christians to commit genocide.

This is a bit of a quibble. God commanded certain people to commit genocide (according to the bible). Not only does that speak directly to the morality of the god Christians claim to worship, are you going to exclude everything that wasn't explicitly directed at Christians? Forget the ten commandments, for example?

no, this is not how it works. You came up with a bold claim. The onus is on you.

We've already done this. If we take every possible thing that could influence an event (in the case of a human choice, that would be all of the person's nature, nurture, and total experience up to the moment of choice), and then say that all those things do not fully determine the outcome, then anything else that does must be nothing to do with the person or the choice, and therefore random.

Alternatively, we have the rewind time thought experiment. If you could run things again from exactly the same starting point and the outcome could be different, there can be no reason for the difference (because everything is exactly the same), so it can only be random.

Minds are either deterministic systems or they aren't (and therefore, by definition, involve randomness).

As I said, and you mostly edited out, if you want to assert free will you need to explain how anything can happen that isn't either random or entirely determined by its antecedents (or some combination of the two).

 

[thomas t]

We've already done this.

yeah, and in the old thread you could not disprove the existence of free will.

Minds are either deterministic systems or they aren't (and therefore, by definition, involve randomness).

according to you, there is no third option (free will).
You have nothing to back this up.

Alternatively, we have the rewind time thought experiment. If you could run things again from exactly the same starting point and the outcome could be different, there can be no reason for the difference (because everything is exactly the same), so it can only be random.

if there is free will, this will be the reason of why the outcome wil be potentially different.

This is a bit of a quibble. God commanded certain people to commit genocide (according to the bible). Not only does that speak directly to the morality of the god Christians claim to worship, are you going to exclude everything that wasn't explicitly directed at Christians? Forget the ten commandments, for example?

no, the Canaanite people is not around today. Also, the situation has changed.

Also consider this: Jesus asked someone to give him vinegar at one occasion.
Does this mean every Christian should be giving vinegar to simply everyone every day?

or:

He asked someone to bring him a colt.
Does this mean, a Chistian should constantly be asking people to give colts?

C'me one.
You can't rip Bible passages out of context more horribly than you just did.

 

[firedragon]

God wanted early Christians to be decapitated, crucified, dismembered, raped, fed to wild animals, used as torches at the Olympic games, grilled alive, and be underground , living a nightmare for centuries, till Constantine and some Christians decided to stop being lambs and start being lions and killing.

Not true. Its a myth.

 

[ratiocinator]

yeah, and in the old thread you could not disprove the existence of free will.

No, I gave an argument as to why there can't be and you simply asserted that "free will" exists - which isn't a counterargument, it's just baseless assertion. And you're just doing the same thing again here...

according to you, there is no third option (free will).
You have nothing to back this up.

if there is free will, there will be the reason of why the outcome wil be potentially different.

I have given you the logic, and all you have done is asserted that there is a third option without the slightest hint as to how it might escape the only two logical options I set out.

As I said, you need to explain how there can be an event that isn't totally determined by its antecedents and that doesn't involve randomness. If a choice can be different in exactly the same circumstances (including the exact state of mind of the chooser), then any difference cannot be caused by anything at all (because everything is the same) and something caused by nothing at all is random. The words "free will" are not a magic spell that makes the logic go away.

 

[ratiocinator]

no, the Canaanite people is not around today. The situation has chamged.

Which doesn't change the point that god commanded genocide, from which we can deduce that genocide is not always wrong in the eyes of said god.

Also consider this: Jesus asked someone to give him vinegar at one occasion.
Does this mean every Christian should be giving vinegar to simply everyone every day?

No, but it does tell us that giving somebody vinegar is not always wrong in the eyes of god/Jesus.

 

[thomas t]

first off, I did not exclude that genocide was the right thing to do for God in a given situation.

No, I gave an argument as to why there can't be and you simply asserted that "free will" exists

yes I commented on the argument.
I said that you relied on mere declaration to point out that there are no more than the two options (deterministic system and randomness). See below.

