Kay 17:

@greatgeniIus

Sin is simply disobedience to God's activated will (Commands).

like i said sin simply means missing the mark. it really has nothing to do with God becuase God has no commands that needs to be obeyed. humans do, not God. it is not possible for God to be needy. it is not possible for an all powerful God to set commands and not have it obeyed IF she wants it obeyed. then he ceases to be all powerful. it is also unGodly and illogical for God to give commands and free will at the same time..to command is to need someone to obey. which, then throws free will out the door becuase whn you are obeying you are living someone else WILL.. not your will..and thats not what the creator intended..because God gave you free will as echoed in one of his promises that "Your will is his will".That is a promise of freedom not command..God gives promises and committements to his creations not COMMANDS... life is meant to be lived and obeying is not life. it does not bring growth or evolving of which is one of the purposes of life/physicality. living someone else experieces and dreams/aspirations is not life. not what life is meant to be

Its a contravention of instructions from God.

again God has no instructions and nothing is being contravened when you sin. you have only missed the mark.

To deny God's commands and rules is to deny sin.

well then so be it..only a lesser God demands attention or have commands, and thus the Gods of religions are lesser gods...Deity has no needs.The ccreator has no commands. She is All that is. And All That Is is exactly that, all that is. It therefore wants, or lacks, nothing by definition.
If you or anyone who chooses to believe in a God who somehow needs something,and has such hurt feelings if He doesn’t get it, that He punishes those from whom He expected to receive it, then you are choosing to believe in a God much smaller than the Infinte creator..

^Wow. I just got refreshed

greatgenius:
it is not possible for an all powerful God to set commands and not have it obeyed IF she wants it obeyed. then he ceases to be all powerful.

^^^^^well we all need refreshing once in a while..
religion will cease to exist today if their followers will ask the logically tough questions to their teachers. but as it turns out most humans are not willling to think.

^^

"Obedience is better than sacrifice"

"Thou shall not put any Gods before me"

"Follow me cos I'm the way, the truth and the light"

Mosiac laws etc.

Kay 17:
Mr Godfather

Commands operate with a disregard for free will, commands preempt the free agent and EXPECT an automated response in line with stimulus either reward or punishment. To claim God grants and thereafter issues a Command, implies God immediately withdrew the free will at the issuance of the command or else a conflict evolves.

Its impossible to believe rewards and punishments are ineffective at a free agent, with our modern knowledge on psychology; positive reinforcement, conditioning play a big role our psychological setup. We impulsively avoid pain. We seek out pain to gain greater pleasure. Our bodies and minds are pre-tuned.

Hence to claim our free will is outside the influence of the consequence of our actions, is ridiculous.

Kay 17 and Wiegraf:

There is a fundamental misunderstanding here of what freewill is. It is a misunderstanding that has been repeatedly echoed despite the fact that the error has already been addressed. Some of the misunderstanding stems unfortunately from your jaundiced paraphrasing of what I have said. The imprecision in articulating what you think I have said or perhaps the misapprehension of such is perhaps to blame here.

Freewill/freely willed actions/voluntary actions, I repeat, are not invalidated or rendered non-existent simply because there is a threat or a promise attached to their undertaking. The fundamental and categorical error that an atheist or a moral nihilist is making here is to draw a false equivalence between freewill on the one hand and freedom from the consequences of one’s actions on the other.

The concept of freewill simply posits that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or even divine forces. As free rational and moral agents, human beings possess the ability of their own will or intention or desire to effect or actualize any number of actions or goals. For instance, I can freely will or decide to stand up, or sit down, or hop on one foot, or sing a song in the shower, or turn the television on, or tell a lie, or help a neighbor in need, or poison another person’s drink etc. I can freely think and nurture these intentions and execute them if I so choose. In other words, I am not a cybernetic pre-programmed organism merely acting out a predetermined script or program. These freely willed actions of mine as anyone can see (and which in fact sensible atheists affirm)are not and do not need to be immediately and directly caused by any concatenation of noticeable physical forces. In other words, if I pick up a knife and proceed to stab another person in the back with the intent to kill, I cannot claim that my actions were completely outside my control or that some external physical forces ought to be blamed for my conscious rational decision.

