Some thoughts on God

[Lil' Timmy]

The difference between my morals and your morals, is that my morals are based off of a inherently good person while your morals are based off of an inherently evil person. (Please don't take that the wrong way).

i took it as a compliment and a declaration of erotic infatuation.. was that right or wrong?

 

[Yakuza]

This isn't an answer. It tells us nothing to say that God allows us to choose. He still made us, so he either made us so that we would be such people as would choose bad things.

yeah, he gave us the ability to choose . Also note that we didn't choose it all on our own accord. We were in fact decieved, also in fact choosing to eat from the tree was not bad. They didn't choose to do it because it was bad they were decieved into thinking that God was mistaken about what would happen if they ate from the tree.

God didn't create imperfect beings or Sin. He did create the possibilty for rebellion as without it no one could "choose" to be obedient to God. If there was no choice there would have been no tree and we would all be robots. God doesn't want robots rather to have fellowship with us.

Don't you at least see the problem with a story where God declares things good (note, he doesn't declare it perfect in the abstract philosophical sense you mean it now, because all that baggage was invented thousands of years later) and then almost right away all this bad stuff starts to happen?

Not sure what you are talking about here...

I guess it all depends on your definition of Good. I take it Good is complete opposite of Bad.

That's nonsense. Either you are such a person that you will to be obedience or you are not.

again sorry I just dont know what your saying.

Something can be someone's fault, or it can be undetermined. It can't be both. The concept of "Free Will" in the sense you are trying to use it (i.e., as a way to excuse God for creating imperfect beings) is incoherent.

How does free will make Gods creation imperfect.

 

[Yakuza]

Of course God has free will? So you mean he has the ability to make choices between actions and thus has the capacity to do wrong, making him fallible, meaning imperfect?

No, God cannot violate his nature, he can not violate his own will. God is Holy and can not be anything else as that would not be in his nature.

The issue is not one of telling one's child (Adam and Eve) not to do something. The issue is instead the act of creating that child (Adam and Eve) who are capable of rebellion. If they are capable of rebellion then they are not perfect. Thus God, a perfect being, has created an imperfection. This is the contradiction.

So what your saying is that even if Adam and Eve never ate from the tree that they would still be imperfect because of the possibility of disobiedence?

 

[Neutrino]

We have morals because it if we disobey those morals, harm can come from it. That should give you an explanation why we have morality. Morality should be considered right because they cause no harm.

Well, my questions about the "why" of morals were mostly rhetorical just to make my point. But I'll respond anyway.

We have morals because harm could come from disobeying those morals? This answers the question of why humans have morals yes, but doesn't address the issue of morality beyond humanity. I wasn't asking why a human performs a certain action, I was asking why God performs a certain action. I was asking why he must make one choice and is incapable of making another. The "harm" argument doesn't really apply to the "why" of that context.

This is a bit beside the issue at hand, but just for the heck of it I'll expand on my response to the "harm" argument. This view of morality has some inherent problems with it. First, many actions are not just black and white. Rather they often result in harm to someone no matter how good of choice you make. The issue of happiness/harm is somewhat addressed in the theory of Utilitarianism. It bring up many issues like are there different levels of happiness/harm? Is the happiness/harm of some people more important than the happiness/harm of other people in some situations? If we judge an act by the amount of happiness it brings or the amount of harm it prevents then by what criteria should we judge it? Certainly we want our action to result in the greatest happiness and the least harm, but how do you quantify those qualities? Also, should a lesser amount of happiness in a greater number of people be more important than a greater amount of happiness in a lesser number of people?

Sorry to go into that. It just shows that justifying morality based on harm can have many more complications then it may at first appear.

The difference between my morals and your morals, is that my morals are based off of a inherently good person while your morals are based off of an inherently evil person. (Please don't take that the wrong way).

I'm assuming you are referring to the devil here correct? Hmm, I didn't know that. Heh, but anyway so it's your view that if I don't believe in God then my morals are based on Satan? I'm not quite seeing the justification for that, but no matter.