I said you have nothing to show that decisionmaking is confined to two options only, I could only repeat here, I hope this will not turn out to be a merry goround with you.

escape the only two logical options I set out.

the onus would be on you to show that there aren't more than these two options.

As I said, you need to explain how there can be an event that isn't totally determined by its antecedents and that doesn't involve randomness.

No, this is not how it works.
You went ahead stating that there are only two options, so the onus is on you to show how there can be only two options in the world.
As I said you have nothing to show this.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

God wanted early Christians to be decapitated, crucified, dismembered, raped, fed to wild animals, used as torches at the Olympic games, grilled alive, and be underground , living a nightmare for centuries, till Constantine and some Christians decided to stop being lambs and start being lions and killing.

But God wants you to suffer and die. Either that or he isn't omnipotent.

Whether you believe in God or not, you're gonna suffer and die. I live where George Floyd was murdered and went for a walk near Smith bridge early am hours and somebody got out of their vehicle and started firing a gun across the river.

That has happened before around here.

The only reason the city isn't still getting burned is because National guard have checkpoints and tanks driving down university.

(As I type this there are actually sirens approaching). Eventually police said essentially screw it at one point and let the buildings burn and be looted.

Justice for Floyd is important no doubt, but I'm discovering there is a lot of racism that is publicly accepted, and I've heard plenty racial slurs uttered against me , had pop and water and things chucked at me while I panhandled, that eventually I started charging vehicles head on, begging people to shoot me and getting on top of them.

The same guys that used to make fun of me salute me now.

Some guy came barging into my apartment without permission not long ago and I jumped up with a knife and shouted get the **** out out if my room, and he backed off and said "someone said you stole my card , I'm sorry".

Someone else stole from me and I entered his apartment and started searching his cupboards and backpack as he's trying to restrain me.

It was very enjoyable.

Another guy came for my neighbor and started entering my apartment and I pushed him out.

The Dude that claimed I stole from him returned with a pistol or so he claims. I didn't see it. He started acting hard so I looked him in the eyes without flinching and said "blow my brains out if you wish to enter this hallway *****!"

The guy was like twice my size too.

Another car drove up and some drunk guy said "Go home white boy. You're mamma wants you home....Come closer to the car white boy. I wanna show you my gun."

I smiled and told him " that's gonna leave a mess on the pavement for someone to clean up." Then belched as loud as a could and started walking towards the vehicle with a grin.

The guy next to him reached over and rolled up the window. They drove off.

People want to see some kind of fear. As long as you show timidity they will keep messing with you.

At age 12 I was put into a cell with Anthony Evans who raped, tortured, and drowned a girl in the Hungry horse river.

The guy had evil in his eyes, weird posture, looked like the Devil himself, would whisper to me from the bunk above and try to get me to think I was hearing voices that weren't his, make obvious sexual advances so I kept telling him to **** off!

He threatened to kill me, tell me not to sleep at night, and eventually he attacked and I tried gouging his eyes out with my fingernails, tried ripping out or crushing his trachea as hard as I could.

Officers showed up and moved me to a different cell.

I've also had arms tied up in my shirt so I couldn't move them and stabbed with plastic shanks.

Last time I got arrested, Minneapolis police yanked my arm out of socket , and in jail they told me to put my arm on the wall and I couldn't lift it.

They had someone come feel my arm and insisted there was nothing wrong with it.

I asked for a nurse. They said, "we will bring you gandalf" and denied me medical care.

I started making some noise from the pain and was told "shut up."

I actually had to wait till after discharge, then call 911, then have X-rays, and have my arm put back into socket.

My attorney got the ROI and is getting the charge hopefully dropped because of excessive force but I'm told if I wasn't white I'd have a lawsuit against Minneapolis police.

Whatever, someone is slowly dying in agony and horror somewhere , so nothing to complain about here.

