Plantinga’s “Significant Freedom”

[lightgigantic]

Critics of theism, such as John Mackie, have established what they ascertain to be a basic inconsistency in believing, on one hand, that an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good god exists, while on the other, conceding the existence of evil. For Mackie, the issue is not whether religious beliefs are bereft of rational support, or even whether the claims are true or false; he is particularly concerned by simultaneously establishing two positions that conflict with one another. If god is all-capable, and if evil is not wanted, then evil shouldn’t exist.

This assertion of inconsistency is strongly refuted by the “Free Will Defence” of Alvin Plantinga. Plantinga’s means is to esatblish the consistency of the two propositions by calling upon a third statement that reamins consistent with the first, and logically implies the second. Because this third statement need only demonstrate the logic that exists between the other two, it is not an issue of investigating the truth of any one or all of them.

This third statement of Plantinga’s has as a foundation that god created creatures with the freedom to choose moral good. This freedom, however, allows creatures to chose evil as well. So it is not within god’s capacity to create a world containing moral good yet no moral evil. Along with the assertion that god exists, evil also exists.

Mackie and Anthony Flew assail this claim by asking why a god who is all powerful be unable to create a world with free creatures who always abide by moral good. Plantinga responds by reminding his critics that god cannot be subject to illogical assertations. As t married bachelors or square circles cannot be brought about by god, neither can a world of free living entities who always act morally. Having given them that freedom, it is their prerogative and not god’s. The opposing party however, are not easily satisfied. They argue God could create a world in which all people could chose to perform moral actions, while all of their choices were determined ... IOW free will and determinism are compatible. Plantinga put s this argument to rest with the following precise definition : significant freedom:

“A person is free with respect to action A at a time t only if no causal laws and antecedent conditions determine either that he performs A at t or that he refrains from not doing so”

Plantinga’s Free Will Defence” appears to be a strong response to the logical problem of evil.

[SnakeLord]

The opposing party however, are not easily satisfied. They argue God could create a world in which all people could chose to perform moral actions, while all of their choices were determined ... IOW free will and determinism are compatible.

It has to be if one asserts an omniscient god and creation of man, (in this instance we'll use A&E).

1) god is omnipotent.

2) god is omniscient.

3) God chose to create a certain specific being. I ask you now, why not create Bob and Jane instead of Adam and Eve?

You see, unlike Adam and Eve, Bob and Jane will never eat the fruit. He knows this, just like he knows what Adam and Eve will do. By choosing B instead of A he has saved so many billions from burning without impacting their free will.

He chose to create Adam and Eve.

He could choose to create Bob and Jane.

He knows everything Adam and Eve will do.

He knows everything Bob and Jane will do.

One leads to wholesale slaughter, the other leads to wholesale happiness. He didn't make their decisions for them, he simply knew what they would or would not do. He specifically chose to create A when he could have just as easily specifically chosen to create B.

http://www.snakeystew.com/aorb.gif

* Kindly forgive me if my visual depiction of a god is inaccurate, I am not privy to the latest intel *

You see, the choice of this god was to create A - knowing full well exactly what they would do, exactly what the outcome would be. The same would apply equally for B, but the outcome would be entirely different.

By choosing to create B instead of A, mankind has free will, (in exactly the same manner that they have free will with A), but will choose to only perform moral actions in the same manner (A) chose not to.

Both cases as far as free will exists alongside an omniscient entity remains identical.

[greenberg]

So it is not within god’s capacity to create a world containing moral good yet no moral evil.
/.../
Plantinga responds by reminding his critics that god cannot be subject to illogical assertations. As t married bachelors or square circles cannot be brought about by god, neither can a world of free living entities who always act morally.

I would be very very careful in combining the notions of "ominpotent god" and "impossible; cannot; unable; not within capacity".


Having given them that freedom, it is their prerogative and not god’s. The opposing party however, are not easily satisfied. They argue God could create a world in which all people could chose to perform moral actions, while all of their choices were determined ... IOW free will and determinism are compatible.

Why is this an argument that would need to be put to rest?


Plantinga put s this argument to rest with the following precise definition : significant freedom:

“A person is free with respect to action A at a time t only if no causal laws and antecedent conditions determine either that he performs A at t or that he refrains from not doing so”

And how can a person know whether at a time t no causal laws and antecedent conditions determine either that he performs A at t or that he refrains from not doing so?

In order to believe one is free -so that the notion of freedom will be relevant to one- one has to know about this freedom somehow, no?
Plantinga's argument, in order to be useful, requires direct perception.
Anything that requires direct perception frustrates the cognition of run-of-the-mill people. And in order for run-of-the-mill people to transcend being run-of-the-mill, they need something else, some instruction they, the run-of-the-mill, can act on, and not the requirement of direct perception - which is something reserved for those advanced enough. Otherwise, the run-of-the-mill people will just be frustrated, or fall prey to the false ego and delusions of grandeur.


Plantinga’s Free Will Defence” appears to be a strong response to the logical problem of evil.

Frankly, I do not see how this is the case. :confused:

I think that if anything, the logical problem of evil as you have sketched it out in the OP (as by Mackie) is actually fueled by the notion that "If one doesn't 'get it right' in this lifetime, one will be damned for all eternity, with no chance of redemption." - It is this notion that makes the problem of evil so pertinent, IMO. If people would operate within the context of notions of karma and rebirth -which Western philosophers usually do not-, the problem of evil would look a lot different, and a lot less intimidating and handicapping.

[PsychoticEpisode]

Plantinga’s Free Will Defence” appears to be a strong response to the logical problem of evil.

I think we are witnessing the slow death of religion with emphasis on the more ancient varieties. Religions are better off ignoring good and evil. Accept it as the way God made us and religions stand a better chance of surviving into the future. Of course that means God has an evil streak but that can be overlooked. Dwelling on good and evil projects the desperation current religion is facing with having a "Good" God.

Let's face it, if you want a good God then it is out of the question. Stop protecting Him. He must be portrayed as a deity that mixes in evil with the good if only for religious survival. He is omniscient isn't He? Then what would you expect, total irradication of evil? Even omni-God would know that's a stretch. IMO this is what free will is all about, accounting for God's creation of evil.

What it boils down to is that man is God's creator. The evidence of it in the written scriptures of countless religions is staggering. As more people become educated, with more time to reflect, then the tough contrary questions facing religion become harder to explain. Free will pundits are finding that out right now. Here's to religion for continuously shooting itself in the foot.

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

It has to be if one asserts an omniscient god and creation of man, (in this instance we'll use A&E).

1) god is omnipotent.

2) god is omniscient.

3) God chose to create a certain specific being. I ask you now, why not create Bob and Jane instead of Adam and Eve?

You see, unlike Adam and Eve, Bob and Jane will never eat the fruit. He knows this, just like he knows what Adam and Eve will do. By choosing B instead of A he has saved so many billions from burning without impacting their free will.

He chose to create Adam and Eve.

He could choose to create Bob and Jane.

He knows everything Adam and Eve will do.

He knows everything Bob and Jane will do.

One leads to wholesale slaughter, the other leads to wholesale happiness. He didn't make their decisions for them, he simply knew what they would or would not do.

What if Bob and Jane changed their minds later on ... or are you arguing that they made to forcibly act in a certain way?
Is something particularly distinct about the way Bob and Jane were made as opposed to Adam and Eve?
Are there some causal laws and antecedent conditions that determine that they not perform A at t ?

[lightgigantic]

“ Psychoticepisode


I think we are witnessing the slow death of religion with emphasis on the more ancient varieties. Religions are better off ignoring good and evil. Accept it as the way God made us and religions stand a better chance of surviving into the future. Of course that means God has an evil streak but that can be overlooked. Dwelling on good and evil projects the desperation current religion is facing with having a "Good" God.
Just as theists would consider it easier for society at large to accept their values on face value, it comes as no surprise that atheists also work out of a similar modus operandi. That is why quite a few things are wagered on philosophical discussion and why no one will really accept the proposal that they are “better of ignoring” things

Let's face it, if you want a good God then it is out of the question. Stop protecting Him. He must be portrayed as a deity that mixes in evil with the good if only for religious survival. He is omniscient isn't He? Then what would you expect, total irradication of evil? Even omni-God would know that's a stretch. IMO this is what free will is all about, accounting for God's creation of evil.
Plantinga offers a more philosophically sound way of “facing it”

What it boils down to is that man is God's creator. The evidence of it in the written scriptures of countless religions is staggering. As more people become educated, with more time to reflect, then the tough contrary questions facing religion become harder to explain. Free will pundits are finding that out right now. Here's to religion for continuously shooting itself in the foot.
What this thread boils down to is how writing off god as invalid due to a particular inconsistency is a fallacy. Since education is a rising tide that lifts all boats, I would argue the questions only become tougher for one who cannot specifically focus on the issues at hand.
That is why more polished academic atheists focus on specific issues and more polished academic theists focus on specific refutations of the issues. For instance Plantinga is dealing with a very specific gripe presented by Mackie. I mean statements like “The evidence of it in the written scriptures of countless religions is staggering” is extremely tentative and can be tagged to any claim, albeit theistic or atheistic, and go nowhere .

