the definitive disproof of the free will excuse

[harleydavidson]

to mball1297 Hi,,the only point I was making was that yes we have a choice in as much as we are free to choose A or B,but if one choice has dire consequences ,then that will influence us and our choice. All choices are influenced,and carry a consequence with them. Perfect freedom is that choice which has no dire consequence. We then can make a choice which is not negatively influenced,and can be said to be truly free. Now on the other hand all choices are hopefully informed ,and will look toward the appropriate end's I think I am looking at ethical choices as opposed to simple choices such as shld I have a glass of beer or wine....harley davidson

 

[Smoke]

Maybe I'm missing something, but it doesn't seem to me like anybody is considering the important part of the OP.

Does God have free will?
Can God do evil?

If God has free will and yet can't do evil, then why didn't he create humans to have free will and yet be incapable of evil? If God has free will but can't do evil, then clearly the two are compatible.

If God has free will and has the capacity for evil but always chooses good, why didn't he create humans similarly?

If God doesn't have free will, then how can you say that it's better to have free will than not? Isn't it better to be more like God rather than less like him?

 

[Magic Man]

to mball1297 Hi,,the only point I was making was that yes we have a choice in as much as we are free to choose A or B,but if one choice has dire consequences ,then that will influence us and our choice. All choices are influenced,and carry a consequence with them. Perfect freedom is that choice which has no dire consequence. We then can make a choice which is not negatively influenced,and can be said to be truly free. Now on the other hand all choices are hopefully informed ,and will look toward the appropriate end's I think I am looking at ethical choices as opposed to simple choices such as shld I have a glass of beer or wine....harley davidson

But, if there are no consequences, then what's the point of making a decision? The whole reason you make decisions is choosing one consequence over another. If by doing an action, I would gain something good, but by not doing that action, I would still gain something equally good, then I don't even need to decide. You may say that's a free or perfect choice, but to me it's not even a choice anymore.

 

[yossarian22]

o Yossarian22,,I didn't say you did not have a choice,I said the free will [choice] was coerced. The choice was influenced,therefor it was not entirely free,,that was my point.,,,harley davidson

Irrelevant. You still have the choice. That is all that free will requires.

 

[harleydavidson]

to mball1297..Hi: Re your recent post. This is making my head hurt lol.I guess that's why I put in the final thought , ethical choices I.E. that which man ought to do. I see free will as having consequences that do not influence the choice,.ethically speaking . I have 2 courses of action ,one sends me to heaven,,the other to hell.What wld a reasonable man choose? Answer,the one which sends him to heaven.So the choice had an overwhelming influence on the decisionIf the man had a choice that he cld do either action ,and there was no consequence of heaven or hell, he cld choose either action ,,then this wld be perfect free will. If he had the heaven or hell consequence then he had a coerced will.....harley davidson

 

[Willamena]

Maybe I'm missing something, but it doesn't seem to me like anybody is considering the important part of the OP.

Does God have free will?
Can God do evil?

If God has free will and yet can't do evil, then why didn't he create humans to have free will and yet be incapable of evil? If God has free will but can't do evil, then clearly the two are compatible.

If God has free will and has the capacity for evil but always chooses good, why didn't he create humans similarly?

If God doesn't have free will, then how can you say that it's better to have free will than not? Isn't it better to be more like God rather than less like him?

Additionally, of what use is the capacity for evil if you never exercise it? Can it even be said, then, to exist?

 

[mr.guy]

If God has free will and yet can't do evil, then why didn't he create humans to have free will and yet be incapable of evil? If God has free will but can't do evil, then clearly the two are compatible.

I think what's often problematic in this line of thought is the polarization of good and evil. Increasingly, i tend to see the two as apples and oranges.

"How shall these acts bind me, who am indifferent to the fruits they bear?"

-Krishna

If God has free will and has the capacity for evil but always chooses good, why didn't he create humans similarly?

Perhaps, in the case of the garden of eden, knowledge of good and evil wasn't provided because it wasn't a real distinction. It's subsequent implementation could've been nothing more than an overcompensating tint for a deficient species.

From the perspective of god, evil would not actually exist; it's just an interface for his "special" creation.

If God doesn't have free will, then how can you say that it's better to have free will than not? Isn't it better to be more like God rather than less like him?

