Mr_Anony:
No wahala about the quoting part. Your worldview cannot be irrelevant because your argument is rooted in it. It is very dificult to argue outside your worldview

Now I don't agree with you and here's why. If we say that morality is subjective and that moral evil is just something we create, then there isn't really anything wrong with evil. Therefore it can't really be evil since there is nothing wrong with it.
For "Normal evil" meaning something harmful, I would agree that it is true but then I'll now have to ask, what is really wrong with doing something harmful to life since we already hold that morality is merely our own construct.
You see by creating the divide between "moral evil" and "normal evil" and claiming that morality is made-up, we have only succeeded in identifying the crime but then we cannot rightfully blame the criminal because in doing that, we must then objectively define what is evil about committing the act.

as long as there is "non-omnixx", "normal evil" exists but then there would be nothing evil about it. . . .therefore both good and evil disappear leaving us with a world devoid of value where anything goes.


Here, you have misinterpreted something. We hold that God is all-powerful(omnipotent), all-knowing(omniscient), all-loving. But all-loving is not the same as omnibenevolent. Benevolence refers to a God that will work toward making things comfortable for the man i.e. a Mr Niceguy kind of God better described as a genie.
An all-loving God on the other hand is one who has unlimited love. but then love is such that it may allow and even inflict suffering on man for a greater good.


Now, the laws of logic are not the same as the laws of nature. I'll give you an example

Natural law-Gravity:
Anything that goes up must come down.
I throw a stone up,
It will fall back down

Logic
gravity says that anything that goes up must come down
If my stone can overcome gravity, it will stay up.
I equip my stone with jet engines, it is held up.

I hope I have provided a good distinction for you.



omnipotent means all powerful which is that God is able to do all things that power can do i.e. He has the power to do all things.
For instance, God cannot lie, this doesn't make Him not to be omnipotent as lying is not something you need power to do.
If you said to me, that you are so strong that you cannot fall over, and I reply by saying "but you fell head over heels in love for your wife", I am only being silly and mischievous, I am not really testing your claim.


In the scenario I presented, we are omnipotent and omniscient as far as that virtual universe is concerned. Based on all the information available to us, we can predict with accuracy what choices they are going to make even before they make them

[kinda like if someone knew every minute detail of your life and all the experiences you have had and exactly how they affected you, he would also know the exact choice you are going to make next and how it will affect you and what subsequent choices you will be making as a result and how those will in turn affect you. Notice that at no point is this observer making you to make your choices.
Now imagine that this observer also has such detailed information for every single entity in the universe, you would have a picture of what it is like to be omniscient. That is the position we hold over our virtual universe, that is what determinism refers to]

Now the omnipotent bit is where we can intervene and change things in this system as we please. As long as we have that ability, then we are omnipotent whether we decide to act with our privileges or not.

The last part - Love and Free-choice: Because we love our free characters, we cannot take away their freedom of choice from them and make them love us, because once we do that then there is no love because love cannot exist without choice. The best way to solve this was to write in an antivirus which these free characters (who are all infected files) depending on how they respond to this antivirus will determine whether they will be cleaned or deleted.

If you read the some of the parables of Jesus Christ, it mirrors this reality.

Note that we as creators of this software have not played any part in forcing these free characters succumb to our will.

As you can see, the only other way to "solve" the problem of evil would be either to remove freedom of choice entirely thereby making everyone into a robot or removing a sense of conscious morality, thereby making everyone into beasts or simply killing everyone.

As long as we have conscience and freedom to choose, we are to be held accountable for our actions. We cannot blame "determinism" for our failure to make right choices.

A man once asked Jesus a question along these lines: "Master, is it only a few people that will be saved?" Jesus' answer to them was: "You make every effort to enter".





I'm glad you liked it, I knew you would.


p/s: this analogy is not exhaustive because I haven't touched on God's justice and mercy and the nature of the 'antivirus'

Phone, phone, phone... Maybe I should wait till I get a pc for proper response. Meh, if its contorted I'll clear it up later

It seems normal evil, as I've been calling it, is called natural evil by some. I think it's more fitting, so I'll be using that term from now.

First - My stance on moral evil being subjective becomes irrelevant to my argument actually. Moral evil requires sentience, natural evil does not. This is objective, so long as there's pain to life involved, then it is naturally evil.
Intelligent life may not be around to judge it and declare it as morally evil, but it is still injurious, suffering and pain is still involved, so it still classifies as natural evil. Moral evil can be twisted in any which manner by intelligent life (slavery, nazi's,stalin's crazy), natural evil still exists regardless of opinions (rather drastically in these examples). Even my love of delicious cow pepper soup goodness is, strictly speaking, normal evil. I just toss it out of my mind and reason that they aren't sentient, they can't reflect on the situation (mayb), so why should I care. I use morality to justify it. But frankly, as long as the poor animal had a nervous system, and felt pain, or there were other animals that depended on it say for food etc, it was naturally evil.

Second - the problem of evil relates to an omnibenovelant being. If the christian god is not omnibenovelant, as you claim, then the problem of evil does not apply to him. You can then argue about how all-loving, as you've described it, he is (which is one of the things you are discussing with mazaje) and etc. Note though, you've accept the christan god is not fully omnixxx.

Third: so god could make said rocket at will? He could also revert the laws of gravity if he chose to? But he cannot make 1 + 1 = 5? If so, I still think you'll run into a lot a lot of problems with omnipotency because he cannot defy logic, but I'll have a think on it.