[lightgigantic]

Greenberg

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
So it is not within god’s capacity to create a world containing moral good yet no moral evil.
/.../
Plantinga responds by reminding his critics that god cannot be subject to illogical assertations. As t married bachelors or square circles cannot be brought about by god, neither can a world of free living entities who always act morally. ”
I would be very very careful in combining the notions of "ominpotent god" and "impossible; cannot; unable; not within capacity".
Omnipotency does not necessarily mean that anything can be accomplished – like married bachelors, square circles and moral good without moral evil (or even living entities that can become just as powerful as god) – of course these things can be achieved by the potency of illusion

SB 1.1.1 ..... By Him even the great sages and demigods are placed into illusion, as one is bewildered by the illusory representations of water seen in fire, or land seen on water ......

(IOW the mind and senses can become deluded and perceive something non-existent) but it’s the nature of illusion that it periodically gives way to reality

“ Having given them that freedom, it is their prerogative and not god’s. The opposing party however, are not easily satisfied. They argue God could create a world in which all people could chose to perform moral actions, while all of their choices were determined ... IOW free will and determinism are compatible. ”
Why is this an argument that would need to be put to rest?
Because we commonly see that we don’t live in a world where everyone chooses to perform moral actions (so IOW it is argued that theism cannot provide a consistent solution to the problem of evil)

“ Plantinga put s this argument to rest with the following precise definition : significant freedom:

“A person is free with respect to action A at a time t only if no causal laws and antecedent conditions determine either that he performs A at t or that he refrains from not doing so” ”
And how can a person know whether at a time t no causal laws and antecedent conditions determine either that he performs A at t or that he refrains from not doing so?

In order to believe one is free -so that the notion of freedom will be relevant to one- one has to know about this freedom somehow, no?
Plantinga's argument, in order to be useful, requires direct perception.
Anything that requires direct perception frustrates the cognition of run-of-the-mill people. And in order for run-of-the-mill people to transcend being run-of-the-mill, they need something else, some instruction they, the run-of-the-mill, can act on, and not the requirement of direct perception - which is something reserved for those advanced enough. Otherwise, the run-of-the-mill people will just be frustrated, or fall prey to the false ego and delusions of grandeur.
For Mackie, the issue is not whether religious beliefs are bereft of rational support, or even whether the claims are true or false; he is particularly concerned by simultaneously establishing two positions that conflict with one another.

IOW Mackie is simply focusing on how there are two premises within theism that are inconsistent and he feels that is sufficient to put an end to theistic inquiry. Of course what you say is kind of the next step ... I


“ Plantinga’s Free Will Defence” appears to be a strong response to the logical problem of evil. ”
Frankly, I do not see how this is the case.

I think that if anything, the logical problem of evil as you have sketched it out in the OP (as by Mackie) is actually fueled by the notion that "If one doesn't 'get it right' in this lifetime, one will be damned for all eternity, with no chance of redemption." - It is this notion that makes the problem of evil so pertinent, IMO. If people would operate within the context of notions of karma and rebirth -which Western philosophers usually do not-, the problem of evil would look a lot different, and a lot less intimidating and handicapping.

Sure, karma and rebirth allow for a more complete picture of the problems presented, however I am just presenting an argument in a purely logical medium (since Mackie’s criticism is purely logical) .

[SnakeLord]

What if Bob and Jane changed their minds later on ... or are you arguing that they made to forcibly act in a certain way?

They wont. No force involved, just knowledge that they wont.

Is something particularly distinct about the way Bob and Jane were made as opposed to Adam and Eve?

No.

Do note: You would need to be very careful what you say next. If you were to assert that as they were made the same as Adam and Eve then it is impossible for them to always be moral then you are making an argument against free will and for forced design.

Are there some causal laws and antecedent conditions that determine that they not perform A at t ?

Like A&E, god knows every single action they will ever perform. He has always known it. Unless you tell me that knowing what they will do removes their free will, (in which case we'd find ourselves in a bit of a dilemma), then his knowledge and decision does not in any way hinder it.

[PsychoticEpisode]

This third statement of Plantinga’s has as a foundation that god created creatures with the freedom to choose moral good.... As married bachelors or square circles cannot be brought about by god, neither can a world of free living entities who always act morally.

Then why are we punished for it? You forget that this wonderful god who gives us the freedom, and I use that word lightly, to choose what's morally good is by His threats actually cancelling out free will.

God, if He is to allow us freedom to choose must not interfere or influence our decision. In order to do He must remain incommunicative and unseen. The paradoxical question is: just how does such a god deliver the free will speech?

[lightgigantic]

Do note: You would need to be very careful what you say next. If you were to assert that as they were made the same as Adam and Eve then it is impossible for them to always be moral then you are making an argument against free will and for forced design.

.
well that is your argument - that we be made like bob and jane

"He specifically chose to create A when he could have just as easily specifically chosen to create B."

:shrug:

[lightgigantic]

Then why are we punished for it? You forget that this wonderful god who gives us the freedom, and I use that word lightly, to choose what's morally good is by His threats actually cancelling out free will.
what makes you say that

God, if He is to allow us freedom to choose must not interfere or influence our decision.
he doesn't

In order to do He must remain incommunicative and unseen.
generally speaking, he is

The paradoxical question is: just how does such a god deliver the free will speech?
free will speech?
I don't understand

[greenberg]

Omnipotency does not necessarily mean that anything can be accomplished – like married bachelors, square circles and moral good without moral evil (or even living entities that can become just as powerful as god)

Allright. But where do you draw the line?
"God cannot make square circles" vs. "God cannot help to save you from burning in hell for all eternity" -?


Having given them that freedom, it is their prerogative and not god’s. The opposing party however, are not easily satisfied. They argue God could create a world in which all people could chose to perform moral actions, while all of their choices were determined ... IOW free will and determinism are compatible.
Why is this an argument that would need to be put to rest?

Because we commonly see that we don’t live in a world where everyone chooses to perform moral actions (so IOW it is argued that theism cannot provide a consistent solution to the problem of evil)

Just because Peter's room is messy, does that mean all people's rooms are messy ...
IOW, if we don't live in a world where everyone chooses to perform moral actions, that doesn't yet mean that such a world is impossible or that it doesn't exist.
But I know - this is a weak line of argument because it's so general; what it does, however, is that it points out that we are not omniscient and therefore should not make claims that presume we are.


For Mackie, the issue is not whether religious beliefs are bereft of rational support, or even whether the claims are true or false; he is particularly concerned by simultaneously establishing two positions that conflict with one another.

IOW Mackie is simply focusing on how there are two premises within theism that are inconsistent and he feels that is sufficient to put an end to theistic inquiry. Of course what you say is kind of the next step ... I

The next step to what? In Mackie's direction?


Sure, karma and rebirth allow for a more complete picture of the problems presented, however I am just presenting an argument in a purely logical medium (since Mackie’s criticism is purely logical) .

Sure. But there are underlying assumptions and implications to the premises in the logical arguments presented; and it's these assumptions and implications that need to be addressed. Written out, the same argument can be logically valid or not, depending on the underlying assumptions and implications. To avoid this, in Indian logic, context is considered part of the logical argument, while this isn't the case with traditional Western logic. :itold:
For starters, it's clear that advocates of theism and advocates of atheism do not operate with the same definitions of terms. So it's to be expected that there will be contradictions perceived.

And I still don't see how Plantinga’s Free Will Defence appears to be a strong response to the logical problem of evil. :confused:

[PsychoticEpisode]

“ The paradoxical question is: just how does such a god deliver the free will speech? ”

free will speech?
I don't understand

How does a non-interfering and incommunicative God inform the populace that they have free will? Or is it merely understood that we are endowed with this divine gift? Is free will solely what religion calls a rational conclusion?