Here, i would presume that mystisism emulates god by renunciations and (be it affected) detachment.

In the end, distinctions don't seem to be god's bag.

 

[Willamena]

:yes: As God has free will and can do no wrong and is not the Supreme Robot, it necessariy follows that neither would we be robots had we free will and could not do wrong,too. It is only special pleading to argue otherwise.A good parent puts children into good places and does not test them in bad ones.The tests are pointless as they crush so many. No! We should be more in the Imago Dei-more like God! Michael Martin and way before him, Fr. Meslier came out with this argument- the Meslier-Martin -Lamberth one.:candle:

The definitive disproof of your Disproof of the Free Will exericse is that God has no free will if he can "do no wrong."

 

[harleydavidson]

to willomenia,,Hi,Re your last post,I wld have to say god has a free will. First,,if the virtue is found in the moulded ,it must exist in the moulderer.Second, if the possession of a free will is a good thing ,then it must also be found in the being who is all good,of course it depends on your definitions of god and his qualities....PS I like that Buckaroo Banzai quote at the end of you posts.........harley davidson

 

[Willamena]

to willomenia,,Hi,Re your last post,I wld have to say god has a free will. First,,if the virtue is found in the moulded ,it must exist in the moulderer.Second, if the possession of a free will is a good thing ,then it must also be found in the being who is all good,of course it depends on your definitions of god and his qualities....PS I like that Buckaroo Banzai quote at the end of you posts.........harley davidson

Thank you.

Would you also say that if the vice is found in the moulded it must be found in the moulder?

 

[harleydavidson]

to wilomena: Hi , re your post of yesterday's question ,if vice is found in the moulded,is it also found in the moulder?,,good question. Is vice evil? What is the "vicee" looking for in his horrible practice? Answer, he is looking for the good! I think we have never defined evil .Webster sez it is a violation of proper conduct,violation of moral principals etc. Acquinas sez it is an inappropriate thought ,word, or deed. I guess that's what I'll go with,people that do evil ,are looking for an" inappropriate good ",so's it's the good that motivates them,and good comes from you know who!!! it's like giving someone a gun to hunt with ,,however he kills someone,it's a good gone wrong ,,harley davidson

 

[Willamena]

What good is the executor of vice looking for? Can you give an example of the person who, for instance, rapes?

I don't care to define evil --it's arbitrary. Your definition works as well as any other --but what is an "inappropriate good"?

 

[harleydavidson]

to willmmena Hi,replying to your previous post. I used this before ,,a person holds up a 7/11 store,the good he seeks is to acquire money,,the inappropriatness is he is taking that which does not belong to him,to wit stealing. A person kills a shopkeeper in the course of a robbery the good is to prevent identification,the inappropriateness is the unjust taking of a life,,murder. A disgruntled person punches another in the face, the good is the satisfaction of the act to the punchor ,the inappropriateness is the violation of the recipients right to being pain free and not having his well being threatened etc. Now to your question.and I'll bet you can now answer it ,,rape,,the good is the pleasure of the perp.,tho many wld argue it's about power,,the obvious inappropriateness is the violation of the women's right not to be violated. Appropriate means in general suitable,,[by whose standards?] conforming to standards of reasonable people,this cld go on forever!...harley davidson

 

[Thales of Ga.]

Thanks, Francine.This thread can be for any notions in theodicy, no longer restricted to free will and soul- making.
Evil is not simply the lack of good but the presence of severe unpleasantnesss.
The need of evil to compare with the good is dubious. To quote Burton F.Porter from his "Philosophy...,"...[C]ontrasts can occur between good,better and best; there is no necessity for crossing the line into gradations of bad.The natural evils that occur,therefore ,are hardly needed to accomplish the end of appreciation and are, in fact, superfluous and unjustified." He further notes that others allege that we need such good and evil in order to have freedom of choice but "the argument is something of a straw man.Not only are natural evils compounded far beyond what is required to ensure the the existence of options, but in most cases natural evils do not permit any choices to be made."
And he notes that others claim that natural evils help in character-building but again they harm more than they help in so doing. Now many people of character didn't have such to befall them yet built good characters anyway.
Alvin Platinga argues that Satan and his cohorts are behind natural evils, but that is an exercise in superstition, and he has no showing for that, just his assuming the Bible as justification.
Lest one accuse Fr. Griggs of straw men , show a strong argument for theodicy that can avoid pitfalls.
Theodicy is merely a series of rationalizatons for God's nonchalance to all animal suffering.