Fourth: I'm not too clear on your definition of omnipotent, i'll use what I imply in my 3rd note as context but I cannot see how his inability to lie does not contradict omnipotency. It is like saying god equals truth. Imagine god saying:
This sentence is a lie
You see the logical paradox here. Even god cannot skirt around this, unless god defies logic, in which case we are deeply in the domain of nonsense. Problem of evil springs up again because if he could defy logic then he might as well achieved his 'greater good' without evil (either type), definitely voiding omnibenovelence and perhaps voiding all-good (all-good as you describe it). Then again he can defy logic. Then again we are now deeply in nonsense category, and should just accept anything, or everything.

Fifth: so long as you know accurately what the AI is going to do, and you created the AI, regardless of if said AI has free will or not (though by your description it does not, as the programmer can accurately predict it's actions, therefore the AI's actions can be determined, that is not free will), then the programmer is fully responsible for the AI's actions. He both programmed it and knew what it was going to do. It carried out his will.

Sixth: as above, their free choice is an illusion.

Conclusions so far (for me), you cannot overcome the problem of evil without dropping an omnixxx.
As for the christian god, I think you're willing to concede that at the very least it's not omnibenovelent.

Random: frankly all omnixxx (except plausibly omnibenovelent) look impossible, so that would void christian claims about their god, unless they redefine these terms.

wiegraf:


Phone, phone, phone... Maybe I should wait till I get a pc for proper response. Meh, if its contorted I'll clear it up later

It seems normal evil, as I've been calling it, is called natural evil by some. I think it's more fitting, so I'll be using that term from now.

First - My stance on moral evil being subjective becomes irrelevant to my argument actually. Moral evil requires sentience, natural evil does not. This is objective, so long as there's pain to life involved, then it is naturally evil.
Intelligent life may not be around to judge it and declare it as morally evil, but it is still injurious, suffering and pain is still involved, so it still classifies as natural evil. Moral evil can be twisted in any which manner by intelligent life (slavery, nazi's,stalin's crazy), natural evil still exists regardless of opinions (rather drastically in these examples). Even my love of delicious cow pepper soup goodness is, strictly speaking, normal evil. I just toss it out of my mind and reason that they aren't sentient, they can't reflect on the situation (mayb), so why should I care. I use morality to justify it. But frankly, as long as the poor animal had a nervous system, and felt pain, or there were other animals that depended on it say for food etc, it was naturally evil.

All well and good since you have come up with "natural evil" which is evil independent on morality but solely based on physical harm.

I hope you realize that by doing this, any crimes that do not have a direct physical impact become no crimes i.e. any crimes that are morally/emotionally perceived such as dishonesty,slavery, rape, verbal abuse are not evil in this regard but then things like an animal killing another animal for food becomes evil therefore all carnivorous animals are by nature evil.

I hope you can see how absurd your attempt at redefining evil gets.

Second - the problem of evil relates to an omnibenovelant being. If the christian god is not omnibenovelant, as you claim, then the problem of evil does not apply to him. You can then argue about how all-loving, as you've described it, he is (which is one of the things you are discussing with mazaje) and etc. Note though, you've accept the christan god is not fully omnixxx.

I don't understand what you mean by "fully omnixxx". Is there a competition of deities of which the winner is the one with the most omni-characters?

All powerful, All-knowing, all-loving are how we describe the nature of God i.e. attributes of His character not some ranks God somehow attains. "Omnibenevolent" is just not how to describe God. God is all-loving and it is part of His love to sometimes allow pain and we can trust Him to do what is right.

Third: so god could make said rocket at will? He could also revert the laws of gravity if he chose to? But he cannot make 1 + 1 = 5? If so, I still think you'll run into a lot a lot of problems with omnipotency because he cannot defy logic, but I'll have a think on it.

You see the problem with having to disprove omnipotence is that one has to come up with illogical scenarios. If I say that God can revert gravity so that we walk on the sky with the earth above us, it is immaginable even though it is fantasy, it an inverted sky still makes sense.
On the other hand, 1+1=5 is pure nonsense and does not make any sense (You can try describing it here if you like).

Fourth: I'm not too clear on your definition of omnipotent, i'll use what I imply in my 3rd note as context but I cannot see how his inability to lie does not contradict omnipotency. It is like saying god equals truth. Imagine god saying:
This sentence is a lie
You see the logical paradox here. Even god cannot skirt around this, unless god defies logic, in which case we are deeply in the domain of nonsense. Problem of evil springs up again because if he could defy logic then he might as well achieved his 'greater good' without evil (either type), definitely voiding omnibenovelence and perhaps voiding all-good (all-good as you describe it). Then again he can defy logic. Then again we are now deeply in nonsense category, and should just accept anything, or everything.

You see again the paradox you provided is not a logical one as the sentence itself is undefined and meaningless since it refers to nothing in particular. It can only best be used for comedy skit

Wiegraf: this sentence is a lie
anony: what sentence?
wiegraf: this sentence
anony:what is this sentence?
wiegraf:a lie
anony:what then is the truth?
wiegraf: this sentence is not
Audience laughs. (applauds or pelts us with tomatoes)

Since the sentence defines nothing, it is logical nonsense.

Fifth: so long as you know accurately what the AI is going to do, and you created the AI, regardless of if said AI has free will or not (though by your description it does not, as the programmer can accurately predict it's actions, therefore the AI's actions can be determined, that is not free will), then the programmer is fully responsible for the AI's actions. He both programmed it and knew what it was going to do. It carried out his will.

If you noticed, I was careful not to use the phrase free-will rather I have used free choice (there's a difference) besides being able to predict an action does not make you responsible for the action. Remember you didn't program the their actions, you just happen to know the all the possible consequences of their actions.