Even if all God ever said was "Hello, I'm here" then He has influenced our lives. That's all it would take for someone to eventually come up with the free will edict. As it is, the free will declaration needed no divine interference. Humanity has come up with it on its own since God is noticeably absent.

Again that presents a perplexing problem. Free will cannot exist with any interference from God yet it can without. Unfortunately, life without divine interference means we wouldn't know if God existed. Does total non interference reduce free will to a human construct? Absolutely! There simply cannot be any free will once God is established. Free will is just religion trying to prove God's existence.

[SnakeLord]

well that is your argument - that we be made like bob and jane

Then we have that dilemma I mentioned. It would be no less of a choice to create A instead of B and no more of a choice to create B instead of A. In either instance it is a choice made by this entity, (unless it didn't have a choice in which case we will start peeling away certain claimed aspects of such entity).

However, my statement was on a slightly different aspect of the issue - in that if such god could choose to create A or B or C or D (etc) but that in every single instance it was an impossibility for such creations to be perfectly moral then it becomes a design issue.

I doubt many theists would subscribe to the flawed design aspect or a non-omnipotent god and so we are left with the conclusion that such entity could have easily created humans that chose not to sin with their free will in the exact same identical manner that he chose to create humans that chose to sin with their free will.

[lightgigantic]

Greenberg

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Omnipotency does not necessarily mean that anything can be accomplished – like married bachelors, square circles and moral good without moral evil (or even living entities that can become just as powerful as god) ”
Allright. But where do you draw the line?
"God cannot make square circles" vs. "God cannot help to save you from burning in hell for all eternity" -?
A circle by definition cannot be a square since the two are mutually exclusive.
It’s not clear how one could argue the same for hell and eternity (actually, one could argue the opposite, that only scope for eternal life is in connection to god – since god is eternal – if one argues that one achieves hell by being disconnected to god, it’s not clear how that can be anything but temporary)

“ “ “ Having given them that freedom, it is their prerogative and not god’s. The opposing party however, are not easily satisfied. They argue God could create a world in which all people could chose to perform moral actions, while all of their choices were determined ... IOW free will and determinism are compatible. ”
Why is this an argument that would need to be put to rest? ”
Because we commonly see that we don’t live in a world where everyone chooses to perform moral actions (so IOW it is argued that theism cannot provide a consistent solution to the problem of evil) ”
Just because Peter's room is messy, does that mean all people's rooms are messy ...
IOW, if we don't live in a world where everyone chooses to perform moral actions, that doesn't yet mean that such a world is impossible or that it doesn't exist.
Atheists fault however that if god could create a person who is perfectly moral, there is no clear reason why everyone could not be created in that way (of course they argue on the strength of deterministic reasoning ... but such reasoning makes it difficult to conceive of how free will exists)



“ For Mackie, the issue is not whether religious beliefs are bereft of rational support, or even whether the claims are true or false; he is particularly concerned by simultaneously establishing two positions that conflict with one another.

IOW Mackie is simply focusing on how there are two premises within theism that are inconsistent and he feels that is sufficient to put an end to theistic inquiry. Of course what you say is kind of the next step ... I ”
The next step to what? In Mackie's direction?
The next step away from it – once one has reconciled the apparent inconsistencies, ..... then what?

“ Sure, karma and rebirth allow for a more complete picture of the problems presented, however I am just presenting an argument in a purely logical medium (since Mackie’s criticism is purely logical) . ”
Sure. But there are underlying assumptions and implications to the premises in the logical arguments presented; and it's these assumptions and implications that need to be addressed. Written out, the same argument can be logically valid or not, depending on the underlying assumptions and implications. To avoid this, in Indian logic, context is considered part of the logical argument, while this isn't the case with traditional Western logic.
For starters, it's clear that advocates of theism and advocates of atheism do not operate with the same definitions of terms. So it's to be expected that there will be contradictions perceived.

And I still don't see how Plantinga’s Free Will Defence appears to be a strong response to the logical problem of evil.
Hehe
I guess it’s a step towards clearing up the definitions of terms. Often atheists will launch into attacks on issues of theistically defined free will because they are hopelessly addicted to thinking in reductionist/deterministic paradigms (ie that all of our actions, psychological state of mind etc are determined by an intricate array of electrons etc so morality/reward/punishment/etc are completely relative, etc etc) .
Plantinga eloquently offers something clearly distinct from deterministic fields.

[lightgigantic]

Psychotic Episode

How does a non-interfering and incommunicative God inform the populace that they have free will? Or is it merely understood that we are endowed with this divine gift? Is free will solely what religion calls a rational conclusion?
I’m still not quite sure I follow. I’m not sure why we would require god to inform us that we have free will. It’s kind of like something we are using 24/7 to a greater or lesser extent

Even if all God ever said was "Hello, I'm here" then He has influenced our lives.
Only to the degree that we could say “yes its god” or “bah! Another bogus imposter” or something in between

That's all it would take for someone to eventually come up with the free will edict. As it is, the free will declaration needed no divine interference. Humanity has come up with it on its own since God is noticeably absent.
The idea of free will is that it is not something god (or even anyone else for that matter) can interfere with .... “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still”

Again that presents a perplexing problem. Free will cannot exist with any interference from God yet it can without.
If people can exhibit their free will in the presence (or even indirect presence) of a person it’s not clear why bringing god into the picture radically changes something.
Free will doesn’t mean the ability to do anything and everything at a particular time.
Free will simply means that a particular state of being cannot be ensured at a particular time (hence action A at time t)

Unfortunately, life without divine interference means we wouldn't know if God existed. Does total non interference reduce free will to a human construct? Absolutely! There simply cannot be any free will once God is established. Free will is just religion trying to prove God's existence.
I think you still have to clear up some of your premises if you want to drive home this particular conclusion

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

”
Then we have that dilemma I mentioned. It would be no less of a choice to create A instead of B and no more of a choice to create B instead of A. In either instance it is a choice made by this entity, (unless it didn't have a choice in which case we will start peeling away certain claimed aspects of such entity).
You are assuming that the issue is deterministic (IOW that there is something particular about the way A is created that determines it will act in a way that B will not. The argument is that A and B are created in the same way and that free will comes with no deterministic constructs.

However, my statement was on a slightly different aspect of the issue - in that if such god could choose to create A or B or C or D (etc) but that in every single instance it was an impossibility for such creations to be perfectly moral then it becomes a design issue.
In that case there would be no possibility of even run of the mill morality because morality is completely meaningless unless it exists outside of deterministic constructs (IOW if I kill millions of people with a rusty knife I can say “it was predetermined that I perform such an act so there is no use in punishing me for by so called bad behaviour”)

I doubt many theists would subscribe to the flawed design aspect or a non-omnipotent god and so we are left with the conclusion that such entity could have easily created humans that chose not to sin with their free will in the exact same identical manner that he chose to create humans that chose to sin with their free will.
I think you should take a bit of time to look at what is involved with the issue of determinism. If two boats are made, one with holes in the hull and one without, it can be determined that the boat with holes will sink while the other will not. IOW we can specifically chose to create Alpha (a boat without holes) just as easily as we can chose to create Beta (a boat with holes). So we can call upon causal laws and antecedent conditions to determine either that the boat performs A at t or that it refrains from doing so.

The argument for free will is that it is not (ultimately) guided by any deterministic constructs.
This means that in regards to the ways in which one utilizes one’s free will, there is no way that a particular person can be made to particularly act in a particular circumstance. For instance if you go to jail for 20 years, the circumstances will certainly inhibit many of your activities, but there is no guarantee that the experience would make you repentant or a more law abiding citizen.

[greenberg]

A circle by definition cannot be a square since the two are mutually exclusive.
It’s not clear how one could argue the same for hell and eternity (actually, one could argue the opposite, that only scope for eternal life is in connection to god – since god is eternal – if one argues that one achieves hell by being disconnected to god, it’s not clear how that can be anything but temporary)

Here is a nice read for you:

In the new eternal life, God will be everything to His creatures, not only to the good but also to the wicked, not only to those who love Him, but likewise to those who hate Him. But how will those who hate Him endure to have everything from the hands of Him Whom they detest? Oh, what an eternal torment is this, what an eternal fire, what a gnashing of teeth!

http://www.stnectariospress.com/parish/river_of_fire.htm


Atheists fault however that if god could create a person who is perfectly moral, there is no clear reason why everyone could not be created in that way (of course they argue on the strength of deterministic reasoning ... but such reasoning makes it difficult to conceive of how free will exists)

Free will can be an enormous burden that many people would rather not bear. And it becomes an immense burden when the prospects are that you have to "get it right" in this one lifetime and figure out to believe in the right God/the right way, or burn in hell for all eternity.