However, if I truly love the nightmare and suffering, I'm going to be way more happy, way stronger, way all around better person.

If you love suffering, addictions can be overcome , you can get better grades, work harder, have more self control, and all kinds of benefits.

Anyway,
I may have shared this, I explain more here in video, why God wants us to love darkness and evil. Bible says he creates evil, and even if he didn't, he chooses to refuse to heal and guide people, leaving everyone who seeks him divided and confused, because he would find the movie boring without drama, action, death, and war.

It's also because he doesn't want us to be cry babys always running away and scared of our own shadow.

People that love suffering, smile at whatever the news is, and love being terrified, will be more happy people than those who hate it.

It's a sick world so might as well enjoy being sick because you will die anyway.

But someone on other site says he just bought me a Joker costume. I hope it fits. I'm excited about my vocation.

Joker was inspired by a man whose face was cut so that he had a constant grin.

To have genuine unshakable happiness in every circumstance and always smile and love afflictions is truly a big secret to happier world.

View attachment 49893

Thoughts?

There is overlap between the anti-hero and the hero. The anti-hero can be thought of as a precursor to the hero.

The major difference between the two is that the hero strives to overcome the inner victim, which eventually allows for the level of self sacrifice needed to defeat evil/death. In contrast, the victim causes the anti-hero to adapt to the broken world with a hard heart, seeking revenge disguised as a distorted cosmic justice. The anti-hero eventually begins to love evil.

The hero instead feigns allegiance to the Devil in order to gain his trust. The hero feigns a love of evil, so that he can be given the enemy’s weapon of fire, and then the hero uses that fire in his self sacrifice to ultimately defeat the enemy.

 

[ratiocinator]

yes I commented on the argument.
I said that you relied on mere declaration to point out that there are no more than the two options (deterministic system and randomness).

I did not merely declare it, I made an argument for it that you continue to totally ignore (and the substance of which you edited out of everything you quoted). In fact, I made more than one argument for it. Here is one of them again (based on the thought experiment of rewinding time):-

If a choice can be different in exactly the same circumstances (including the exact state of mind of the chooser), then any difference cannot be caused by anything at all (because everything is the same) and something caused by nothing at all is random.​

The only 'declaration' is that something without a cause must be random - do you dispute that? The rest is a deduction: IF everything is the same and the choice can be different, THEN any difference cannot have a cause. This is because a cause has to be something (either external or internal to the mind of the chooser) and everything being the same is basis of the thought experiment.

Let's add another layer to this. Let's start by assuming that there is free will. When you make a free will choice do you do so for reasons or for no reason? If it's for reasons then they must be present as external circumstances or in your own state of mind. If that is the case, then in the thought experiment, where your mind and the circumstances are exactly the same, you would necessarily make the same choice and free will reduces to determinism. If a free will choice is partly or wholly for no reason, we are back to randomness.

If we ask ourselves if we could have made a different choice in exactly the same situation, that question has only two possible answers (yes or no), there is no third answer to it. The deduction from a 'yes' answer leads us to some randomness, and the deduction from the 'no' answer is that minds are deterministic.

 

[thomas t]

I did address every single point of yours that you called argument.

If a choice can be different in exactly the same circumstances (including the exact state of mind of the chooser), then any difference cannot be caused by anything at all (because everything is the same) and something caused by nothing at all is random.

that's an assumptio, as I see it. If this were to be true, then of course there is no such thing as free will.
But how will you prove this assumption?

Let me put it that way:
1) IF free will is included in what you call state of mind, you did not preclude free will from being there. It's just included therein. In this case your argument boils down to a mere tautology: if everything is the same, including a potential free will deicision, then everything is the same. Yeah, obviously.
2) IF free will is not included in what you call "state of mind", this is the exact factor that causes a potentially different outcome (apart from random), I think. As I said last post.