Sixth: as above, their free choice is an illusion.

Not so. It is not in any way an illusion. there choices are as real as their existence.

Conclusions so far (for me), you cannot overcome the problem of evil without dropping an omnixxx.
As for the christian god, I think you're willing to concede that at the very least it's not omnibenovelent.

You make it sound as if i once held that God is omnibenevolent but now i am dropping it. I never held such a view. I said God is all-loving, this is different from all-benevolent.

Random: frankly all omnixxx (except plausibly omnibenovelent) look impossible, so that would void christian claims about their god, unless they redefine these terms.

Actually, I don't see any one that looks impossible.

Snarky mr anony is being snarky. Bad anony, bad

Mr_Anony:
All well and good since you have come up with "natural evil" which is evil independent on morality but solely based on physical harm.

I hope you realize that by doing this, any crimes that do not have a direct physical impact become no crimes i.e. any crimes that are morally/emotionally perceived such as dishonesty, rape, slavery, verbal abuse are not evil in this regard but then things like an animal killing another animal for food becomes evil therefore all carnivorous animals are by nature evil.

I hope you can see how absurd your attempt at redefining evil gets.

I don't think it's absurd. I don't think the universe revolves around us, I think it's more the opposite actually. And how does any of what I say void dishonesty, rape, slavery, verbal abuse (especially rape which is physically harmful, and you mention that my definition deals only with physical harm). They all cause harm (except maybe dishonesty). I never discounted intelligent life from my definition of natural evil, or are we not "lesser lifeforms". Where do I state it need be physical to qualify as natural evil? I am careful to add
"or there were other animals that depended on it say for food etc"
This implies it need not be physical harm. Anyways, enjoy

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evil
From the link above

1.
morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2.
harmful; injurious: evil laws.
3.
characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
4.
due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
5.
marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.

Just about every dictionary definition will have something akin to number 3. Like from my local dictionary

evil: That which causes harm, destruction or misfortune

From wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_evil

"Natural evil, or surd evil, is a term generally used in discussions of the problem of evil and theodicy that refers to states of affairs which, considered in themselves, are to be avoided and not to be promoted, and for which no agent is morally responsible. It stands in contrast to moral evil. Both natural and moral evil are a challenge to religious believers. Many atheists claim that natural evil is proof that there is no God, as an omnipotent being would not allow such evil to happen to his/her creation. However, many religious people claim that natural evil exists to maintain a balance in the universe; without these occurrences, the universe could not exist."

From you, in another thread
https://www.nairaland.com/1036223/wiegraf-here-answers#12039962

Mr_Anony:
Please don't push it too far my friend.......You are equating moral evil to physical evil/calamity....That is how not to argue. It is called the equivocation fallacy.

From you, in this thread
https://www.nairaland.com/1009338/succinctly-anony/4#12024113

Mr_Anony:
Lol, I hope you do realize that the evil we are discussing here is moral evil. The evil described in Isaiah on the other hand is not moral evil but physical calamity and natural disaster.

I don't know, seems to me like you know what I'm on about. You wouldn't be disingenuous now, would you?

Any crimes that do not cause direct physical pain need not necessarily be evil. Homosexuality is a crime in this country, it is not naturally evil. In fact, lots of species practice some form or the other for pleasure. Not all actions that cause physical pain are naturally evil either, like pulling out your tooth. Actions or events that cause harm (Edit, especially with apparently no accompanying mitigating good, regardless, I'd argue that the mitigating good could be achieved without evil by an omnipotent being), agency or not, are evil, naturally so.

Mr_Anony:
I don't understand what you mean by "fully omnixxx". Is there a competition of deities of which the winner is the one with the most omni-characters?

All powerful, All-knowing, all-loving are how we describe the nature of God i.e. attributes of His character not some ranks God somehow attains. "Omnibenevolent" is just not how to describe God. God is all-loving and it is part of His love to sometimes allow pain and we can trust Him to do what is right.

We are discussing the problem of evil. Again, you are asserting the christian god is not omnixxx, I have no problem of that. For the problem of evil to rear it's ugly head the deity/being must be all 3 omnixxxx. (though I think omnixxx is impossible, but meh, as that's the problem of evil).

Mr_Anony:
You see the problem with having to disprove omnipotence is that one has to come up with illogical scenarios. If I say that God can revert gravity so that we walk on the sky with the earth above us, it is immaginable even though it is fantasy, it an inverted sky still makes sense.
On the other hand, 1+1=5 is pure nonsense and does not make any sense (You can try describing it here if you like).



You see again the paradox you provided is not a logical one as the sentence itself is undefined and meaningless since it refers to nothing in particular. It can only best be used for comedy skit

Wiegraf: this sentence is a lie
anony: what sentence?
wiegraf: this sentence
anony:what is this sentence?
wiegraf:a lie
anony:what then is the truth?
wiegraf: this sentence is not
Audience laughs.

Since the sentence defines nothing, it is logical nonsense.

That's part of my point. You say god cannot lie. Everything he says is truth. So can god say
"This sentence is a lie"

Yes, or no?

Mr_Anony:
If you noticed, I was careful not to use the phrase free-will rather I have used free choice (there's a difference) besides being able to predict an action does not make you responsible for the action. Remember you didn't program the their actions, you just happen to know the all the possible consequences of their actions.

Not so. It is not in any way an illusion. there choices are as real as their existence.