In addition, many people will, at least privately to themselves, admit that they are pansies and that they feel guilty for whenever they say no, even when it is to a door-to-door salesman. So for these people to conceive they had originally been such swines to deliberately, in full knowledge, turn their backs on God - this is a difficult task. Nowadays, one has difficulty saying no to a trifle, but at some previous point, one was so proud to say no in regards to something that has had such enormous consequences as falling into a world of suffering, possibly to forever stay stuck in it??
Although anyone who has had some experience with abusive relationships will know first hand how one's self-confidence progressively diminishes in some circumstances (and how the afore-mentioned scenario of going from saying no to God to having difficulty ever saying no to anything is a plausible one), these things are quite difficult to stomach, although they can be empirically and logically shown to exist.


I guess it’s a step towards clearing up the definitions of terms.

Which goes back to the who-has-it-right problem.


Often atheists will launch into attacks on issues of theistically defined free will because they are hopelessly addicted to thinking in reductionist/deterministic paradigms (ie that all of our actions, psychological state of mind etc are determined by an intricate array of electrons etc so morality/reward/punishment/etc are completely relative, etc etc) .

They are hopelessly addicted to thinking in reductionist/deterministic paradigms? This is an unkind thing to say, at least that. It's like telling a student "You're a basket case! Off with you. You'll never learn."


Plantinga eloquently offers something clearly distinct from deterministic fields.

Theoretically, yes. But how is one to make use of such a definition of freedom, unless one has the power of direct perception??

[SnakeLord]

You are assuming that the issue is deterministic (IOW that there is something particular about the way A is created that determines it will act in a way that B will not. The argument is that A and B are created in the same way and that free will comes with no deterministic constructs.

There arrives your dilemma. You would need to provide a suitable argument to suggest that the creation by god of humans is not deterministic. Such argument would invariably come down to one or more of the following:

1. Without intent

2. Without knowledge

3. Without choice

(3) can actually be discarded straight away because if this god had no choice then his own actions would be deterministic. (2) Doesn't get very much further if one sticks to the notion of an omniscient entity. This leaves us with (1), but that doesn't work because (3) has already been discarded. As it has made the choice to create, one can't argue that it did so unintentionally.

What we can see is that this god made a choice to create a specific entity.

From there we can argue that such god is a moral entity, (you have already mentioned that such entity would be perfectly good). So what you would typically have is that because such entity is perfectly good, evil wouldn't exist. However we shall allow it on the premise that:

- such perfectly good entity will allow evil to occur to serve the greater good, (while this in itself is problematic at best and downright pointless at worst, we shall ignore that and just accept it).

In saying, as this perfectly good god chose to create certain humans it must have already been determined that such creation was the best possible outcome of all possible outcomes. But in saying that you would have defeated your own statement shown in quotes. While this could argue for a reason why Bob and Jane were not created in place of Adam and Eve it could not be used to argue that the (deterministic) creation method would be any different.

[PsychoticEpisode]

I’m still not quite sure I follow. I’m not sure why we would require god to inform us that we have free will.

Exactly! Without God, free will is plausible.

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

There arrives your dilemma. You would need to provide a suitable argument to suggest that the creation by god of humans is not deterministic

Quite simply, god has no pending deterministic issues, and we, being made in his image, also have none. IOW we are qualitatively identical.
Quantitatively of course the difference is vast.

Kind of like qualitatively there is no difference between the ocean and a drop of ocean water (both taste salty), however qualitatively there are numerous differences (you don’t find such a vast array of marine life existing in the drop water, for eg)

[lightgigantic]

Greenberg

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
A circle by definition cannot be a square since the two are mutually exclusive.
It’s not clear how one could argue the same for hell and eternity (actually, one could argue the opposite, that only scope for eternal life is in connection to god – since god is eternal – if one argues that one achieves hell by being disconnected to god, it’s not clear how that can be anything but temporary) ”
Here is a nice read for you:
“ In the new eternal life, God will be everything to His creatures, not only to the good but also to the wicked, not only to those who love Him, but likewise to those who hate Him. But how will those who hate Him endure to have everything from the hands of Him Whom they detest? Oh, what an eternal torment is this, what an eternal fire, what a gnashing of teeth!

http://www.stnectariospress.com/pari...er_of_fire.htm
Note how it is not presented in a philosophical language ”

“ Atheists fault however that if god could create a person who is perfectly moral, there is no clear reason why everyone could not be created in that way (of course they argue on the strength of deterministic reasoning ... but such reasoning makes it difficult to conceive of how free will exists) ”
Free will can be an enormous burden that many people would rather not bear. And it becomes an immense burden when the prospects are that you have to "get it right" in this one lifetime and figure out to believe in the right God/the right way, or burn in hell for all eternity.
Hence many explain it in terms of deterministic paradigms

In addition, many people will, at least privately to themselves, admit that they are pansies and that they feel guilty for whenever they say no, even when it is to a door-to-door salesman. So for these people to conceive they had originally been such swines to deliberately, in full knowledge, turn their backs on God - this is a difficult task. Nowadays, one has difficulty saying no to a trifle, but at some previous point, one was so proud to say no in regards to something that has had such enormous consequences as falling into a world of suffering, possibly to forever stay stuck in it??
Although anyone who has had some experience with abusive relationships will know first hand how one's self-confidence progressively diminishes in some circumstances (and how the afore-mentioned scenario of going from saying no to God to having difficulty ever saying no to anything is a plausible one), these things are quite difficult to stomach, although they can be empirically and logically shown to exist.
It’s kind of indicative of this age – to be possessed of a greatly weak existence embroiled with all sorts of painful artificial demands and very real lackings punctuated by an equally great inflated sense of pride – advertising successfully works this situation to its advantage ...

“ I guess it’s a step towards clearing up the definitions of terms. ”
Which goes back to the who-has-it-right problem.
Actually it’s the first step of philosophical discussion (ie determining the logical/reasonable merit of something) – for instance if I understand a fire to be x and if you understand water to be x, we can discuss whether x cleanses or burns the skin till the cows come home and get nowhere.
You find that even polished academic atheists tend to prefer attacking theistic claims on the grounds of logic and plausibility since it is far more easier than deconstructing theism while standing outside of its prescriptive requirements ... IOW they tend to not outright disregard god for example, but say, ok, if god is true, and what you are saying about him is also true, then that will result in situation A, B,C which has problems D,E, F etc etc. .... actually a lot of the discussion between the two parties is clearing up exactly how this world and we ourselves exist in relation to god (IOW it’s a case of establishing the terminology)

“ Often atheists will launch into attacks on issues of theistically defined free will because they are hopelessly addicted to thinking in reductionist/deterministic paradigms (ie that all of our actions, psychological state of mind etc are determined by an intricate array of electrons etc so morality/reward/punishment/etc are completely relative, etc etc) . ”
They are hopelessly addicted to thinking in reductionist/deterministic paradigms? This is an unkind thing to say, at least that. It's like telling a student "You're a basket case! Off with you. You'll never learn."
Quite simply, reductionist/deterministic paradigms are diametrically opposed to transcendental ones. To assume that everything (even things beyond one’s direct perception) conform with the reductionistic/deterministic constitutes a type of fanaticism. Personally I have no problem with reductionism and determinism – it works fine for repairing a car or crossing the street – but I certainly don’t feel that all claims to reality must subscribe to it.

“ Plantinga eloquently offers something clearly distinct from deterministic fields. ”
Theoretically, yes.
Dialogue between atheists and theists is always on the grounds of theory, mainly because atheism is essentially a theoretical outlook (there is no possibility of directly perceiving that there is no god, since it requires omniscience, omnipotence, etc and most other things that god has)

But how is one to make use of such a definition of freedom, unless one has the power of direct perception??
I’m sure I understand your q

There are many implications for accepting a deterministic outlook of free will – in short, all issues of reward/punishment/justice etc become completely relative since any action (whether good, bad or anywhere in between) is ultimately determined by something beyond one’s control.
So you could argue that having a strong sense of justice, etc and that there is something inherently wrong with moral relativism, etc , etc is making use of such a definition

[SnakeLord]

Quite simply, god has no pending deterministic issues, and we, being made in his image, also have none. IOW we are qualitatively identical.
Quantitatively of course the difference is vast.