Let's add another layer to this. Let's start by assuming that there is free will. When you make a free will choice do you do so for reasons or for no reason? If it's for reasons then they must be present as external circumstances or in your own state of mind. If that is the case, then in the thought experiment, where your mind and the circumstances are exactly the same, you would necessarily make the same choice and free will reduces to determinism. If a free will choice is partly or wholly for no reason, we are back to randomness.

free will is a reason in itself as I see it.
For the blue part: see above!
However, in your reply nothing except the notion of state of mind was new more or less, and I had to repeat myself.

If this is trying to go round in circles with me, please refrain from it.

 

[ratiocinator]

that's an assumptio, as I see it. If this were to be true, then of course there is no such thing as free will.
But how will you prove this assumption?

It's simply not an assumption, as I explained at great length.

1) IF free will is included in what you call state of mind, you did not preclude free will from being there. It's just included therein. In this case your argument boils down to a mere tautology: if everything is the same, including a potential free will deicision, then everything is the same. Yeah, obviously.

It also makes "free will" totally meaningless (except for the compatibilist sense) - that's the whole point. Your state of mind is your state of mind and labelling part of it "free will" doesn't make a jot of difference. Any choice you make is either a function of your state of mind at the time and the external circumstances (determinism), or it isn't (which implies randomness).

Remember there was nothing special about the state of mind and choice in the argument, so we can extrapolate one choice to an entire life of choices. Then we only have to apply the same logic to your state of mind just after each choice, each thought, and each experience, at each moment and we either have an entirely deterministic mind or one involving randomness.

free will is a reason in itself as I see it.

This is simply incoherent. If a reason appears for no reason then, just like anything that has no cause, it must be random.

 

[thomas t]

It's simply not an assumption, as I explained at great length.

your explanation boils down to a tautology: if the state of mind including potential free will and all the rest is the same - the decision is going to be the same. True, but tautological.

It also makes "free will" totally meaningless (except for the compatibilist sense) - that's the whole point.

no, it's not, I think.
Here you just argue by making an assumption:

Any choice you make is either a function of your state of mind at the time and the external circumstances (determinism), or it isn't (which implies randomness).
Remember there was nothing special about the state of mind and choice in the argument, so we can extrapolate one choice to an entire life of choices. Then we only have to apply the same logic to your state of mind just after each choice, each thought, and each experience, at each moment and we either have an entirely deterministic mind or one involving randomness.

here you simply assume there is no true free will as part of the state of mind.
You have no reasons whatsoever why you could assume this to be the case.
If free will is part of the state of mind, the state of mind is not a deterministic system, and it isn't random either, I think.
It simply has life, I think.

This is simply incoherent. If a reason appears for no reason then, just like anything that has no cause, it must be random.

I didn't say free wil has no reason. I assume free will is the product of a creating force.
No incoherence here.

 

[ratiocinator]

here you simply assume there is no true free will as part of the state of mind.

Here you are simply using the term "free will" as if it makes some sort of difference to the logic I've outlined, without any attempt to say what it is, how it works, or how it changes anything I've said. As I said a few posts back, words "free will" are not a magic spell that changes the logic - you need to explain what you think it means and how it defeats the arguments I've presented. And that is how it works; I have presented an argument now it's up to you to provide a counterargument.

The problem is that you seem to want to add some element into things that is both fully caused (has reasons, is purposeful) and not fully caused (not deterministic). That's a contradiction.

I didn't say free wil has no reason.

You said it was a "a reason in itself" which implies that it itself has no reason.

I assume free will is the product of a creating force.

What's a "creating force" in this context? How does it work? Regardless, whatever is 'created' is either entirely because of pre-existing causes or is (to some extent) causeless (random).

 

[wellwisher]

no,
I haven't.

God could heal people and leaves them confused and full of disorders.

Also, God in Scripture violates free will all the time.

God could protect a child without violating free will by simply giving pedophiles and murderers heart attacks or healing them psychologically.

God could also not have created the Devil or stop the devil from tempting people.