You did program their actions. Not directly, but you programmed their algorithms and set up a huge bunch of "if(x is true) do ... else do ...". You set up all the rules, defined the parameters they can follow, the odds of them following this path or that. Once you did that, you determined their actions, and you've acknowledged that by accepting the programmer already knows what they are going to do before they even act. I do not know what you mean by free-choice, but these AI do not have free will, they are following orders.

Mr_Anony:
You make it sound as if i once held that God is omnibenevolent but now i am dropping it. I never held such a view. I said God is all-loving, this is different from all-benevolent.

I never did that, at least I don't think so. Again, we are discussing the problem of evil, which deals with omnixxxx. If you assert that the christian god is omnixxx, then it applies to him. If not, then he's off the hook, and we can debate other aspects of that god.

Mr_Anony:
Actually, I don't see any one that looks impossible.

Look throughout this post to see why I think omnipotent is impossible.
As for omniscient, other than voiding free will, there is also the fact that one can never know if he knows everything. Like my sig says, how does god know for sure that there isn't another even more powerful god watching him?

wiegraf: Snarky mr anony is being snarky. Bad anony, bad



I don't think it's absurd. I don't think the universe revolves around us, I think it's more the opposite actually. And how does any of what I say void dishonesty, rape, slavery, verbal abuse (especially rape which is physically harmful, and you mention that my definition deals only with physical harm). They all cause harm (except maybe dishonesty). I never discounted intelligent life from my definition of natural evil, or are we not "lesser lifeforms". Where do I state it need be physical to qualify as natural evil? I am careful to add
"or there were other animals that depended on it say for food etc"
This implies it need not be physical harm. Anyways, enjoy

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evil
From the link above

1.
morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2.
harmful; injurious: evil laws.
3.
characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
4.
due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
5.
marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.

Just about every dictionary definition will have something akin to number 3. Like from my local dictionary

evil: That which causes harm, destruction or misfortune

From wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_evil

"Natural evil, or surd evil, is a term generally used in discussions of the problem of evil and theodicy that refers to states of affairs which, considered in themselves, are to be avoided and not to be promoted, and for which no agent is morally responsible. It stands in contrast to moral evil. Both natural and moral evil are a challenge to religious believers. Many atheists claim that natural evil is proof that there is no God, as an omnipotent being would not allow such evil to happen to his/her creation. However, many religious people claim that natural evil exists to maintain a balance in the universe; without these occurrences, the universe could not exist."

From you, in another thread
https://www.nairaland.com/1036223/wiegraf-here-answers#12039962


From you, in this thread
https://www.nairaland.com/1009338/succinctly-anony/4#12024113


I don't know, seems to me like you know what I'm on about. You wouldn't be disingenuous now, would you?

Any crimes that do not cause direct physical pain need not necessarily be evil. Homosexuality is a crime in this country, it is not naturally evil. In fact, lots of species practice some form or the other for pleasure. Not all actions that cause physical pain are naturally evil either, like pulling out your tooth. Actions or events that cause harm, agency or not, are evil, naturally so.

Ok, I think I get what you mean by natural evil i.e. things like an earthquake, a building collapsing and killing people etc would be natural evil.
The problem however is that for you to present the problem of evil, evil must be objectively defined. You cannot hold subjective morality and yet present evil as a problem. For this reason, I will take it that natural evil such as disasters that harm people are objective while perceptive crimes i.e. moral evil are subjective therefore they won't be considered. We'll focus on natural evils now.

We are discussing the problem of evil. Again, you are asserting the christian god is not omnixxx, I have no problem of that. For the problem of evil to rear it's ugly head the deity/being must be all 3 omnixxxx. (though I think omnixxx is impossible, but meh, as that's the problem of evil).

Now, I want to point out something: you are using the phrase "the christian god" This is inappropriate because it gives an underlying assumption that there are indeed many gods of which "the christian god" is one of the many. If this is true then we cannot have the problem of evil because the problem of evil assumes one almighty God. I would prefer you used "God" (singular) unless your "religion" strictly prohibits it.

The second mistake you are making is that you have given God 3 qualities which you think he must have. I have tried to describe to you God's nature, and it doesn't include omnibenevolence, but omnilovingness. Omnibenevolence is not a true description of God's infinite love. If you are going to argue against something, then you must be willing to understand the other person's stance properly.

That's part of my point. You say god cannot lie. Everything he says is truth. So can god say
"This sentence is a lie"

Yes, or no?

The sentence itself has no meaning so is neither a lie or a truth.

You did program their actions. Not directly, but you programmed their algorithms and set up a huge bunch of "if(x is true) do ... else do ...". You set up all the rules, defined the parameters they can follow, the odds of them following this path or that. Once you did that, you determined their actions, and you've acknowledged that by accepting the programmer already knows what they are going to do before they even act. I do not know what you mean by free-choice, but these AI do not have free will, they are following orders.

One thing is clear, they have freedom to choose their options, I am not forcing them to make any choices, I just happen to know what the consequences of their actions will be.
Why I have differentiated between free-choice and freewill is because freewill seems to imply that man somehow has some control of his future. That is inaccurate. All that man really has control of are the choices he makes.

I never did that, at least I don't think so. Again, we are discussing the problem of evil, which deals with omnixxxx. If you assert that the christian god is omnixxx, then it applies to him. If not, then he's off the hook, and we can debate other aspects of that god.

Lol, I if by omnixxx you mean omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then you are probably describing a genie and not God.

Look throughout this post to see why I think omnipotent is impossible.
As for omniscient, other than voiding free will, there is also the fact that one can never know if he knows everything. Like my sig says, how does god know for sure that there isn't another even more powerful god watching him?