Kind of like qualitatively there is no difference between the ocean and a drop of ocean water (both taste salty), however qualitatively there are numerous differences (you don’t find such a vast array of marine life existing in the drop water, for eg)

Apologies, but your statement doesn't seem to make much sense. I asked you to offer a suitable argument to show that the creation of living organisms by a god would not be deterministic to which you seemingly respond with: [pp] 'it wouldn't be for us or him', and that's that.

If that is somehow considered a suitable argument then Bob and Jane remains.

Your ending paragraph is entirely useless and irrelevant.

[lightgigantic]

Apologies, but your statement doesn't seem to make much sense. I asked you to offer a suitable argument to show that the creation of living organisms by a god would not be deterministic to which you seemingly respond with: [pp] 'it wouldn't be for us or him', and that's that.

If that is somehow considered a suitable argument then Bob and Jane remains.

Your ending paragraph is entirely useless and irrelevant.
so you want to argue that there is some reason why two entities not affected by deterministic issues cannot exist simultaneously together, with one being the provider and the other being the one who recieves provisions?

... please go ahead

[lightgigantic]

Exactly! Without God, free will is plausible.
It still doesn't make things any clearer ...

If god came down and said "you had free will" suddenly we wouldn't have it?
And in the mean time, if god doesn't come down (or if he doesn't exist) free will can continue on nicely?
:confused:

[SnakeLord]

so you want to argue that there is some reason why two entities not affected by deterministic issues cannot exist simultaneously together, with one being the provider and the other being the one who recieves provisions?


What?

Kindly go back to page (1), read the discussion and then explain to me how any of this is relevant to any of that.

[lightgigantic]

What?

Kindly go back to page (1), read the discussion and then explain to me how any of this is relevant to any of that.

You suggested that the living entity must exist in a deterministic paradigm

I suggested that is not the case

You suggested that unless the living entity is deterministic, then there is absolutely no case for god to exist

I suggested that if you want to say that, you have to clearly establish why two living entities not affected by deterministic issues cannot exist in which one is the provider and the other receives provisions.
Your three points that attempt to fault the issue are only relevant if the relationship is outside of god being the absolute provider.
(what scope do we have to act in a way that doesn't require resources of some sort)?

[SnakeLord]

You suggested that the living entity must exist in a deterministic paradigm

You're getting slightly lost here. Let's recap quickly to bring this back on track:

The original statements are with regard to the 'problem of evil' - the concept that if you have a perfectly good god then evil should not exist. This is countered by the concept of 'free will' - in this specific instance Plantinga's "free will defence".

To this I mentioned Bob and Jane (B), that worked as a direct comparison to Adam and Eve (A) and showed very easily how one can have free will and solely good behaviour.

You asked me if there was any difference in their creation to which I said 'no' and showed that if you were to contend that the creation of (B) is somehow different from (A), [anymore 'forced'] then you would need to provide a suitable argument to show it.

I then explained that such argument would entail one or more of the following:

1. Without intent

2. Without knowledge

3. Without choice

And then went on to explain the problems with those (3) factors.

I then briefly mentioned the issue with the notion of a perfectly good god that allows evil to serve the greater good.

I have, since then, been waiting for your suitable argument to show how the creation of (B) would be any different from the creation of (A). I am still waiting, so if you don't mind.

Thanks.

[greenberg]

Exactly! Without God, free will is plausible.

And in a godless conception of the Universe, free will is overwhelming.

[greenberg]

I’m still not quite sure I follow. I’m not sure why we would require god to inform us that we have free will.

If you'd be a pansy, you'd surely know why such divine information would be necessary. :D


It’s kind of like something we are using 24/7 to a greater or lesser extent

I do not think this is common knowledge.

It seems run-of-the-mill people use the notion of freedom mostly only when it suits them - like when they point out how they did this or that "all by themselves, of their own choice", or when they wish to point fingers and assign blame. Some other times, it suits them to plead for determinism.

[greenberg]

Often atheists will launch into attacks on issues of theistically defined free will because they are hopelessly addicted to thinking in reductionist/deterministic paradigms (ie that all of our actions, psychological state of mind etc are determined by an intricate array of electrons etc so morality/reward/punishment/etc are completely relative, etc etc) .

They are hopelessly addicted to thinking in reductionist/deterministic paradigms? This is an unkind thing to say, at least that. It's like telling a student "You're a basket case! Off with you. You'll never learn."

Quite simply, reductionist/deterministic paradigms are diametrically opposed to transcendental ones. To assume that everything (even things beyond one’s direct perception) conform with the reductionistic/deterministic constitutes a type of fanaticism. Personally I have no problem with reductionism and determinism – it works fine for repairing a car or crossing the street – but I certainly don’t feel that all claims to reality must subscribe to it.

Again: My point is that you said They are hopelessly addicted to thinking in reductionist/deterministic paradigms. So there is no hope for them? They are souls who are bound to stay in samsara forever, they are souls who cannot change their conditioning / or whose conditioning cannot be changed? That no matter how much they try, no matter how much they might eventually see the error of their ways, they are still going to stay stuck?

Note that for example in Christianity, this is a valid possibility: some Christian doctrines say that after death, one cannot affect anymore whether one will end up in heaven or in hell; so if one ended up in hell, but then changed their mind and still wanted to subject themselves unto God and thus come into heaven, this would then not be possible anymore - so that Christian doctrine.
And then there is the Buddhist doctrine on icchantikas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icchantika), also about living beings who are going to stay stuck in samsara forever.
So it's not like what you're suggesting is something completely foreign.

But does Vaishnavism actually contain such a doctrine? About people who are going to forever stay stuck in samsara? Or is there a doctrine that states that some entanglements in material nature are such that one can never become free from them?


I am not sure what exactly you meant in your post, but when someone says to me that I am "hopelessly this or that", then I understand this as them telling me that no matter what I would do -no matter what, including praying, practice, and so on- it would all be for naught. As if all I would touch would turn to stone and nothing could help against that. That I might as well give up. And often, this is precisely what they mean.

We normally identify with our views, so much so that we don't see them as views (and thus as something relative, as something that can change), but instead as "who we really are". So when a person or a person's views are called "hopeless", "a basket case", "hopelessly addicted/lost", this means stating that this - hopeless, a basket case, hopelessly addicted/lost - is who they really are. As if their souls were somehow crucially different from other souls.

Perhaps you simply meant that reductionism and determinism are paths that do not lead to liberation or true knowledge of self and God. I think this should be clearly stated so. Unless They are hopelessly addicted to thinking in reductionist/deterministic paradigms is used for the sheer shock value of such a statement, or you are actually stating that there is a doctrine that states that some entanglements in material nature are such that one can never become free from them?

Phenomena in samsara are subject to change and imperfection, and such is also the case with holding views - normally, our attachment to particular views changes over time, gets weaker or stronger, and our views change too, we do learn this or that new thing that affects our views, or the force of oblivion, aging, illness and death do their part in changing our views. So I find it hard to believe that there would be views that one could be "hopelessly addicted to".

Just find some hardcore atheist or determinist, meet with him on his regular Saturday night drinking marathons, and at 2 AM he'll likely tell you many things that are not typical at all for someone who calls himself an atheist or reductionist.

[Nasor]

This third statement of Plantinga’s has as a foundation that god created creatures with the freedom to choose moral good. This freedom, however, allows creatures to chose evil as well. So it is not within god’s capacity to create a world containing moral good yet no moral evil. Along with the assertion that god exists, evil also exists.

The key to this fallacy is failure to distinguish between evil exiting as a hypothetical concept and evil exiting as an active presence in the world. One could argue that it's impossible for light to exist without darkness also existing - but that doesn't mean that I can't set up many lamps in my house and eliminate any trace of darkness. Similarly, if you define evil as "that which goes against god's will," then so long as god's will exists it will also be necessary for evil to exist as a hypothetical concept. That doesn't mean that god couldn't have created a world where people freely choose good, rather than the world he apparently decided to create where many people choose evil.