God also didn't have to curse everyone with original sin and curse all the descendants of Ham or curse all kinds of people.

You seem to have forgotten that God wants people to suffer. Have you read the Bible?

This all comes back to tree of knowledge of good and evil . Knowledge of good and evil is law enforced by punishment, and social conventions that define good and bad, enforced with censorship and shame. Both define what is good behavior and what is bad behavior with both having a penalty of various degrees for not choosing the good. The problem with the schema of knowledge of good and evil, is connected to the way the brain creates memory.

When memory is created, a feeling tone from the core of the brain is added to the sensory content as it is written to the cerebral matter. Each memory has both feeling and sensory content. Law and knowledge of good and evil, since it divides reality into good and evil, requires two conflicting memory feeling tags; rest and fear, when written to memory. Conflicting feelings can make it hard to move forward. This was by design and it requires one stop and think. If a couple reached the state of love and hate, they cannot approach or separate. It creates an inner tension of opposites. Law does the same thing on a social scale.

The natural brain does not like this state of content suspense, so it will repress half the polarization of law, making half conscience and half unconscious. We like to think of ourselves a good, so the bad is repressed and is made less conscious. Others may see themselves as bad and repress all their good.

Satan, among other things, is symbolic of a subroutine that can form within the brain to deal with the unconscious polarization. This is a memory base connected to all the dark sides of all knowledge of good and evil, that we have been exposed to. These all have the fear attachment.

The natural goal is to end the polarization by making this inner dark side conscious; we are all sinners. However, the self righteous will continue to repress the bad side and describe all their actions as good and justified, as the unconscious side becomes more and more autonomous. The preacher who condemns sex, may unconsciously seek out prostitutes. He is driven by the polarization and inner subroutine. Most of the atrocities of history come from this internal polarization and animation of the Satan subroutine. This all come from law and social conventions of good and evil. This is why Jesus did away with all law, but humans did not stop using law.

Since law is common to a culture, it can creates cultural wide polarization, via conflicting emotional tags, common law, via the common subroutines within all, This can cause the entire culture to become compelled by the inner darkness of its own teachings, In the time of the early Christians, theory would become the victims of this inner polarization of law.

However, since there is a culture wide polarization, the light side of some aspects of culture will reflects this increasing darkness and becomes even lighter. The Early Christians set a unique example of light, in space and time. But as they become lighter to balance the inner darkness, the darkness become even darker. The result was the atrocities, escalated. Jesus already did away with law and the polarizing affect but humans continue to program themselves with the conflicting feelings created by laws and social conventions.

If you look in the USA the Democrats make the most laws and social conventions. They also tend to be the most impulsive due to a higher degree of clan internal polarization. This is all connected by law. For example, to the left a sexist or racist has to be male and white. They purposely created a new polarizations convention based on sex and race. This should not be polarized since a rational analysis can show that some women can be sexist and all colors can be racists. The real goal was to benefit by the dark side; makes for better compulsives liars. God already offered the solution but humans will take the hint. They need to learn the hard way.

 

[thomas t]

Here you are simply using the term "free will" as if it makes some sort of difference to the logic I've outlined, without any attempt to say what it is, how it works, or how it changes anything I've said.

well yes, evidently free will would make a big difference. I use free will as described in the dictionary:
Free will

When I use words from the dictionary, I am not obliged to explain everything with regard to it in every detail.

As I said a few posts back, words "free will" are not a magic spell that changes the logic - you need to explain what you think it means and how it defeats the arguments I've presented. And that is how it works; I have presented an argument now it's up to you to provide a counterargument.

the dictionary will help.
It defeats your arguments in full, since you cannot exclude it from existing.
If everything is equal except for the free will decision, this can make the difference according to the dictionary entry, I linked back to above.