If the free voluntary actions of human beings were really thought to be no more than the dictates of some personally removed agency, then there’d be no basis upon which to accuse anyone of wrongdoing; moral accountability or even moral culpability goes out the window. On such a view—such as might be espoused by a moral nihilist or a strong advocate of Darwinian naturalism—murder, rape and child abuse for instance would be morally neutral or perhaps morally permissible actions being that the persons committing such actions clearly exercise no control over these actions. They would merely be acting out some physical or naturalistic predetermined script being utterly captive to the same. Now, I suspect that no atheist is going to want to be thought of as lacking a sufficient moral barometer, and thus it is not surprising to read or hear atheists squeal in protest at any charge that the logical extrapolation of their worldview—the determinism inherent in unvarnished naturalism—would necessitate such demeaning conclusions. The plain fact of the matter is that these are voluntary actions based on my own personal freewill.

However—and this is a noteworthy distinction—in as much as I have the freedom to will, purpose, aim, intend, contemplate or plot some course of action (notice how I am painstakingly delineating a difference here), I do not have and cannot demand to have a freedom from the consequence of that action. This is the point of departure folks; it is precisely on this score that the atheist/nihilist gets it wrong. Actions have consequences and the consequences for our actions have to be faced. One’s freewill is not obviated simply by pleading that one’s freely willed actions ought not to carry any threat of punishment. Follow me as I attempt to expatiate on this.

Suppose that you designed a gigantic, intricate house. Also, assume that to deal with possible incidences of burglary you designed a secret chamber in which you kept bloodthirsty vicious hounds capable of ripping a man to pieces. At night, when everyone was safely tucked in, you would quietly let slip the dogs of ‘war’. In the morning, having completed the night watch, these hounds will crawl back into their secret chambers and you would lock them up again. Now, assume furthermore that you had a visitor whom you warned expressly not to go outside at night for whatever reason because you had vicious man-eating dogs on the prowl. Now here’s the question: does the visitor in this thought experiment have the free will to obey or disobey the owner of the house as it regards not going outside at night?

It would appear that from your understanding, you imagine that the visitor in this thought experiment had inexplicably lost his freewill. That idea is unquestionably false. By what strange mechanism did the visitor in this example suddenly lose the ability to purpose, aim, intend, design, contemplate or plot a lovely night stroll into the woods at the back of the house? It is clear that he still has every freedom of the will to desire to venture outside the premises in clear contravention of the house owner’s directions. He might consider the consequence of such an ill-advised night stroll and of his own free will decide that it probably was not worth the effort. However, if he acts on this same freewill (which at no time was ever impeded) and freely decides to venture outside (possibly because he disbelieved the owner of the house), then he cannot upon seeing the hasty advance of bloodthirsty canines declare the housekeeper unjust on the grounds that his freewill was tampered with or preempted. He cannot declare that freewill ought to imply that he should be free of the direct consequence of his decisions and actions. That will be the height of crass buffoonery.

Again, if I tell a child not to put his hand into a fire because doing so would get him burned, he has every right to do so or not do so. It is his personal choice. What the unthinking atheist fantasizes about is to have an impractical state of affairs whereby he is absolved of or free of the consequences of his actions. Like a child who inflexibly sticks his fingers into an open flame in defiance of his parent’s admonition, the atheist wants a scenario where he is able to retrieve his finger from the flame and have it unburned as it naturally should be. Or to press the point further home, the atheist or moral nihilist imagines that the concept of freewill is undermined or torpedoed by suggesting that a man who seriously intended to murder a roomful of children might be given pause by the realization that he would be imprisoned or possibly killed for going through with such an action. It is clear that such a would-be mass murderer has absolutely no problem with willing, contemplating and even carrying out these actions (freewill) but he is definitely not entitled to thinking that he ought to be free of the consequences or ramifications of that action.

Therefore, whether we impulsively avoid pain, or instinctively hanker after pleasure, the fact is that such pain-minimizing or pleasure-maximizing personal indulgences speak only to the proper working of our homeostasis-seeking faculties; our desire for some sort of equilibrium. They do not dictate and cannot impose on any rational moral agent’s freewill. Like I pointed out earlier, it is abundantly clear that people can freely will and execute some actions DESPITE the possible threat of some negative consequence. In like manner, it is also evident that people can also freely will and desist from taking some action DESPITE the possible promise of some positive consequence. In all cases, it is patently absurd to suggest that such voluntary human actions (borne out of our libertarian free will) automatically become non-existent because some natural or divine agency has ordained some deleterious consequence for certain actions.

You’ll reap what you sow if not here then in the hereafter—whether anyone wants it to be so or not is I’m afraid immaterial.

Cheers.

^^^^ long post with some nice points here and there but permit me to help you here a little because your foundation is all wrong and thus negates all your points.. you are mixing two unrelated truths or concepts here. consequences are just that. consequences. they are results. naturla outcomes. they are NOT the same thing as retribution or punishment..t will do you good to not see consequences in the same light as "punishment" or retribution.. or something that hinders freewill in anyway.. i will break down your post and point out your errors in the morning if need be.