“A person is free with respect to action A at a time t only if no causal laws and antecedent conditions determine either that he performs A at t or that he refrains from not doing so”

Well sure, that's a pretty standard definition of free will. But that doesn't really address the objection. The problem is that unless you want to argue that god doesn't know what people will do in advance and can be surprised by their decisions, there is no difference with respect to free will between creating a human who will choose to sin vs. creating a human who does not choose to sin. If you want to argue that god is taking away a person's free will by creating a person who he knows with certainty won't choose to sin, then isn't he also taking away a person's free will if he creates a person who he knows with certainty will sin? Either way, god is choosing between different options that have different known outcomes.

[Nasor]

lightgigantic, do you believe that god knows what choices people will make in advance, or not? You seem to believe that if god decides to create a person who he knows will not choose to sin, that this is somehow destroying the free will of the person who he creates. But unless you want to argue that god doesn't know people's actions in advance, he will always know every choice that that anyone he creates will make. If you're going to argue that when god decides to create a person who he knows will not choose to sin this destroys the free will of the person by "locking them in" to a path that will not lead to any decision to sin, then when god creates a person who he knows will choose to sin, isn't that person equally "locked in" on his path?

In many ways I'm just repeating what others have already said, but it seems necessary because you still haven't addressed this point. Suppose god is deciding who to create. He knows that person A will choose to sin, while he knows that person B will choose not to sin. Why does person B have any less free will than person A? In both cases god knows in advance, at the time of their creation, whether or not they will sin (even though the person himself hasn't made the decision yet). Of course as I said you can avoid this problem if you want to claim that god doesn't know what people will do in advance, but I'm somehow doubtful that you will be willing to make that concession.

[greenberg]

Nasor,


Why, according to you, is the problem of evil relevant?

A foolishly basic question, at first glance, to be sure, but one that shouldn't be glossed over if we are to seriously delve into the problem of evil.

[Nasor]

Nasor,


Why, according to you, is the problem of evil relevant?
Several reasons. Most importantly, I think it forces people to examine the logical consequences of their beliefs about god. For example if one believes that god is omniscient and has foreknowledge of everyone's choices, then why would god choose to create a person who will do evil and be destined for hell, rather than a person who will do godly things and be destined for heaven?

Also, it forces people to examine the god's moral culpability for the state of the world. Most christians think of god as perfect and loving, and attribute evil in the world to people. But if god deliberately creates people who he knows with certainty will eventually do specific evil acts, doesn't god share some of the responsibility for those specific evil acts? Is a god who chooses to create rapists and serial killers consistent with the idea that god is perfect and loving? Why did god create Adam and Eve, rather than snakelord's hypothetical Bob and Jane?

I think these are interesting issues that most people never think about, or try desperately to avoid addressing.

[lightgigantic]

Again: My point is that you said They are hopelessly addicted to thinking in reductionist/deterministic paradigms. So there is no hope for them? They are souls who are bound to stay in samsara forever, they are souls who cannot change their conditioning / or whose conditioning cannot be changed? That no matter how much they try, no matter how much they might eventually see the error of their ways, they are still going to stay stuck?
they can change the moment their hope changes.
Kind of like as long as one insists on pouring milk into cups that are turned upside down, they have no hope of filling it up - its all simply a question of changing strategies

Note that for example in Christianity, this is a valid possibility: some Christian doctrines say that after death, one cannot affect anymore whether one will end up in heaven or in hell; so if one ended up in hell, but then changed their mind and still wanted to subject themselves unto God and thus come into heaven, this would then not be possible anymore - so that Christian doctrine.
And then there is the Buddhist doctrine on icchantikas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icchantika), also about living beings who are going to stay stuck in samsara forever.
So it's not like what you're suggesting is something completely foreign.

But does Vaishnavism actually contain such a doctrine? About people who are going to forever stay stuck in samsara? Or is there a doctrine that states that some entanglements in material nature are such that one can never become free from them?
there is the idea that the middle planetary system (which includes us here at the moment) is the sphere of "action" meaning that one simply goes to the upper planets to expend one's pious credits or alternatively to the lower one to fix up an account seriously in the red - but even then there are odd exceptions to this case


I am not sure what exactly you meant in your post, but when someone says to me that I am "hopelessly this or that", then I understand this as them telling me that no matter what I would do -no matter what, including praying, practice, and so on- it would all be for naught. As if all I would touch would turn to stone and nothing could help against that. That I might as well give up. And often, this is precisely what they mean.
I was meaning that as long as a certain modus operandi is in place, an unsuccessful result is 100% predictable - just depends how stubborn the person is in question

We normally identify with our views, so much so that we don't see them as views (and thus as something relative, as something that can change), but instead as "who we really are". So when a person or a person's views are called "hopeless", "a basket case", "hopelessly addicted/lost", this means stating that this - hopeless, a basket case, hopelessly addicted/lost - is who they really are. As if their souls were somehow crucially different from other souls.
for as long as one is unable to detach from issues of false ego, the result is predictable - material nature however, while an inferior potency than ourselves, is more powerful by quantity - so the idea is that an eternity with material nature, migrating from heaven to hell and back again, is enough to wear down even the most stubborn of false egos ... so the only real issue of eternity is that in the spiritual atmosphere (or, waking up to one's real self ... so to speak)

Perhaps you simply meant that reductionism and determinism are paths that do not lead to liberation or true knowledge of self and God. I think this should be clearly stated so. Unless They are hopelessly addicted to thinking in reductionist/deterministic paradigms is used for the sheer shock value of such a statement, or you are actually stating that there is a doctrine that states that some entanglements in material nature are such that one can never become free from them?
as long as the addiction to deterministic paradigms exists, a certain result ensues

Phenomena in samsara are subject to change and imperfection, and such is also the case with holding views - normally, our attachment to particular views changes over time, gets weaker or stronger, and our views change too, we do learn this or that new thing that affects our views, or the force of oblivion, aging, illness and death do their part in changing our views. So I find it hard to believe that there would be views that one could be "hopelessly addicted to".
actually at the core of false ego is the bodily conception of life (I am this body ... which will quite soon desist)

Just find some hardcore atheist or determinist, meet with him on his regular Saturday night drinking marathons, and at 2 AM he'll likely tell you many things that are not typical at all for someone who calls himself an atheist or reductionist.
lol
sure

[PsychoticEpisode]

It still doesn't make things any clearer ...

If god came down and said "you had free will" suddenly we wouldn't have it?
And in the mean time, if god doesn't come down (or if he doesn't exist) free will can continue on nicely?
:confused:

Exactly, without a God your will is as free as it can get. Nevermind all the bad stuff that goes with it. Nevermind that you believe God would not allow it. If we have free will then there has never been a time in the history of man where God has actually made contact.

To say God gave us free will, the will to do it His way, means free will doesn't exist. At least you could still believe in a God. Free will is the undoing of God.

[scorpius]

This third statement of Plantinga’s has as a foundation that god created creatures with the freedom to choose moral good. This freedom, however, allows creatures to chose evil as well. So it is not within god’s capacity to create a world containing moral good yet no moral evil.
so how is it possible for people in Heaven to have free will and not to sin then?

Mackie and Anthony Flew assail this claim by asking why a god who is all powerful be unable to create a world with free creatures who always abide by moral good. Plantinga responds by reminding his critics that god cannot be subject to illogical assertations. As t married bachelors or square circles cannot be brought about by god, neither can a world of free living entities who always act morally..
why not,
isnt god omnipotent,able to do anything!?

so why cant he create people with free will and still UNABLE to sin?

like I said ,in Heaven its all free will and NOT sin anywhere,or is Heaven Illogical..yeah me thinks so?

[greenberg]

Several reasons. Most importantly, I think it forces people to examine the logical consequences of their beliefs about god. For example if one believes that god is omniscient and has foreknowledge of everyone's choices, then why would god choose to create a person who will do evil and be destined for hell, rather than a person who will do godly things and be destined for heaven?

Also, it forces people to examine the god's moral culpability for the state of the world. Most christians think of god as perfect and loving, and attribute evil in the world to people. But if god deliberately creates people who he knows with certainty will eventually do specific evil acts, doesn't god share some of the responsibility for those specific evil acts? Is a god who chooses to create rapists and serial killers consistent with the idea that god is perfect and loving? Why did god create Adam and Eve, rather than snakelord's hypothetical Bob and Jane?