As good as your morals maybe, they are built upon a corrupt foundation. This is akin to building a house on a crumbling foundation. Eventually it will fall. Like it or not, there are fundamental differences between my morals and your morals.

There are fundamental differences in your opinion.

But anyway, I don't see the sense in that statement really. You are saying that no matter how good my morals are, the fact that I don't believe in God means that essentially they are wrong? So even if we both go through life and hypothetically make the exact same choices, but for different reason, there is still a difference in our morals? How? If two people make the same choices that result in the same outcomes, how do the reasons for those choices matter? They both did the exact same amount of good or bad in the world.

You are also venturing in to things that the Bible doesn't fully explain if it explains it at all. This is nearly the equivalent of asking you how did the universe start before the big bang. What created the matter for the big bang? You wouldn't have an explanation like I don't have an explanation as well.

I also want to add that God is acting on his own behalf, that there is no other force, forcing him to be inherently good.

Wait, if these kinds of things aren't answered by the bible and you can't give an explanation then how do you know that "God is acting on his own behalf" and that "there is no other force"? How can you know those things without being able to explain the apparent contradiction of God not having free will? That doesn't make sense to me.

No, God cannot violate his nature, he can not violate his own will. God is Holy and can not be anything else as that would not be in his nature.

So are you saying God has free will or he does not have free will? I can't really interpret your answer one way or the other.

So what your saying is that even if Adam and Eve never ate from the tree that they would still be imperfect because of the possibility of disobiedence?

Actually, I wasn't saying that but yes that would be true I suppose. If a person has a capacity for imperfection then that would mean they are not perfect.

But my real point was that according the the Bible Adam and Eve did disobey God and thus were imperfect.

 

[Yakuza]

I'll have you know, DoctorGordon, that the bible also says the sun is evil...

?????????

 

[CyberSh33p]

?????????

!!!!!!

 

[qckbeam]

?????????

Yakuza, as a fellow bible studier guy, you should know what I'm talking about. I'm dissapointed.

 

[Yakuza]

So are you saying God has free will or he does not have free will? I can't really interpret your answer one way or the other.

Yes he has free will. But again he can not violate his own nature. Can you choose to not exist, to stop being? that would violate the nature of what you are , a human"being".

Actually, I wasn't saying that but yes that would be true I suppose. If a person has a capacity for imperfection then that would mean they are not perfect.

But my real point was that according the the Bible Adam and Eve did disobey God and thus were imperfect.

This doesn't appear logical.

If Perffection is A,

and B is the standard for A

The how can C (Imperfection), be equal to A and B.



Does the possibility of murder make me a murderer?

 

[CyberSh33p]

Yes he has free will. But again he can not violate his own nature. Can you choose to not exist, to stop being? that would violate the nature of what you are , a human"being".





This doesn't appear logical.

If Perffection is A,

and B is the standard for A

The how can C (Imperfection), be equal to A and B.



Does the possibility of murder make me a murderer?

free will means one can violate their own nature but chooses not to...

 

[Neutrino]

Yes he has free will. But again he can not violate his own nature. Can you choose to not exist, to stop being? that would violate the nature of what you are , a human"being".

I do find this to be one of the more interesting religious topics I've come across. Blahblahblah says he does not and you say he does. I would be curious to understand this difference of opinion. Might this be because religion is based on interpretation, perish the thought?

Anyway...

Basically you are saying that yes he has free will, but he is incapable of performing certain actions that conflict with his basic nature. So in effect you are saying that morality is part of God's basic nature and thus not dependant on his will then?

This doesn't appear logical.

If Perffection is A,

and B is the standard for A

The how can C (Imperfection), be equal to A and B.



Does the possibility of murder make me a murderer?

I'll try to rephrase it. Hypothetically, if a person is perfect then there would be zero chance of that person making a wrong decision. Thus if there is a chance that they could make a wrong decision then that person is not perfect.