The problem is that you seem to want to add some element into things that is both fully caused (has reasons, is purposeful) and not fully caused (not deterministic). That's a contradiction.

there is no contradiction.
A God that has limitless power can create agents that can truely make decisions on their own, I guess.
There is no need to conjure up a contradiction.
The free will is fully caused, as I see it.
But, once in place, it is able to cause decision autonomously, see above definition:
Free will, in humans, the power or capacity to choose among alternatives or to act in certain situations independently of natural, social, or divine restraints.

You said it was a "a reason in itself" which implies that it itself has no reason.

a reason in itself for the decision. That was what I meant.

What's a "creating force" in this context? How does it work? Regardless, whatever is 'created' is either entirely because of pre-existing causes or is (to some extent) causeless (random).

a creating force is a force that creates. I can't put it any simpler. I am not going to define how and in which way.
It simply created it, I assume, I am neutral to how it did so, if you permit.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I believe God want human beings to understand the negativity that we can experience in life, so that we can change our own way of living until the dark and negative no longer affect is, but love and light shine from within.

 

[ratiocinator]

the dictionary will help.
It defeats your arguments in full, since you cannot exclude it from existing.

The whole argument I've put forward excludes it from existing (except in the compatibilist sense). The definition you linked does nothing to defeat it and is itself ambiguous. A definition is not an argument and the article didn't even attempt to address the determinism versus randomness dichotomy. That's why you need a counterargument - specifically a way in which free will can work that overcomes it.

there is no contradiction.
A God that has limitless power can create agents that can truely make decisions on their own, I guess.
There is no need to conjure up a contradiction.
The free will is fully caused, as I see it.

There is a contradiction and you can't wave it away with an assertion, statements of faith, and rather meaningless statements like "free will is fully caused" (which actually sounds rather like compatibilism - minds are actually fully deterministic).

The contradiction (at its simplest) is that if you have a system (a mind and its environment, in this case) in a given state, then either there is only one possible future for it or there are more than one. There is no third answer. If there is only one, then we have a deterministic system ("...a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system. A deterministic model will thus always produce the same output from a given starting condition or initial state."), otherwise, the different futures can only be due to randomness because there can be no reasons or causes for the differences.

Non-compatibilist free will would require a difference that both has a cause or reason (we make choices for reasons) AND does not have any cause or reason (it is not deterministic).

I am not going to define how and in which way.
It simply created it, I assume, I am neutral to how it did so, if you permit.

You are perfectly free to ignore the contradiction if you want.

 

[thomas t]

The whole argument I've put forward excludes it from existing (except in the compatibilist sense).

your argument was flawed, I think. As explained in the previous posts.

You are perfectly free to ignore the contradiction if you want.

no contradiction at all, see below.

otherwise, the different futures can only be due to randomness

that's your assumption. I don't agree. See below.

Non-compatibilist free will would require a difference that both has a cause or reason (we make choices for reasons) AND does not have any cause or reason (it is not deterministic).

Before you are going to call this an "argument", let me point out that it is just a blanket statement, as I see it.
You are conjuring up a contradiction that is not there, I think.
You declare something to be the case, however you have nothing to bolster this view. It is presumption, I guess.

The existence of free will could be for a reason. But once free will is there, it could cause the decisions made by a human.

 

[ratiocinator]

Before you are going to call this an "argument", let me point out that it is just a blanket statement, as I see it.
You are conjuring up a contradiction that is not there, I think.
You declare something to be the case, however you have nothing to bolster this view. It is presumption, I guess.

This appears to be argument by assertion. I put forward and argument and you, without ever trying to point out a specific flaw, just call it a presumption. Your idea that I have made up a contradiction and that "free will" can address it, is a presumption because you've produced no reasoning at all to back it up.

If we have a (closed) system that develops over time and it can have more than one future, then obviously the different outcomes cannot have anything to do with the state of the system. Therefore, since the system has no inputs, said differences can have no cause and are random. Do you really not understand that?

Just saying "free will" is as meaningless as saying "nujruktar tak" - it doesn't address the problem unless you explain how a difference can come about that is not based on anything but isn't random, is purposeful, and has reasons.