Kay 17: ^^

"Obedience is better than sacrifice"

says who..they are both not better

"Thou shall not put any Gods before me"

defenitely not a statement from the creator

"Follow me cos I'm the way, the truth and the light"

how is this a command

Mosiac laws etc.

exactly. mosaic laws. not God laws or commands. God does not have or give commands.

1Godfather let me address free will from a religious point of view [Christian].

First of all the second definition of free will is freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

We all know God has the habit of wildly interfering in human's choices. Such human choices are therefore determined by prior causes and divine intervention.

Examples

God hardening the heart of Pharoah so he wouldn't allow the Israelites go [Exodus 9:12]
Balaam who God wouldn't allow curse Israel [Numbers 22]

I think 2 examples are enough

The subsequent freedom of these people's choices is non existent due to divine intervention. Therefore they did not have free will

Sequel to the comedy of errors. Deja vu.:-D

greatgenius: says who..they are both not better

defenitely not a statement from the creator
how is this a command

exactly. mosaic laws. not God laws or commands. God does not have or give commands.

I'd assume you are not a christian, or at least the typical christian.

Punishment is preceded by a Command, hence the existemce of hell presumes a command.

@1godfather

I never said it voided freewill, you could go back and check, I said it interfered with freedom. I was careful about that. And your analogy is not valid because it assumes the house owner did not explicitly ask for something from the guest with the promise of either rewarding or punishing the guest for compliance. Threatening the guest actually, in the case omnipotent gods in particular. It's not a case of don't go out at night. It's a case of the owner inviting the guest to his house (god creating someone) then telling the person to go out at night else he would unleash the dogs on him (become xtian/religious or suffer in whichever religious hell). See what I mean?

Now, even if you did say he had no choice but to let the dogs into the hall at night, and that is most likely not the case especially with the omnipotent gods, then why did he go out of his way to invite the guest? Remember he was invited, or rather, kidnapped by the house owner himself, as he had no say in the events that led to him being in the house. To compound on this he now finds himself with limited choices. One, blindly obey the master, that is more or else slavery, complete with being kidnapped in true slave fashion. Or, depending on the nature of the master, active punishment from the master (if omnipotent) or just the dire consequences of having to face the dogs. But note, even in the case of gods with limited powers, they're actions reek of irresponsibility. Why kidnap or even invite the guest in the first place if they could not guarantee their safety?


And btw, your generalizations about atheism are similar to those you accused the op of making imo.

Kudos

do i know this godfather on nl?

@Godfather

Free will is a very broad term which encompasses freedom of actions and thought, not just thought as you think.

Freewill/freely willed actions/voluntary actions, I repeat

Hence any necessity, dissuasion, deterrence that weighs in the mind of a free agent, and limits his actions. Can be said to diminsh his free will, bear it in mind that its irrelevant if he thought about it, cos even the impossible can be thought of.

You also don't address the pre programme and conditioning of the human mind towards pleasure and away from pain. This has an overwhelming influence on the so called free agent.

Free will is in essence impracticable.

okeyxyz:

Your "assumption" that there is a creator automatically validates the rest of the attributes in the following line. If there is a creator, then such creator must have a will, a personality and value-system(system of right\wrong). Therefore anybody who wishes to have a "happy/profitable" existence in this universe must do so in conformity with the value-system setup by this god. Therefore, "freedom" is not without consequence.

And from where do we get to know the creators value system?

Pls pls, dont tell us that it is in the bible.

plaetton:

And from where do we get to know the creators value system?

Pls pls, dont tell us that it is in the bible.

The first question should even be why must the creator have a value system? The fact that something exists does not mean it must have a value system.

Second question is why must the creator have a will and a personality? [I'm not saying the creator/cause of the universe doesn't have one] But can't something exist or happen without a will or a personality attached to it?

plaetton:
And from where do we get to know the creators value system?

Pls pls, dont tell us that it is in the bible.

Bros.., What part of the bolded (okeyxyz: "Your assumption that there is a creator..." ) don't you understand ehh? Seriously, guys like you give atheism a bad name. Shouldn't you guys be experts of logic and analysis? Yet here you are already "fighting" an assumption. jeez!!!

Affiliated:
The first question should even be why must the creator have a value system? The fact that something exists does not mean it must have a value system.

Second question is why must the creator have a will and a personality? [I'm not saying the creator/cause of the universe doesn't have one] But can't something exist or happen without a will or a personality attached to it?