 

[Apos]

yeah, he gave us the ability to choose . Also note that we didn't choose it all on our own accord. We were in fact decieved, also in fact choosing to eat from the tree was not bad. They didn't choose to do it because it was bad they were decieved into thinking that God was mistaken about what would happen if they ate from the tree.

This is some pretty garbled logic. So something in this supposedly perfect world is, in contradiction to that claim, evil enough to try and decieve man. And worse, now you are trying to have it both ways: did they knowingly do something bad, or not? If not, how are they responsible and why should that change anything? If so, where did the inclination to be sinful come from? You are avoiding the central question.

God didn't create imperfect beings or Sin. He did create the possibilty for rebellion as without it no one could "choose" to be obedient to God.

Again, this is nonsense. God cannot both be a creator and not be responsible for the character of his creations. You can't have it both ways.

If there was no choice there would have been no tree and we would all be robots. God doesn't want robots rather to have fellowship with us.

If god can have free will and also choose to be good always, then these two qualities are not inconsistent. Why were humans created without the second quality? Isn't that imperfection?

You've run yourself into a corner: either God is a robot or beings can both choose AND be such that they always choose the good.

I guess it all depends on your definition of Good. I take it Good is complete opposite of Bad.

It's obvious what I'm saying: you are saying that God created everything perfect, but then in your own story everything almost instantly goes wrong, including snakes. Some perfection!

How does free will make Gods creation imperfect.

It doesn't. Creating beings that will evil makes it imperfect.

 

[Apos]

I belive I have answered most of those points. Clarify specific issues if you must.

LOL, you just said that you had it all figured out, couldn't tell us, and we should google to find the answers. Unfortunately, since nobody agrees on the answers anywhere, googling won't accomplish anything.

 

[blahblahblah]

LOL, you just said that you had it all figured out, couldn't tell us, and we should google to find the answers. Unfortunately, since nobody agrees on the answers anywhere, googling won't accomplish anything.

Thanks for taking that out of context. I said Google for a specific argument that I predicted somebody would bring up that was unrelated to the current issue.

You are pretty hostile toward Christians. I wonder why.

 

[Gray Fox]

Hey blahblah, I have a question.
You are a christian so you belive what is said in the bible right, or at least the major points, and as far as I can see you have defended you're opimion good, but you also have the Islam, Budism and al kinds of different religions, that say different thing than the bible, and you're arguments basicly aplay to all of them, and they all teach different thing, so doesn't that mean that you're wrong if you say that you believe in the god in the christian bible, cause then you believe in a christian god and he can't exist if lets say the Budists are right, but there is as much chance that they are right as you. To me its like, if you believe in god you're not necessairy wrong but if you believe in a god of a religion them you're basicly wrong by you're own arguments.

Does that make any sense, I'm sorry if i didn't put it the right way, I just like you find it hard to write down what I'm thinking, but anyways hope you atleast understand some of this, and anwser.

And also one fundamnetal rule of science is that nothing is impossible, so why do a lot of scientist not belive in god, wouldn't it be more accurate to say if you're a scientist that there is a 50 50 chance.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

And also one fundamnetal rule of science is that nothing is impossible, so why do a lot of scientist not belive in god, wouldn't it be more accurate to say if you're a scientist that there is a 50 50 chance.

science is 90% occupation and 10% philosophy for most scientists. there are plenty of theistic scientists. usually, they just separate their work from their personal life. that said, there are purely logical reason to reject the notion of a god (or at least specific kinds of gods). afaik, a true pure logician will probably be an atheist (as opposed to an agnostic).

 

[Apos]

I didn't even know you were a Christian. Though I admit, I am generally pretty hostile to those that adopt a "sigh, I'm just too weary to bother responding to what I've already got all figured out" attitude. You haven't answered any of the points you claim to have. THAT is what's a bit annoying.

 

[Apos]

And also one fundamnetal rule of science is that nothing is impossible,

That's not a fundamental rule of science at all. Science is just a process for testing out falsifiable claims.

so why do a lot of scientist not belive in god, wouldn't it be more accurate to say if you're a scientist that there is a 50 50 chance.