 

[kellid]

:yes: As God has free will and can do no wrong and is not the Supreme Robot, it necessariy follows that neither would we be robots had we free will and could not do wrong,too. It is only special pleading to argue otherwise.A good parent puts children into good places and does not test them in bad ones.The tests are pointless as they crush so many. No! We should be more in the Imago Dei-more like God! Michael Martin and way before him, Fr. Meslier came out with this argument- the Meslier-Martin -Lamberth one.:candle:

Personally I feel the old adage that "God is testing you"is completely ridiculous. Your example of do parents test their children is a good analogy. I believe it is the old serpent himself who tests us. I think that when God gave us free will he has no power too change things unless in your heart you need his devine intervention. Also I would like to ad that IMO if God is testing one's faith it is to prove to that person just how much faith they in fact have for their own sake.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

:yes: As God has free will and can do no wrong and is not the Supreme Robot, it necessariy follows that neither would we be robots had we free will and could not do wrong,too.
It is only special pleading to argue otherwise.A good parent puts children into good places and does not test them in bad ones.The tests are pointless as they crush so many. No! We should be more in the Imago Dei-more like God! Michael Martin and way before him, Fr. Meslier came out with this argument- the Meslier-Martin -Lamberth one.:candle:

This is true ONLY if it is assumed God is directly responsible for our creation. It does not hold if our existence is the result of secondary causes. Therefore, your "definitive proof" ain't so definitive. It's contingent on an assumption.

 

[Thales of Ga.]

The problem of Heaven intensifies with the problem of Hell. No rational being would require human sacrifice for penance for all: it would just give it freely. Besides, no god has the right to demand worship nor punish us! It is a one-way street!
No rational being would even entertain the thougt of Hell. That notion emanated from mean-spirited men of yore. So, there is indeed the problem of the Atonement. Judaism long ago gave up other animal sacrifices [Moses's Folly]. So, I call this religion of the Atonement Christinsanity! [ Mohammed's Lunacy, Smith's Fraud, Buddha's Wrong Path] :sarcastic
Theists so rationalize these two problems. See Michael Martin's 'The Case against Christianity" on the Atonement. :shout
Thanks.
Selah.
Double depresson is so depressing! Your happy neurotic depressive.

 

[Thales of Ga.]

The problem of Hell exacerbates the problem of evil .Why not Heaven for all anyway? No rational being woud erect such a place. That would be incommensurable punishment. And no divine mind has the right to punish us or demand worship1 It is a one-way street!
The problem of the Atonement is absurd in that no rational being would make any human sacrifice for penance. Judaism [ Moses's Folly] long ago gave up any other animal sacrifice ,yet Christinsanity glorified in this wretched notion! [ Mohammed's Lunacy, Smith's Fraud, Buddha's Wrong Path]:no:
Double depression is so depressing1 Your happy neurotic depressive.:thud:

 

[Thales of Ga.]

So I urge theists to be consistent in their applying free will and no doing wrong in Heaven and on Earth; this is no " hobgoblin of little minds." Following Burton Porter, I find that there could be good,better and best as contrasts rather than good and bad as such; it is not all or nothing.So many people lose their free will due to human and natural evils that for them, free will harms them. Some people without undergoing great tribulations show great moral courage. The tests for soul-making thus are wrong.
I fathom causal free will - soft determinism- compatabilism- as what we do have. That would be the kind that God could have given us with the guarantee against our ever doing wrong.
Again, be consistent without special pleading.

 

[rojse]

:yes: As God has free will and can do no wrong and is not the Supreme Robot, it necessariy follows that neither would we be robots had we free will and could not do wrong,too.

How?

It is only special pleading to argue otherwise.A good parent puts children into good places and does not test them in bad ones.

To argue against something I don't believe in, birds also let their chicks fly from the nest.

Unless they are emus. Then, they walk.

The tests are pointless as they crush so many. No! We should be more in the Imago Dei-more like God! Michael Martin and way before him, Fr. Meslier came out with this argument- the Meslier-Martin -Lamberth one.:candle:

Would be interested in some information on this theory.