Bros.., You shouldn't throw logic out of the window just because you wanna score points against a "religious" person. But this!! religious person is one badazz!! mofo!! and you are gonna need loads and loads of logic-gymming to match-up to him

But to set you off, answer me this: Is any purpose without value-systems? The fact there is a purpose already forms a value-system on it's own, as both words derive from eachother. I'm baffled that you are unable to grasp this fundamental "given". The word: Creator already is a purpose on its own, therefore it has processes for creating or a "system\value-system" for creating.

As to why a creator must have a will and personality, By calling him creator, have you not just personified him? Now does it still make sense to ask: "why must the creator have a will and a personality?"

^^

True, a creator presupposes an intent and therefore mind.

BUT why presume an intent/a creator?? Why should we do that at all, if we can likewise rely on mechanical cause-effect?

okeyxyz:

Bros.., You shouldn't throw logic out of the window just because you wanna score points against a "religious" person. But this!! religious person is one badazz!! mofo!! and you are gonna need loads and loads of logic-gymming to match-up to him

OK. good to know

okeyxyz:
But to set you off, answer me this: Is any purpose without value-systems? The fact there is a purpose already forms a value-system on it's own, as both words derive from eachother. I'm baffled that you are unable to grasp this fundamental "given". The word: Creator already is a purpose on its own, therefore it has processes for creating or a "system\value-system" for creating.

You have introduced something new which is "purpose" I never talked about purpose. You purport that the creator is a purpose and all purposes must have value systems. But you are fundamentally wrong. The creator or cause of the universe must not necessarily be or have a purpose. Some things can happen without a purpose at all

okeyxyz:
As to why a creator must have a will and personality, By calling him creator, have you not just personified him? Now does it still make sense to ask: "why must the creator have a will and a personality?"

Creator is just a name. When I say universe, have I personified it? When I say fusion have I personified it? Yet we all know fusion created the sun [For what purposes? I don't know because fusion isn't a conscious thing that can have a purpose *To the best of my knowledge]
So is it OK for me to ask "must fusion have a will and a personality?"

okeyxyz:

Bros.., You shouldn't throw logic out of the window just because you wanna score points against a "religious" person. But this!! religious person is one badazz!! mofo!! and you are gonna need loads and loads of logic-gymming to match-up to him

But to set you off, answer me this: Is any purpose without value-systems? The fact there is a purpose already forms a value-system on it's own, as both words derive from eachother. I'm baffled that you are unable to grasp this fundamental "given". The word: Creator already is a purpose on its own, therefore it has processes for creating or a "system\value-system" for creating.

As to why a creator must have a will and personality, By calling him creator, have you not just personified him? Now does it still make sense to ask: "why must the creator have a will and a personality?"

Now let's establish something so what exactly is the creators value/ system in creating the universe or humans in this case ..want to see where you are going with this ..

Kay 17:

I'd assume you are not a christian, or at least the typical christian.

Punishment is preceded by a Command, hence the existemce of hell presumes a command.

if by "christian" you mean religious then i am not one..and why did you assume i am a christian. what makes one a christian in your world.

Kay 17: ^^

True, a creator presupposes an intent and therefore mind.

BUT why presume an intent/a creator?? Why should we do that at all, if we can likewise rely on mechanical cause-effect?

Well, your mechanical cause-effect is a point of view just like my creator, and perhaps they are not mutually exclusive. But the premise was "Assuming there was a creator", So you are still going the way of @plaetton by challenging an assumption which @muskeeto and I based our exchange.

Affiliated:
You have introduced something new which is "purpose" I never talked about purpose. You purport that the creator is a purpose and all purposes must have value systems. But you are fundamentally wrong. The creator or cause of the universe must not necessarily be or have a purpose. Some things can happen without a purpose at all

Maybe you have some logical point you are trying to make, but the words you choose fail you. "Creator" is automatically purposed. "Cause" likewise is also automatically purposed. Both words produces some outcome, whether for creation or for destruction. The only things that "seem" to happen without purpose are chaos. Even at that, we can reasonably conclude that the purpose of chaos is destruction. Even christian doctrine teaches that both good and evil are intended for their respective purposes.

Creator is just a name. When I say universe, have I personified it? When I say fusion have I personified it? Yet we all know fusion created the sun [For what purposes? I don't know because fusion isn't a conscious thing that can have a purpose *To the best of my knowledge]
So is it OK for me to ask "must fusion have a will and a personality?"

The word was "creator" and nobody uses that word without personification, unlike "fusion" and "universe". But all that aside, you choose to see chance as a cause of all the universe while I see purpose and so far nobody has yet proved purpose wrong since purpose is evident in all life. You ask what is the purpose of the sun? The fact that you and I are here existing and living already answers that question. We and all life could not have been possible without this sun, thus it's purpose.

greatgenius: Now let's establish something so what exactly is the creators value/ system in creating the universe or humans in this case ..want to see where you are going with this ..