Whether god exists or not isn't a falsifiable claim, and so it's outside the interest of science. Some scientists believe in god, others do not, but it doesn't have much to do with science per se.

 

[Yakuza]

free will means one can violate their own nature but chooses not to...

You and I have a different concept of Free will.

 

[Yakuza]

Yakuza, as a fellow bible studier guy, you should know what I'm talking about. I'm dissapointed.

Hey I never claimed to know everything in the bible or maybe I am just missing somthing...... You are not reffering to the phrase morning star are you?

 

[Yakuza]

I do find this to be one of the more interesting religious topics I've come across. Blahblahblah says he does not and you say he does. I would be curious to understand this difference of opinion. Might this be because religion is based on interpretation, perish the thought?

Anyway...

Basically you are saying that yes he has free will, but he is incapable of performing certain actions that conflict with his basic nature. So in effect you are saying that morality is part of God's basic nature and thus not dependant on his will then?

Kinda what I am talking about.

http://www.carm.org/questions/rock.htm

I'll try to rephrase it. Hypothetically, if a person is perfect then there would be zero chance of that person making a wrong decision. Thus if there is a chance that they could make a wrong decision then that person is not perfect.

I can see what your saying. Would changing the word "perfect" to "Good" change anything.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

I can see what your saying. Would changing the word "perfect" to "Good" change anything.

only if you are not trying to use the terms interchangeably. the problem is a one of logic, not language. if you would mean good as in incapable of 'badness'/error, the situation does not change.

 

[qckbeam]

Hey I never claimed to know everything in the bible or maybe I am just missing somthing...... You are not reffering to the phrase morning star are you?

I'm sorry Yakuza. I was just messing around with that other guy. I had convinced him, along with blahblahblah, that I believed the sun was evil. I don't actually believe the sun is evil

 

[Gray Fox]

Kinda what I am talking about.

http://www.carm.org/questions/rock.htm




I can see what your saying. Would changing the word "perfect" to "Good" change anything.

Hey Yakuza, about that link, if what that guy is saying is true, well doesn't that mean that practically anything is omnipotent, even me.

I mean, here us just a little peace of what he wrote:
For example, I have human nature. I can run. But, I cannot outrun a lion. My nature simply does not permit it. My ability to run is connected to my nature and I cannot violate it. So too with God.

So I'm god, and the mosquito that just bit me is also a god, and we are both omnipotent :afro: :afro: :afro: :naughty: :naughty: :naughty: :naughty: :naughty:

 

[Yakuza]

only if you are not trying to use the terms interchangeably. the problem is a one of logic, not language. if you would mean good as in incapable of 'badness'/error, the situation does not change.

yeah, relooking over what I said, I wouldn't use the term to indicate that we are incapable of error. So I guess its possible that Perfect isn't the "best" term here.

God said everything was good, so I guess this is the real issue of debate.

 

[Yakuza]

Hey Yakuza, about that link, if what that guy is saying is true, well doesn't that mean that practically anything is omnipotent, even me.

I mean, here us just a little peace of what he wrote:
For example, I have human nature. I can run. But, I cannot outrun a lion. My nature simply does not permit it. My ability to run is connected to my nature and I cannot violate it. So too with God.

So I'm god, and the mosquito that just bit me is also a god, and we are both omnipotent :afro: :afro: :afro: :naughty: :naughty: :naughty: :naughty: :naughty:

No your human, that is your nature. you can not violate your own nature, and I would think that the moment you have to ask the question immediatly invalidates the possibility of being Omnipotent.