Lol, the contentions against God's omnipotence that you came up with are illogical and undefined, If omnipotent is only impossible once you throw away logic, then the problem lies with you and not God.
As for omniscient...How does God know? He just knows, the same way you know your name. God knows EVERYTHING.
I'll ask you a similar question: How do you know that you know your name?

So now let us cut to the chase: The problem of evil:

If God is All-Powerful, All-Knowing and All-Good. Why do natural evils such as diseases, earthquakes etc happen?
God should be able to know all the possible ways evil may occur, God should be able to fix all evil even before they occur, and God should be willing to prevent all evil.
The fact that evil exists in spite of God means that either God does not exist or God is not all He is out to be.

Is this a suitable statement of the problem of evil for you?
If yes, I'm off to read me some Alvin Platinga (I'll be back eventually though), If no, then you may have to redefine the statement for us.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, funny how you have reduced it to "Serve God or Die!" Thereby resorting to an emotional argument.

More than half of the bible is filled with serve god or die. . .The OT is all about serving god or getting killed. . .

The first thing you need to grasp is that it is God that gave life in the first instance, without which man wouldn't even be able to ponder choices.
For man to reject the giver of life, he is rejecting life itself and has death as the consequence of his choice. So my friend, it is not a threat, you have your freedom to choose.

Nope, you believe that god gave life, when you provide evidence for that then we can talk about it, I won't deal with your assumptions that have no evidence to back them up. . .If you have a video recording of Yahweh giving life and not allah then you might be taken seriously. . .Since you don't then your assumptions fall off the window. . .

This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses.
Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him.
For the Lord is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
(Deutronomy 30:19)

It is because God loves us unconditionally that He allows both the good and evil to enjoy the life that He gives and that is the kind of love Christ urges us to have.

But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
Matt5:44-45

Dude, you have a choice to make, you can either make it or you can blame God for forcing it upon you. One thing we cannot escape though is the consequence of our choices.

The entire bible talks more about the will of Yahweh. . .Even Jesus himself said that no one can come to him unless his father wills it. . .Where then is the free choice?. . .

Mr_Anony:
Now God created human beings giving them free-choice knowing that by giving them free-choice, the very nature of free-choice means that man can possibly do evil. . .but then without free-choice, man cannot possibly be good either.

Like

Have observed that when people say there is nothing like freewill (or is it free-choice) in the bible, they are actually telling you that freewill (free-choice)does exist. now compare the comment below:

mazaje:
. . .There is no where in the bible where it says god has given man any free will to chose to obey him or not. .Nothing like that appears in the bible,.....

with this one:

mazaje:
The last time i checked in some parts those that did not believe in him or chose to serve him were ordered to be killed. . .

Same author, same post. LOL

^^^^
Lol! Thanks Zikkyy, for pointing that out. I was so enmeshed in my argument with him that I missed his self-contradiction

plaetton: What I expect an honest christian to say is " I do not know everything, most things are mysteries and I may never know, but I have faith, my faith is my strenght and guiding rod". Simple

It is all about faith, not about truth. Faith and truth are not the same. Faith, by its own nature, can and always tend to ignore truth.
The bible is not truth,it is the truth for the faithful. If you study the early beginnings of christianity, you will see that there were great schisms within the early church about what, among the competing and sometimes conflicting truths(?), should be taught to the faithful.

Along the 2 millenia, some factions won and some factions lost.

What we have today are the enforced dogmas of the triumphant party. Surely, can we expect them to be consistently objective given their historically consistent bias towards political,economic, social and religious domination?
History does not have dogmas, only the church does.

It is grand folly for any intelligent person to try to supplant enforced dogma in the place of historically verifiable truthsa.

You just aint got a clue or do you?
You just dont know what christianity is all about neither do you know what the church represent, or do you?
You think the kingdom i represent which is of christ Jesus is of mere words? No! It's of power and the pulling down of every stronghold, those who have tasted of the kingdom to come are never ignorant of anything pataining to the kingdom of God cause the Spirit of God which is a teacher to the humble teaches us the very mysteries of life and of the kingdom to come and that's why Jesus said - John 16:12 “I have much more to say to you, more than you
can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes,
he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his
own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you
what is yet to come. 14 He will bring glory to me by
taking from what is mine and making it known to you.

Mr_Anony:

Now God created human beings giving them free-choice knowing that by giving them free-choice, the very nature of free-choice means that man can possibly do evil. . .but then without free-choice, man cannot possibly be good either.

This is so wrong...

Lets take 'god' as a programmer

He creates the hardware (body) and clearly makes it clear that he wants the programme to be like him in all entirety no? What does he do then he makes a very good software to model exactly what he wants it to be like...him giving the software the ability to go against and destroy itself means the nature of such acts must be embedded or fully known by the programmer..you can't obviously code what you don't know or what does not exist, Now is it possible for him to create a perfectly sound system/programme that does all what he wants? yes...Indeed the programmer knows all possible 'RUN' outcomes after debugging but goes ahead to set-up a system where he knows the programme is at will to snuff him out...now thats silly

Meanwhile if we look at it objectively we find out that the 'bible' actually makes us understand that god made a mistake and he acknowledge his initial mistake and henceforth repented and even became pallies with mr Lucifer.....

Now a domino's movement is determined completely by laws of physics. Incompatibilists say that this is a threat to free will because

“Experience teaches us no less clearly than reason, that men believe themselves to be free, simply because they are conscious of their actions, and unconscious of the causes whereby those actions are determined.” B de Spinoza Ethics

Schopenhauer stated, "You can do what you will, but in any given moment of your life you can will only one definite thing and absolutely nothing other than that one thing."

