You have free will but are only free to follow the rules.

[Greatest I am]

I do. I just don't feel that Atheism alone is worthy of it.

To check the veracity of your belief, let's see if hell itself would be a moral place.

I will assume that if not a moral place for punishment, then God would not create it.

The best question to prove the morality and justice for a hell would be thus.

Is it good justice that a sinner can sin for 120 years and then must suffer for 12000000000000000000000+ years?

Answer this and you will know if hell is a moral punishment.

Regards
DL

 

[The_Evelyonian]

To check the veracity of your belief, let's see if hell itself would be a moral place.

I will assume that if not a moral place for punishment, then God would not create it.

The best question to prove the morality and justice for a hell would be thus.

Is it good justice that a sinner can sin for 120 years and then must suffer for 12000000000000000000000+ years?

Answer this and you will know if hell is a moral punishment.

Regards
DL

Well, firstly, this depends on whether or not you believe Hell is a permanent place. I believe that, in certain cases, it is not. Look up purgatory.

Secondly, this depends on the fact that all sins are punished in the same manner with the same intensity. I do not believe they are. My own feeling is that, as there are greater and lesser sins, there are greater and lesser punishments.

Thirdly, this depends on whether or not you believe that Hell is literal fire and brimstone. I do not. There are greater torments than just fire and pain.

 

[nameless]

@ The_Evelyonian

pls give me a example for 'no free-will' that is in reality, kindly avoid stories of angels and satans.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

@ The_Evelyonian

pls give me examples for 'no free-will' that is in reality, kindly avoid stories of angels and satans.

Look at the computer you use. You give your computer a command and it does it. Not because it fears what will happen if it does otherwise but because it can't do otherwise. A computer can only do what it's programmed to do. It has no free-will.
A human being without free-will would behave in exactly the same way. You would tell that person to do something and they'd do it. Not because they fear what would happen if they didn't obey but because it would literally be impossible for them to disobey.

 

[nameless]

Now, suppose that, all over the world, freedom of belief is revoked. Suddenly everyone, everywhere, must believe that Hank is god. How could such a measure ever be enforced? There's no way to absolutely force everyone to believe in Hank because they have free-will. They can choose not to believe in Hank.

so you say 'no freedom of belief' is practically impossible?

 

[The_Evelyonian]

so you say 'no freedom of belief' is practically impossible?

Right, I could come to you and say, "Nameless, I command you to believe that Hank is god." and you could say no. That's free-will.

I could then say, "Nameless, if you refuse to believe in Hank I'll lock you up in prison forever." You could still say no.

I can give you two choices, A or B. Now, I can make picking choice B very unappealing but I still can't force you to pick one or the other.

Likewise, I can say, "Nameless, if you refuse to believe in Hank I'll lock you up in prison forever." and you could say, "Okay, I believe in Hank." I would never know if you were lying or not. That's why 'no freedom of belief' really doesn't work. I can make all the laws regarding belief I like but because you have free-will you can still believe whatever you want.

 

[nameless]

Look at the computer you use. You give your computer a command and it does it. Not because it fears what will happen if it does otherwise but because it can't do otherwise. A computer can only do what it's programmed to do. It has no free-will.
A human being without free-will would behave in exactly the same way. You would tell that person to do something and they'd do it. Not because they fear what would happen if they didn't obey but because it would literally be impossible for them to disobey.

comparing us with computer for explaining free-will? computer is a lifeless thing. and we all know how a computer functions.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

comparing us with computer for explaining free-will? computer is a lifeless thing. and we all know how a computer functions.

You asked for an example of no free-will that is based in reality. In reality, people have free-will so I used the best example I can think of. A computer can only do what it's told to do. A person without free-will would function in exactly the same way.

 

[nameless]

Right, I could come to you and say, "Nameless, I command you to believe that Hank is god." and you could say no. That's free-will.

I could then say, "Nameless, if you refuse to believe in Hank I'll lock you up in prison forever." You could still say no.