 

[Yakuza]

I'm sorry Yakuza. I was just messing around with that other guy. I had convinced him, along with blahblahblah, that I believed the sun was evil. I don't actually believe the sun is evil

hehe, however you might change your answer once you have come to Phoenix AZ for a summer. :E

 

[Apos]

Yakuza, I'm afraid that link doesn't clear up much at all. The problem is the concept of omnipotence ISN'T like other concepts of something's nature. When I say I can run, I am actually positively describing what I can do. But omnipotence isn't like that. It doesn't actually describe anything specific about what god can do, it asserts that there are no limits to God's power. After much convoluted thought, the author basically even concedes the point: God can't, after all, do certain things. There are logical and practical limits on what god can do. Hence, God is not truly omnipotent, not in the fullest sense of that word. Instead, you have to redefine the world to the point where it is, well, a lot less impressive. The author even, without realizing it, basically answers the original question by arguing that God can't, in fact, make a rock so big that he can't lift it (via a somewhat dubious spatial argument relying on the concept of infinity, but still, that's what he ultimately concludes)! It's sort of funny that he doesn't even realize the implication of what he's saying.

Unfortunately, none of this relates in the slightest to the question you tried to pass this off as an aswer to. That question, unlike the question of omnipotence, revolves around the problem of free will vs. nature. The problem you have set up for yourself is the problem of non-contradiction, not in anything's nature, but in your OWN arguments about human beings vs. God. To argue that humans will necessarily be disobedient if they are given "free will" is to argue that "free will" is in contradiction to having a nature such that you always choose the good. But what you are claiming about God essentially refutes this contradiction: apparently it IS possible to both have free will and by ones nature, never choose to do evil. As seems to be the case in many other contexts, you want to have it both ways.

Of course, the larger problem is that "free will" is an utterly incoherent concept: we aren't really sure what this quality IS or what effect it has on anyones choices. But we don't even need to define it to see the above problem you've set up for yourself as outlined above. blahblahblah's solution: that God has no free will, at least is consistent, even though it still suffers from the incoherence of "free will" as a concept.

 

[Yakuza]

Yakuza, I'm afraid that link doesn't clear up much at all. The problem is the concept of omnipotence ISN'T like other concepts of something's nature. When I say I can run, I am actually positively describing what I can do. But omnipotence isn't like that. It doesn't actually describe anything specific about what god can do, it asserts that there are no limits to God's power. After much convoluted thought, the author basically even concedes the point: God can't, after all, do certain things. There are logical and practical limits on what god can do.

For God to be consistant he cant violate his own nature, If God is good he cant be bad.

And if God is the creator of logic, how can he be illogical.

Hence, God is not truly omnipotent, not in the fullest sense of that word. Instead, you have to redefine the world to the point where it is, well, a lot less impressive. The author even, without realizing it, basically answers the original question by arguing that God can't, in fact, make a rock so big that he can't lift it (via a somewhat dubious spatial argument relying on the concept of infinity, but still, that's what he ultimately concludes)! It's sort of funny that he doesn't even realize the implication of what he's saying.

Didn't he say that if a rock were that big it would by deffinition no longer be a rock. so the argument is invalid.

To argue that humans will necessarily be disobedient if they are given "free will" is to argue that "free will" is in contradiction to having a nature such that you always choose the good. But what you are claiming about God essentially refutes this contradiction: apparently it IS possible to both have free will and by ones nature, never choose to do evil. As seems to be the case in many other contexts, you want to have it both ways.

When did I say that we will allways choose the good or that if given free will we will necessarily be disobedient. Free will is have the option of choosing either or. You can obey or not.

Of course, the larger problem is that "free will" is an utterly incoherent concept: we aren't really sure what this quality IS or what effect it has on anyones choices. But we don't even need to define it to see the above problem you've set up for yourself as outlined above. blahblahblah's solution: that God has no free will, at least is consistent, even though it still suffers from the incoherence of "free will" as a concept.

Explain how free will is incoherent.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

And if God is the creator of logic, how can he be illogical.

that line of reasoning shortly becomes an argument for the non-existence of god.

Didn't he say that if a rock were that big it would by deffinition no longer be a rock. so the argument is invalid.

in other words, the question is absurd. but why is the question absurd? one possibility is that omnipotence is absurd.