I think, and I have noted this several times before on these forums, that there definitely are fatal problems with mainstream Christian conceptions of heaven, hell, selfhood, goodness, evil, free will, human action, God's creation. Problems that, for example, Hindu conceptions of these phenomena successfully avoid or solve, as far as I can see.

So for me, the issue becomes then how come I still give so much relevance to those Christian conceptions. I presume that in my case, it comes down to some basic methods of my cognition, namely the underlying assumption that fear or urgency can make better decisions than reason can. And this is actually true, in the case of an unintelligent, untrained, uneducated reason. And by "intelligence, training, education", I here don't mean these things in the worldly sense, as in "good education and competence in science and informal logic", although this plays a part too. I mean more the "intelligence, training, education" that are about things that would truly make me happy. A vague notion, to be sure, yet at the end of the day, it is true happiness I want, and worldly pursuits ultimately don't provide it.

But furthermore, those Christian conceptions are relevant because they point at how unsolvable the issue is of peacefully coexisting with Christians who hold those conceptions. It's a horrifying thought.

[greenberg]

they can change the moment their hope changes.
Kind of like as long as one insists on pouring milk into cups that are turned upside down, they have no hope of filling it up - its all simply a question of changing strategies

...
I was meaning that as long as a certain modus operandi is in place, an unsuccessful result is 100% predictable - just depends how stubborn the person is in question

Sure. But would you say to a determinist/reductionist "You are hopelessly addicted to thinking in reductionist/deterministic paradigms"? Because in a way you did that already - there are determinists/reductions reading this forum, and they feel you've just told them that they are basket cases ... so they turn away from goodness and theism even more.

But alas, it's your approach. Perhaps by speaking this not so inviting way, you are better able to accomplish that the audience separates into the wheat and the chaff, and the chaff leave on their own, not wasting your time, whereas the wheat endure the criticism, thinking it is for their good ...

[lightgigantic]

Exactly, without a God your will is as free as it can get.
for as long as one identifies with conditioned life as the pinnacle of freedom, I guess so ..... :o

Nevermind all the bad stuff that goes with it. Nevermind that you believe God would not allow it. If we have free will then there has never been a time in the history of man where God has actually made contact.

To say God gave us free will, the will to do it His way, means free will doesn't exist. At least you could still believe in a God. Free will is the undoing of God.
there's a subtle difference between free will and having the potency to succeed regardless of what one wills (not sure what you would call it ... wistful thinking perhaps, since this sort of "free will" doesn't even exist in everyday society with its legislated and unwritten codes for social conduct to govern every moment of existence)

[lightgigantic]

so how is it possible for people in Heaven to have free will and not to sin then?
the same way that it is possible for a person to exist outside of jail and not rob banks, rape, murder, etc (IOW they don't perceive any enjoyment in such activities ... of course their free will on the issue could redefine the circumstances)

why not,
isnt god omnipotent,able to do anything!?
the idea is that the inability to create a round square is an issue of logic and not lack of omnipotency

so why cant he create people with free will and still UNABLE to sin?
how would they be withheld from sinning without impeaching issues of free will?

like I said ,in Heaven its all free will and NOT sin anywhere,or is Heaven Illogical..yeah me thinks so?
or alternatively, the moment you misuse your freewill you wind up somewhere else more suitable ... like say planet earth ... to give vent to one's desires

[PsychoticEpisode]

since this sort of "free will" doesn't even exist in everyday society with its legislated and unwritten codes for social conduct to govern every moment of existence)

All that is incorporated into the free will package. What we do with it is anybody's guess. To a large extent, believing that a God gave you free will, is really free will in action. Believing He ordained it is much different than professing that you're knowingly giving Him credit for it. I can accept someone saying they believe God gave us free will but there should be no further elaboration.

[lightgigantic]

All that is incorporated into the free will package. What we do with it is anybody's guess. To a large extent, believing that a God gave you free will, is really free will in action. Believing He ordained it is much different than professing that you're knowingly giving Him credit for it. I can accept someone saying they believe God gave us free will but there should be no further elaboration.
no further elaboration?
only if you can cough up the evidence that god doesn't exist
;)

[Nasor]

lightgigantic, I still haven't seen any answers from you on how it violates free will for god to only create people who he knows will not choose to sin. Or do you not believe that god knows what choices we will choose to make in advance?

[PsychoticEpisode]

no further elaboration? only if you can cough up the evidence that god doesn't exist;)

He can still exist if you want it. My point is, God has never ever made contact with the human species, ever! Therefore believe what you want and actually God may very well exist. However God is, has been and continues to be absent. There is definitely no proof whether He exists or not but I think we can make a reasonable assumption that He isn't here. That means none of what you read or profess about God, free will or anything associated with religion has any merit. It is an exercise in futility to pursue it.

If you have devoted your life to understanding the various scriptures available to you from every Bible the world has ever seen then I get your unwillingness to admit a situation exists where none of what is written about God means anything. We simply do not know. God, should He exist, has chosen not to influence our world with one single utterance or act that proves He exists. Essentially, that is free will, no divine influence.

Scriptures are what?...... They are ancient writings. How do you know the validity of what is written? How do you know God connected with the ancients? We are talking about our early ancestors for crying out loud. Wrong about most everything else but dead on with religious text? Not sure why they are held in high regard as the ultimate source of divine knowledge(another thread perhaps?).

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic, I still haven't seen any answers from you on how it violates free will for god to only create people who he knows will not choose to sin. Or do you not believe that god knows what choices we will choose to make in advance?
what exactly would they be created with that would make it impossible for them not to sin?
(apart from a diminished free will ...)

[lightgigantic]

He can still exist if you want it. My point is, God has never ever made contact with the human species, ever! Therefore believe what you want and actually God may very well exist. However God is, has been and continues to be absent. There is definitely no proof whether He exists or not but I think we can make a reasonable assumption that He isn't here. That means none of what you read or profess about God, free will or anything associated with religion has any merit. It is an exercise in futility to pursue it.
actually your point is that you have never made contact with god. Whether that is the case for all persons in all circumstances is debatable ....

If you have devoted your life to understanding the various scriptures available to you from every Bible the world has ever seen then I get your unwillingness to admit a situation exists where none of what is written about God means anything. We simply do not know. God, should He exist, has chosen not to influence our world with one single utterance or act that proves He exists. Essentially, that is free will, no divine influence.
or alternatively, you haven't moved an iota from the general stance of material consciousness (ie non-contact with god etc)

Scriptures are what?...... They are ancient writings. How do you know the validity of what is written?
by practice
how else?

How do you know God connected with the ancients? We are talking about our early ancestors for crying out loud. Wrong about most everything else but dead on with religious text? Not sure why they are held in high regard as the ultimate source of divine knowledge(another thread perhaps?).
god is not relegated to ancient affairs

[PsychoticEpisode]

actually your point is that you have never made contact with god. Whether that is the case for all persons in all circumstances is debatable ....

By your standards, that's lame. Not worthy of standard comebacker.

or alternatively, you haven't moved an iota from the general stance of material consciousness (ie non-contact with god etc)

I think that's a given. Why should I?

These forums are great......try arguing religion in public or at a party

Scriptures are what?...... They are ancient writings. How do you know the validity of what is written? ”

by practice
how else?

Practice doesn't necessarily make you a star. Repetition is a better word in your case.

god is not relegated to ancient affairs

Yep, He's just everywhere these days:rolleyes:

[lightgigantic]

Psychotic episode

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
actually your point is that you have never made contact with god. Whether that is the case for all persons in all circumstances is debatable ....
”
By your standards, that's lame. Not worthy of standard comebacker.
My point is, God has never ever made contact with the human species, ever!

ever wondered why (polished) atheists never make statements that are absolute negatives?

“
or alternatively, you haven't moved an iota from the general stance of material consciousness (ie non-contact with god etc)
”
I think that's a given. Why should I?
well you just made a statement about god's absolute non-interraction with humanity and this world

These forums are great......try arguing religion in public or at a party
public forums with educated people (irl) also make a great contribution

“
Scriptures are what?...... They are ancient writings. How do you know the validity of what is written? ”

by practice
how else?
”
Practice doesn't necessarily make you a star. Repetition is a better word in your case.
sure
there is nothing particularly unique about practice
it does however initiate one into the particular field of knowledge in question (just compare, say, mechanics who have and have never entered the field of practice)

“
god is not relegated to ancient affairs
”
Yep, He's just everywhere these days
for those who have the eyes to see, most definitely ...