I can give you two choices, A or B. Now, I can make picking choice B very unappealing but I still can't force you to pick one or the other.

Likewise, I can say, "Nameless, if you refuse to believe in Hank I'll lock you up in prison forever." and you could say, "Okay, I believe in Hank." I would never know if you were lying or not. That's why 'no freedom of belief' really doesn't work. I can make all the laws regarding belief I like but because you have free-will you can still believe whatever you want.

so if someone threatens to kill you if not followed he command, then it means he is offering you 'freedom of belief', since you have two options, am i right?

 

[nameless]

You asked for an example of no free-will that is based in reality. In reality, people have free-will so I used the best example I can think of. A computer can only do what it's told to do. A person without free-will would function in exactly the same way.

so i have to conclude that 'no free-will' is only possible for lifeless objects like computer, train, washing machine etc ......

 

[The_Evelyonian]

so if someone threatens to kill you if not followed he command, then it means he is offering you 'freedom of belief', since you have two options, am i right?

No, he is offering you 'no freedom of belief'. Freedoms of law (like freedom of belief) and free-will are two different things which I've said several times before.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

so i have to conclude that 'no free-will' is only possible for lifeless objects like computer, train, washing machine etc ......

I would say sentience is the dividing line. A tree is alive but does a tree have free-will?

 

[nameless]

No, he is offering you 'no freedom of belief'. Freedoms of law and free-will are two different things which I've said several times before.

if you call this is 'no freedom of belief', so is there any 'freedom of belief' in 'free-will' ?

 

[nameless]

I would say sentience is the dividing line. A tree is alive but does a tree have free-will?

so 'no free-will' is limited to lifeless objects and immobile trees, anything else?

 

[The_Evelyonian]

if you call this is 'no freedom of belief', so is there any 'freedom of belief' in 'free-will' ?

Yes, and that's the point. If I say to you, "Believe like me or I'll kill you." you can still refuse. The fact that you may not want to doesn't matter. You still can. That is free-will.

Free-will covers so much more than just belief. If I wake up at 5AM I can choose to get up and go to work or I can choose to roll over and go back to sleep. The knowledge that I'll be late for work doesn't change the fact that, in the end, the decision is mine to make.

Or using Cardero's cliff example. If I'm standing on the edge of a cliff I can choose to step back or I can choose to jump. The knowledge that once I jump I'll fall to my death changes nothing. Free-will says that, even with knowledge of what will happen, the choice is still mine.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

so 'no free-will' is limited to lifeless objects and immobile trees, anything else?

Again I say, sentience is the dividing line.

 

[nameless]

Yes, and that's the point. If I say to you, "Believe like me or I'll kill you." you can still refuse. The fact that you may not want to doesn't matter. You still can. That is free-will.

Free-will covers so much more than just belief. If I wake up at 5AM I can choose to get up and go to work or I can choose to roll over and go back to sleep. The knowledge that I'll be late for work doesn't change the fact that, in the end, the decision is mine to make.

Or using Cardero's cliff example. If I'm standing on the edge of a cliff I can choose to step back or I can choose to jump. The knowledge that once I jump I'll fall to my death changes nothing. Free-will says that, even with knowledge of what will happen, the choice is still mine.

i could not get any answer for my question in these, my question is whether there is 'freedom of belief' in 'free-will', no more example pls......

 

[nameless]

Again I say, sentience is the dividing line.

so 'no free-will' is limited to just stationary trees. So i conclude 'no free-will happens only when one is stationary, is that ok?

 

[The_Evelyonian]

so 'no free-will' is limited to just stationary trees. So i conclude one should remain stationary forever to have 'no free-will', is that ok?

:thud:

If you are aware of your surroundings then, to some degree, you have free-will. Self-awareness (sentience) is the dividing line.

 

[nameless]

:thud:

you and your belief should have to be proud for developing this new sense for concept of 'free-will'.