Explain how free will is incoherent.

i don't think this is what apos meant, but imo, free-will is irrational b/c at some point one has to inject a non-physical cause into the sequence of decisions that comprises what people mean when they say "will". but even then, the will is not free, just meta-physically controlled. for will to be literally free, the will-impulse must not be bound by any causal rules. a willed action or thought must have no causal relationships, and the deterministic laws of physics must be broken every time someone exhibits 'free will'.

 

[Yakuza]

This is some pretty garbled logic. So something in this supposedly perfect world is, in contradiction to that claim, evil enough to try and decieve man.

were do you get evil from? God created the snake but the bible doesn't say its evil. All it says is that it was crafty.

And worse, now you are trying to have it both ways: did they knowingly do something bad, or not? If not, how are they responsible and why should that change anything? If so, where did the inclination to be sinful come from? You are avoiding the central question.

I tell my child not to steal candy because he will get in trouble.

while he is at the store the next day one of his friends comes along and asked my child to help him steal some candy.

My child says that if he does he will get in trouble. Yet the friend says, "no, you wont get introuble. Your just a kid, he only told you that cause he knows that nothing will realy happen.

I know this isn't an exact copy of the story in the bible but I think we can still see what happens.

God told Adam and Eve not to do it, the snake offered an idea that said God didn't mean it. Adam and Eve did it.

yes they are still responsible for their actions. Sin came AFTER the ate the fruite and their eyes were opened. Now because of sin in man we are seperated from God. For Father can not violate his own nature. For he is holy and he can not be in the presence of sin.

If god can have free will and also choose to be good always, then these two qualities are not inconsistent. Why were humans created without the second quality? Isn't that imperfection?

God doesn't choose to be good allways because being good allways is apart of his nature. he doesn't have to choose, thats just how he is. And all of his choices extend from his position of being in line with his nature. God can choose this or that, He can choose to allow this to happen or he can choose to not allow for something to happen.

You've run yourself into a corner: either God is a robot or beings can both choose AND be such that they always choose the good.

After the fall of man we can not be good yet we have been givin the ability to strive for good and live a life that represents good. But not untile the day of glorification can we actualy be "good" again.

It's obvious what I'm saying: you are saying that God created everything perfect, but then in your own story everything almost instantly goes wrong, including snakes. Some perfection!

I have recanted my stand on the term perfection as I know use the term "good".

Your question goes way beyond the first chapters of Gen. Even touching on Jesus when he said "It is finished."

But lets take one thing at a time.

It doesn't. Creating beings that will evil makes it imperfect.

Again what evil are you talking about.

 

[Yakuza]

that line of reasoning shortly becomes an argument for the non-existence of god.

Not really.

in other words, the question is absurd. but why is the question absurd? one possibility is that omnipotence is absurd.

How would you know?

i don't think this is what apos meant, but imo, free-will is irrational b/c at some point one has to inject a non-physical cause into the sequence of decisions that comprises what people mean when they say "will". but even then, the will is not free, just meta-physically controlled. for will to be literally free, the will-impulse must not be bound by any causal rules. a willed action or thought must have no causal relationships, and the deterministic laws of physics must be broken every time someone exhibits 'free will'.

free will
n.

1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will.
2. The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.


Is this the deffinition your using?

 

[Apos]

For God to be consistant he cant violate his own nature, If God is good he cant be bad.

True. So?

And if God is the creator of logic, how can he be illogical.

I'm not sure you really want to go down that route, since it basically leads to the invalidation of all argument and truth. In any case, it's backwards. If what we are arguing is the existence of God, then we can't start by assuming that he exists and created logic. Secondly, logic isn't "created" it's a system of considering the truth or falsity of certain claims.

Didn't he say that if a rock were that big it would by deffinition no longer be a rock. so the argument is invalid.

This is pretty goofy reasoning. He actually cited the dictionary definition of a rock.

When did I say that we will allways choose the good or that if given free will we will necessarily be disobedient. Free will is have the option of choosing either or. You can obey or not.

Yes, but humans, purportedly, often choose not to. That suggests that they are imperfect, whether they have free will or not.

Explain how free will is incoherent.