Everyone believes himself a priori to be perfectly free, even in his individual actions, and thinks that at every moment he can commence another manner of life. ... But a posteriori, through experience, he finds to his astonishment that he is not free, but subjected to necessity, that in spite of all his resolutions and reflections he does not change his conduct, and that from the beginning of his life to the end of it, he must carry out the very character which he himself condemns...

mazaje:

More than half of the bible is filled with serve god or die. . .The OT is all about serving god or getting killed. . .

Nope, you believe that god gave life, when you provide evidence for that then we can talk about it, I won't deal with your assumptions that have no evidence to back them up. . .If you have a video recording of Yahweh giving life and not allah then you might be taken seriously. . .Since you don't then your assumptions fall off the window. . .

The entire bible talks more about the will of Yahweh. . .Even Jesus himself said that no one can come to him unless his father wills it. . .Where then is the free choice?. . .

Ok now your arguments are spiraling off the handles of logic....The bible holds that God gave life. It then follows that God has the right to take life according to the same bible.
You are arguing how God is evil for taking life and asking me to justify Him from the bible. At the same time you are not willing to accept that God gave life from the same biblical authority that you are referring me to. That's poor logic my friend.

Frankly, I don't know where to start arguing with you from because you are proving to be a very bad anti-christian fanatic. If I proved to you from the same bible that free-choice exists in it, you will immediately deny it again. I feel like I'm wasting arguments on you.

You can't hold up the bible's authority and then deny it as it suits you. That's just plain silliness.

Mr_Anony: So now let us cut to the chase: The problem of evil:

If God is All-Powerful, All-Knowing and All-Good. Why do natural evils such as diseases, earthquakes etc happen?
God should be able to know all the possible ways evil may occur, God should be able to fix all evil even before they occur, and God should be willing to prevent all evil.
The fact that evil exists in spite of God means that either God does not exist or God is not all He is out to be.

Is this a suitable statement of the problem of evil for you?
If yes, I'm off to read me some Alvin Platinga (I'll be back eventually though), If no, then you may have to redefine the statement for us.

I have to be off too good sir. Yes it is something like that, but we're not too clear what the all-etcs are. We might have to clear that up before we proceed, else redundancy may occur.

Happy reading.

mkmyers45:
He creates the hardware (body) and clearly makes it clear that he wants the programme to be like him in all entirety no? What does he do then he makes a very good software to model exactly what he wants it to be like...him giving the software the [size=14pt]ability[/size] to go against and destroy itself means the nature of such acts must be embedded or fully known by the programmer..you can't obviously code what you don't know or what does not exist,

That's the word you are having issues with right there (bolded in red) ability does not negate free-will (free-choice).

mkmyers45:
you can't obviously code what you don't know or what does not exist,

True, but i don't see how this takes way free-will(free-choice). Choices within the limitations of the program (if any) is still choices, especially if the programmer is not the one hitting the 'enter' button

mkmyers45:

This is so wrong...

Lets take 'god' as a programmer

He creates the hardware (body) and clearly makes it clear that he wants the programme to be like him in all entirety no? What does he do then he makes a very good software to model exactly what he wants it to be like...him giving the software the ability to go against and destroy itself means the nature of such acts must be embedded or fully known by the programmer..you can't obviously code what you don't know or what does not exist, Now is it possible for him to create a perfectly sound system/programme that does all what he wants? yes...Indeed the programmer knows all possible 'RUN' outcomes after debugging but goes ahead to set-up a system where he knows the programme is at will to snuff him out...now thats silly

Meanwhile if we look at it objectively we find out that the 'bible' actually makes us understand that god made a mistake and he acknowledge his initial mistake and henceforth repented and even became pallies with mr Lucifer.....

Now a domino's movement is determined completely by laws of physics. Incompatibilists say that this is a threat to free will because

Nice, I must commend your reply...

However there are a few things you are missing such as the nature of the programmer. You are assuming that the programmer is like a human being who being selfish by nature would naturally want his creation to be a copy of him. This is not God.
It is because God loves man that he gives us the power of choice because without choice, there can be no love. We may as well be robots.

Now the second misconception you have is that "God made a mistake" This is not true. What you read in the bible (God repented) is an expression of anthropomorphism where man ascribes human feelings and human form to God in an attempt of describing God's actions. It is just another way of saying that man did not meet God's standards (you may have heard me before talk about the ability of a perfect being to express Himself "imperfectly" )

Finally, as for the quotes you presented, maybe you should read my discussions with wiegraf on this thread. The problem is merely an emotional one and not much more. The only way to solve that problem would be to rewind time and then consciously make different decisions and have different results but I put it to you that even if we were able to do that, man will still have his regrets because we human beings are such that what is not available to us is what is more attractive. The same would apply even if we could somehow make 2 choices at the same time. Suddenly we would wish we could make a third choice at the same time.

The grass is always greener on the other side. . . and even after we have crossed over the fence, suddenly the grass on the side we left becomes greener.

........Just remember that it is always your choice to jump over the fence to either side any time and as many times as you like.

Zikkyy:

That's the word you are having issues with right there (bolded in red) ability does not negate free-will (free-choice).



True, but i don't see how this takes way free-will(free-choice). Choices within the limitations of the program (if any) is still choices, especially if the programmer is not the one hitting the 'enter' button

Ability does infact fully negate free-will....For someone to be free he/she must have the ability to do what he/she wants no just the fact that the choices are there....