[Nasor]

what exactly would they be created with that would make it impossible for them not to sin?
(apart from a diminished free will ...)
You don't seem to understand the objections. If you believe that people have free will and that god's omniscience allows him to know in advance whether or not certain people will choose to sin, the question is why would he choose to create people who he knows will choose to sin rather than people who he knows will not choose to sin? It's not a question of god taking away free will by making a person who isn't capable of sinning, it's a question of god already knowing in advance whether or not a person will sin (because he is omniscient and knows the future). So, [b]lightgigantic[/i], I have two question for you:

1.Do you believe that god knows what decisions people will make in advance, even before he creates them?
2. If you believe that god knows what people will do even before he creates them, then why would he choose to create a person who he knows will do evil rather than a person who he knows will do good?

[greenberg]

Nasor,

What do you mean by "God creates a person"?
That out of nothing -poof!- God pulls out a person - with personality, traits, habits, particular looks, ...?

[PsychoticEpisode]

Psychotic episode

My point is, God has never ever made contact with the human species, ever!

ever wondered why (polished) atheists never make statements that are absolute negatives?

Probably because they have some doubt or they really care about you, possibly in a sympathetic manner. I care abiout you LG but I'm not the sympathetic type. You've dug your well and you're drinking from it.(kind of negative but a little more reserved...thought you'd like it)

well you just made a statement about god's absolute non-interraction with humanity and this world

So I did. You've made several about His interraction and I feel I at least deserve a chance to rebut it.

public forums with educated people (irl) also make a great contribution

On the internet? Come on LG, you can be anyone on the internet. If God types you an e-mail, signed it as God with a return e-mail address as Heaven@scripture.org or something like that, I would bet that you wouldn't believe it for one minute.

there is nothing particularly unique about practice
it does however initiate one into the particular field of knowledge in question (just compare, say, mechanics who have and have never entered the field of practice)

Exactly, nothing unique. I question philosophical knowledge as being on par with a mechanic's knowledge. I don't want LG touching my car and I would think if the mechanic has any religious inclinations then whatever he/she says on the subject wouldn't seem any less knowledgeable than that of a religious philosopher.

[Captain Kremmen]

goat.........goat

Shouldn't you be out somewhere spraying walls?

[lightgigantic]

You don't seem to understand the objections. If you believe that people have free will and that god's omniscience allows him to know in advance whether or not certain people will choose to sin, the question is why would he choose to create people who he knows will choose to sin rather than people who he knows will not choose to sin? It's not a question of god taking away free will by making a person who isn't capable of sinning, it's a question of god already knowing in advance whether or not a person will sin (because he is omniscient and knows the future). So, [b]lightgigantic[/i], I have two question for you:

1.Do you believe that god knows what decisions people will make in advance, even before he creates them?
2. If you believe that god knows what people will do even before he creates them, then why would he choose to create a person who he knows will do evil rather than a person who he knows will do good?
There are a few problems because you are working with the idea of a god that is constrained by linear time ..... actually the understanding is that the living entity (and god too, of course) are eternal.

Katha Up 2.2.13 The Supreme Lord is eternal and the living beings are eternal. The Supreme Lord is cognizant and the living beings are cognizant. The difference is that the Supreme Lord is supplying all the necessities of life for the many other living entities.

What distinguishes a living entity from dull matter is that it has the same "cognizant" quality of god (namely, to possess free will). The distinction lies in the quantity of that free will (we are practically infinitesimal, and god is practically infinite).

So to try and approach the question of knowing something before it was created (when it is eternal) or creating something with or without the ability to sin (when it's mere existence forgoes such a possibility) is kind of difficult.

[lightgigantic]

Psychotic episode

My point is, God has never ever made contact with the human species, ever!

ever wondered why (polished) atheists never make statements that are absolute negatives?
”
Probably because they have some doubt or they really care about you,
probably because they are aware of the philosophical implications of making absolute negatives ....
“
well you just made a statement about god's absolute non-interraction with humanity and this world
”
So I did. You've made several about His interraction and I feel I at least deserve a chance to rebut it.
the difference is however that I am arguing that it is not an issue beyond perception (unlike, say, the case of absolute negatives ...)

“
public forums with educated people (irl) also make a great contribution
”
On the internet? Come on LG, you can be anyone on the internet. If God types you an e-mail, signed it as God with a return e-mail address as Heaven@scripture.org or something like that, I would bet that you wouldn't believe it for one minute.
probably because there are more valid means for determining god's existence (and how he interacts with this world etc etc) ... all available from discerning the nature of scripture and persons who practice accordingly of course

“
there is nothing particularly unique about practice
it does however initiate one into the particular field of knowledge in question (just compare, say, mechanics who have and have never entered the field of practice)
”
Exactly, nothing unique. I question philosophical knowledge as being on par with a mechanic's knowledge.
and that's where the problem lies.

If you think that the entire length and breadth of all issues in theism is simply about philosophy, you are gravely mistaken

[PsychoticEpisode]

probably because there are more valid means for determining god's existence (and how he interacts with this world etc etc) ... all available from discerning the nature of scripture and persons who practice accordingly of course

Yes of course, discerning scripture over God actually being here is so much more determining.:rolleyes:

If you think that the entire length and breadth of all issues in theism is simply about philosophy, you are gravely mistaken

Always a gravely type reference, almost threatening.

If philosophy is your life then it's a significant extra. This theist vs atheist struggle definitely means more to you than I. A life's choice followed by devotion to studying it cannot ever be deemed worthless, this I understand. I have no such fear of being wrong. You do have more at stake than I.

[lightgigantic]

You do have more at stake than I.
yes, I agree

[Nasor]

So to try and approach the question of knowing something before it was created (when it is eternal) or creating something with or without the ability to sin (when it's mere existence forgoes such a possibility) is kind of difficult.

You believe that all the souls that will ever be born are already in existence?

[lightgigantic]

You believe that all the souls that will ever be born are already in existence?
yes - you can hardly indicate a square inch of this world that isn't jam packed full of life (what to speak of when you start entertaining notions of the spiritual world)

[swarm]

lightgigantic you can hardly indicate a square inch of this world that isn't jam packed full of life

That's actually quite true if you are talking about actual life. About every square inch of planet is covered with some form of life. From pole to pole and to the bottom of our wells and mines.

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic you can hardly indicate a square inch of this world that isn't jam packed full of life

That's actually quite true if you are talking about actual life. About every square inch of planet is covered with some form of life. From pole to pole and to the bottom of our wells and mines.
life is symptomatic of the soul

[swarm]

lightgigantic life is symptomatic of the soul

poetic claim, unfortunately there the doesn't seem to be any souls to let it be actually true

[iceaura]

This third statement of Plantinga’s has as a foundation that god created creatures with the freedom to choose moral good. This freedom, however, allows creatures to chose evil as well. So it is not within god’s capacity to create a world containing moral good yet no moral evil. Along with the assertion that god exists, evil also exists. This "logic" implies that all evil that exists is caused by creatures choosing it.

Chosen evil is not the type used to point out that no Deity of this world can be omnipotent, omniscient, and always benevolent. Only unchosen, unpreventable evil is used in that argument.

Pontine tumors in children, for example.

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic life is symptomatic of the soul

poetic claim, unfortunately there the doesn't seem to be any souls to let it be actually true
meanwhile life as a materially reducible phenomena remains head and shoulders outside of any empiricist paradigms ....
:cool:

[lightgigantic]

This "logic" implies that all evil that exists is caused by creatures choosing it.

Chosen evil is not the type used to point out that no Deity of this world can be omnipotent, omniscient, and always benevolent. Only unchosen, unpreventable evil is used in that argument.

Pontine tumors in children, for example.
The antithesis offered by Anthony Flew et al is about "chosen" evil. There are different arguments against what you deem "unchosen" evil ... namely karma, reincarnation etc etc

[swarm]

iceaura This "logic" implies that all evil that exists is caused by creatures choosing it.

Starting with god choosing it above all else and creating the devil as his first creation.

Seems like a good omniscient deity would not create the devil as his first and best angel.

No wonder he came to earth to have himself tortured and the executed for his crimes.

Pontine tumors in children are not evil, they are just a natural albeit horribly tragic consequence of existence. Evil of this kind is a metaphysical accusation of the kind of being (god = "good" devil = "evil"). It is a matter of kind not a matter of consequence and has no natural example.