Explain how a circle can be square. How about you first define what you think free will is, and then we can discuss whether it makes any sense. If I suddenly had my free will removed, what, if anything, would change about how I choose this or that decision? What role does this qualtiy of "free will" play in the process of making choices?

 

[Apos]

were do you get evil from? God created the snake but the bible doesn't say its evil. All it says is that it was crafty.

That is such a cop out that you are probably pretty ashamed of yourself. The snake, this supposedly perfect snake, tried to trick man into doing something that the creator of the entire universe had forbidden. That's not "good" under any definition.

yes they are still responsible for their actions. Sin came AFTER the ate the fruite and their eyes were opened. Now because of sin in man we are seperated from God. For Father can not violate his own nature. For he is holy and he can not be in the presence of sin.

This is convulted way of avoiding the question. Either Adam and Eve were to blame for disobeying god, or they weren't. And if "sin" was something thrust upon them by a series of bad circumstances, then it's not something they were responsible for, but rather something thrust upon them by God.

The reality is, your interpretation doesn't make any sense. In part, this is because the people who originally wrote the story had vastly different ideas as to what the story meant.

God doesn't choose to be good allways because being good allways is apart of his nature. he doesn't have to choose, thats just how he is.

Then he doesn't have whatever you mean by "free will." He CANNOT do otherwise. His love for his creation is no different than the computer programed to say I love you.

After the fall of man we can not be good yet we have been givin the ability to strive for good and live a life that represents good. But not untile the day of glorification can we actualy be "good" again.

I fail to see the point of any other that. Your whole take on the story seems to boil down to the fact that man got randomly hit with the "naughty" stick, and at some point will magically be made good again, all inexplicably. I have a feeling that if we pushed farther, you'd eventually just declare it all a wonderful mystery with no real explanation.

But lets take one thing at a time.

Yes, let's not even get into how murdering someone could possibly be necessary to make people not sinful.

Again what evil are you talking about.

 

[spookymooky]

Apos, you make excellent points. Im rooting for you!

 

[Apos]

free will
n.

1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will.
2. The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.


Is this the deffinition your using?

Let's examine this. Niether of these definitions accomplishes what you want from what you are trying to use "free will" for (i.e., as an excuse for why God's creations choose to do evil). Both speak of being without EXTERNAL constraint on choices. But we aren't talking about external constraints when we try to excuse someone's creator from HIS choices, because we are talking about something's essential nature, which either was created as such by God in this story, or was determined by circumstance, which is still God's problem since it was his roll of the dice (in addition to his supposed omniscience meaning that he knew beforehand what would result from any given roll).

So, both of these definitions are what is known as the trivial definition of free will: i.e., I am free to act as I choose to act. My actions aren't being directly guided in real-time by someone else, and I am allowed to do this or that (usually with the implication that I can do it without fear of restrictive consequence). But this definition doesn't get us anywhere near the heart of the problem. That heart involves explaining WHY I make the choices I make. And the problem is, any answer to that question, even answering the question at all, undermines the "strong" concept of free will that you are maintaining excuses our creator from his own design flaws. But that's not all. If you assert that there is no answer, then you are admitting that there is no possiblity of moral responsibility, because choices are without cause, leaving nothing to judge or apply blame to!

The concept of free will is ultimately incoherent because the concept of "free" makes no sense to apply to "will." A will is a specific impetus to do a particular thing. But it's nonsense to talk about it being "free." Free from WHAT? At least with the trivial concept of free will, we could say that it is free from some external threat or force. But we are now talking about JUST the will: of WHY it is a will to do A and not B. It makes no sense to talk about it being free: that doesn't explain why it chose as it chose. It's like answering the question "how old are you?" with "Chicken dinner!"

As I noted, when we "judge" someone based on their choices, what are we actually trying to judge? If their choice was undetermined by anything, then it can't ultimately be their fault, because there's no ultimate determinate. Things can be either random or determined, or a mix of both, but none of those options allows God to get off the hook, as above.

 

[Gloria]

Some thoughts on God

Stop trying to force your views upon other people. Give it a rest.