Remember, I rather insist that free will means that man must be the "ultimate" or "originating" cause of his actions. He must be causa sui, in the traditional phrase. To be responsible for one's choices is to be the first cause of those choices, where first cause means that there is no antecedent cause of that cause. The argument, then, is that if man has free will, then man is the ultimate cause of his actions.

Nice, I must commend your reply...

However there are a few things you are missing such as the nature of the programmer. You are assuming that the programmer is like a human being who being selfish by nature would naturally want his creation to be a copy of him. This is not God.
It is because God loves man that he gives us the power of choice because without choice, there can be no love. We may as well be robots.

Like when people decide to build a skyscraper to reach God eh? Indeed being like God brings desire for dominance and total power no?

Now the second misconception you have is that "God made a mistake" This is not true. What you read in the bible (God repented) is an expression of anthropomorphism where man ascribes human feelings and human form to God in an attempt of describing God's actions. It is just another way of saying that man did not meet God's standards (you may have heard me before talk about the ability of a perfect being to express Himself "imperfectly" )

The bible is indeed God's word no? So even the emergence of Satan is not a mistake? So even the ultimate wager between God and the devil for who gets more souls should not be counted as a mistake but as what? Indeed severally Human words have been used to rightly describe God's nature... Jealousy,Anger,Repentance etc etc

If determinism is true, then we have no control over the events of the past that determined our present state and no control over the laws of nature. Since we can have no control over these matters, we also can have no control over the consequences of them. Since our present choices and acts, under determinism, are the necessary consequences of the past and the laws of nature, then we have no control over them and, hence, no free will. This is called the consequence argument.

Mr_Anony: So now let us cut to the chase: The problem of evil:

If God is All-Powerful, All-Knowing and All-Good. Why do natural evils such as diseases, earthquakes etc happen?
God should be able to know all the possible ways evil may occur, God should be able to fix all evil even before they occur, and God should be willing to prevent all evil.
The fact that evil exists in spite of God means that either God does not exist or God is not all He is out to be.

Is this a suitable statement of the problem of evil for you?
If yes, I'm off to read me some Alvin Platinga (I'll be back eventually though), If no, then you may have to redefine the statement for us.

Ok good pleb sir. It seems you didn't get me properly earlier on, you thought the argument related only to the christian God I think. It's a fairly well known dilemma (my full blown dismissal of abrahamic religions was brought about when a variant of this problem occurred to me, many others too) so I assumed you would have come across it. Actually, I'm pretty sure you have but perhaps weren't giving it too much attention or thought I spoke of something else. I've never heard of Plantinga (I don't have any technical knowledge of philosophy, religion etc, I just wing it) but he seems to be a theist authority on the subject, so no doubt you are now familiar with the topic even if you weren't earlier. Taking your post and modifying:

"If a god is omnipotent, omoniscient and omnibenovelant, why do natural evils such as diseases, earthquakes etc happen?
Said god should be able to know all the possible ways evil may occur, it should be able to fix all evil even before they occur, and it should be willing to prevent all evil.
The fact that evil exists in spite of said god means that either it does not exist or it is not all it is out to be."


So I haven't been focusing on the christian God, I've just been focusing on any being that is supposedly all of the omnixxx.
If you think an omnixxx is a genie-like creature, as you imply, and the christian God (there you go, capital G just for you) isn't one, then the problem of evil does not apply to Him (technically this should be 'it' christians). Still, perhaps you can show how the christian God avoids this problem?

The real world has caught up to me, by rights I shouldn't be posting atm.
I very rarely am practical though.

From what you've described your god is not omnixxx. Let's look at your all-loving

Basically you're saying the greater good is his aim (God doesn't seem to be truly omnipotent, there are some things he cannot do by your descriptions). I will counter that the amount of evil in this universe is superfluous. You are basically saying bad stuff happens, but his motives are good.
This is how it comes across to me. Supposing you were some investigator sent to investigate a crime, upon getting there you come across a lot of bodies, showing signs of heavy mutilation, days of torture. You even come across animals, tortured extensively as well. Do you conclude the perpetrator of these crimes was a raving sociopath or some misunderstood genius who's trying to help humanity?

Don't get your pantsu in a bunch yet, it's a hypothetical question.

wiegraf:

Ok good pleb sir. It seems you didn't get me properly earlier on, you thought the argument related only to the christian God I think. It's a fairly well known dilemma (my full blown dismissal of abrahamic religions was brought about when a variant of this problem occurred to me, many others too) so I assumed you would have come across it. Actually, I'm pretty sure you have but perhaps weren't giving it too much attention or thought I spoke of something else. I've never heard of Plantinga (I don't have any technical knowledge of philosophy, religion etc, I just wing it) but he seems to be a theist authority on the subject, so no doubt you are now familiar with the topic even if you weren't earlier. Taking your post and modifying:

"If a god is omnipotent, omoniscient and omnibenovelant, why do natural evils such as diseases, earthquakes etc happen?
Said god should be able to know all the possible ways evil may occur, it should be able to fix all evil even before they occur, and it should be willing to prevent all evil.
The fact that evil exists in spite of said god means that either it does not exist or it is not all it is out to be."


So I haven't been focusing on the christian God, I've just been focusing on any being that is supposedly all of the omnixxx.
If you think an omnixxx is a genie-like creature, as you imply, and the christian God (there you go, capital G just for you) isn't one, then the problem of evil does not apply to Him (technically this should be 'it' christians). Still, perhaps you can show how the christian God avoids this problem?