Why do you build an aeroplane if not that you ambitions to fly? why do you build houses if not that you have need for shelter and comfort? So take this as my answer: God created man because he wants to be man.

Yes!! Na me talk am.

okeyxyz:

Why do you build an aeroplane if not that you ambitions to fly? why do you build houses if not that you have need for shelter and comfort? So take this as my answer: God created man because he wants to be man.

Yes!! Na me talk am.

Good. So you agree then that man is God in flesh... good you are on the right path..

Now are you a Christian because if you are a Christian and you believe that man is God in flesh then I have some questions for you..

greatgenius: Good. So you agree then that man is God in flesh... good you are on the right path...

That's what christian doctrine teaches. People just don't understand understand it. They are busy chasing shadows...

greatgenius:
Now are you a Christian because if you are a Christian and you believe that man is God in flesh then I have some questions for you..

100-percent christian .

okeyxyz:
The only things that "seem" to happen without purpose are chaos. Even at that, we can reasonably conclude that the purpose of chaos is destruction. Even christian doctrine teaches that both good and evil are intended for their respective purposes.

1. This purpose you claim must exist seems subjective to me. Purpose seems like something man creates to suit our understanding

2. Are you saying the only purpose of the sun is to support life on earth? Or life on earth is just a by product of the fusion that brought about the sun?

3. In line with the subjectiveness of purpose I can find purpose in anything just the same way someone can find purposelessness in anything. Is purpose then a real thing or just a mental state?
E.g From my point of view, the purpose of a person's smile to me was because the person is attracted to me
While from the point of view of the person, the smile was for no purpose at all. Just a random act

On another note, your claim that God created man because He wants to be man is quite interesting. And ever since I've been arguing from other people's point of view but now I'll put mine. Man is part of God. God is man and other things

okeyxyz:

Maybe you have some logical point you are trying to make, but the words you choose fail you. "Creator" is automatically purposed. "Cause" likewise is also automatically purposed. Both words produces some outcome, whether for creation or for destruction. The only things that "seem" to happen without purpose are chaos. Even at that, we can reasonably conclude that the purpose of chaos is destruction. Even christian doctrine teaches that both good and evil are intended for their respective purposes.

Cause does not imply purpose, its fatally false to assert that.

Affiliated:
1. This purpose you claim must exist seems subjective to me. Purpose seems like something man creates to suit our understanding

Yes. Purpose is subjective. I have never claimed that purpose must be objective, so there are subjective ones and there are objective ones. I have never claimed that god can be tested scientifically, and when "christians" go about trying to "prove" to atheists I just sit back and laugh. Why? because the bible has emphasized that god is beyond evidence and tests and it is impossible to prove him through the "wisdom of man". These christians simply read the bible, but don't understand.

2. Are you saying the only purpose of the sun is to support life on earth? Or life on earth is just a by product of the fusion that brought about the sun?

I owe all my existence and "every" pleasure of life to the sun. Fusion is just a process that sustains the sun for my own use. Whatever other purpose you can come up with to argue that is a purpose for the sun will only be theoretical. At least life is very obvious and evident.

3. In line with the subjectiveness of purpose I can find purpose in anything just the same way someone can find purposelessness in anything. Is purpose then a real thing or just a mental state?
E.g From my point of view, the purpose of a person's smile to me was because the person is attracted to me
While from the point of view of the person, the smile was for no purpose at all. Just a random act

Purpose is more than simply subjective, It must be testable or useful too. Testable does not mean objective, only there are objective tests and there are subjective tests. Just like beauty and emotion is testable but subjective. So if you cannot demonstrate that a smile means that someone fancies you, then your interpretation of that purpose is only imaginary.

On another note, your claim that God created man because He wants to be man is quite interesting. And ever since I've been arguing from other people's point of view but now I'll put mine. Man is part of God. God is man and other things

For me, Man is the ultimate being. That's why God(and the demons\gods) is that interested in him.

Kay 17:
Cause does not imply purpose, its fatally false to assert that.

can you give an example? Note: an event must ultimately be useful whether by direct evidence or by induction. Eg: If we say that other stars out there are without purpose and evidence says so, On the other hand We have the sun which supports life with overwhelming evidence, and this sun is a star, then we can induce that the purpose(or at least one of the purposes) of stars is to create/support life. Yes it's subjective, but it is evidence based speculation.

I got to run now. Be back later.