Ok fair enough. Now we know that God is not all-loving and will do things for a greater good, let's proceed

wiegraf: The real world has caught up to me, by rights I shouldn't be posting atm.
I very rarely am practical though.

From what you've described your god is not omnixxx. Let's look at your all-loving

Basically you're saying the greater good is his aim (God doesn't seem to be truly omnipotent, there are some things he cannot do by your descriptions). I will counter that the amount of evil in this universe is superfluous. You are basically saying bad stuff happens, but his motives are good.
This is how it comes across to me. Supposing you were some investigator sent to investigate a crime, upon getting there you come across a lot of bodies, showing signs of heavy mutilation, days of torture. You even come across animals, tortured extensively as well. Do you conclude the perpetrator of these crimes was a raving sociopath or some misunderstood genius who's trying to help humanity?

Don't get your pantsu in a bunch yet, it's a hypothetical question.

Now, I'll start from the investigator part. You have only come across one piece of evidence, you have not seen the whole big picture so from your vantage point, you may judge it as evil but from the vantage point of one who is omnipotent and omniscient, you cannot make that call.

e.g. it is the year 1914, you come upon a cabin in the woods and find the bodies of 3 young men who have been shot, each of them a bullet to the head. You as the investigator are wondering who the raving sociopath is that orchestrated the crime. You will be right to do so based on what you are seeing.
Now let us say somehow that you somehow came upon some super magical powers to see the future that those 3 young men were indeed Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Mao Zedong and because of their deaths, the lives of some 81 million people have been spared. You'll immediately be thanking the "raving sociopath" who was so good and had the foresight to kill these animals before they came to power.

Now this is not to mean that God cannot fix things some other "better" way. It means that since you can't see the big picture, you are not in the position to make the call. The point I am trying to make here is that for you to truly tell what is good and what is evil, you have to view events from a transcendent vantage point.

From your observing position, even if you came upon the best solution, you will not recognize it. This is why I've tried to use the video game/virtual universe analogy so as to put you in God's position in a sense.

"The problem of evil" does not in any way limit God's omnipotence, omniscience and omni-goodness (permit me to use the phrase).


P/s: I have not yet read Alvin Platinga. . . . .and forgive me as I might not be as forthcoming for a while after this, I've got a huge chunk of procrastinated work I need to catch up on. Still feel free to hit me with a reply though.

Mr_Anony:
Now, I'll start from the investigator part. You have only come across one piece of evidence, you have not seen the whole big picture so from your vantage point, you may judge it as evil but from the vantage point of one who is omnipotent and omniscient, you cannot make that call.

Maybe, but there isn't any evidence of some omnixxx around. There's just copious evil, much more than necessary to justify any conceivable motive that isn't nefarious.

Mr_Anony:
e.g. it is the year 1914, you come upon a cabin in the woods and find the bodies of 3 young men who have been shot, each of them a bullet to the head. You as the investigator are wondering who the raving sociopath is that orchestrated the crime. You will be right to do so based on what you are seeing.
Now let us say somehow that you somehow came upon some super magical powers to see the future that those 3 young men were indeed Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Mao Zedong and because of their deaths, the lives of some 81 million people have been spared. You'll immediately be thanking the "raving sociopath" who was so good and had the foresight to kill these animals before they came to power.

Now this is not to mean that God cannot fix things some other "better" way. It means that since you can't see the big picture, you are not in the position to make the call. The point I am trying to make here is that for you to truly tell what is good and what is evil, you have to view events from a transcendent vantage point.

From your observing position, even if you came upon the best solution, you will not recognize it. This is why I've tried to use the video game/virtual universe analogy so as to put you in God's position in a sense.

Like you've said, there are other ways a God, or even mere mortals, could have gone about solving the issue ie. assuming they could see the future (besides I thought God doesn't interfere with their choice making, yet he has a problem with their future choices and interferes by having them killed off?). And I'm not talking about simple bullet to the head deaths, I'm talking about horrible, serial killer type deaths (indeed worse than many a serial killer deaths). In nature for instance, you have viruses that eat other life from the inside out over a period of weeks (I think, not too sure of the duration). Or the infamous fungi that turn ants into zombies, reanimating dead ants after they've eaten some of their organs, killing them in the process, and then using their bodies to move around. The levels of natural evil available are far more than what would be sufficient to achieve some 'good' aim down the road. Why should the investigator assume a 'good' motive? There's absolutely no reason to other than naiveté. Said investigator would be deemed as highly incompetent by any rational being judging him.

Mr_Anony:
"The problem of evil" does not in any way limit God's omnipotence, omniscience and omni-goodness (permit me to use the phrase).

If he knew what was going on, not to mention what would happen in the future, had unlimited resources to aid, had a 'good' purpose and was by nature averse to suffering, then like you've already stated there very likely would be other less evil ways to achieve this greater good.

Bonus: Your reply to my point about omniscience, you might as well just have said whargarrble. You basically just asked me to accept his claims, which he didn't even make to me himself nor did he supply any good evidence of having made said claim, on faith. Like I already said, there's no way he could know for sure, unless logic does not apply to him. You think a supposedly wise being would not be able to see my point? Even if God himself showed up and told me personally he was omniscient I'd tell him he was being disingenuous.

I'm not sure what your free-choice entails, but you also state that ultimately man is not in control of his destiny, yet he has free-choice. He isn't in charge, yet he has free-choice? And God still judges him for his perceived failures. (Sometimes for things like eating shellfish or pig, or working on sabbath, but that's another issue). As for your computer analogy, trust me, any programmer would accept that his AI's flaws are his own. He would set about making a better program if he cared (even the architect in the matrix did so). That's simply not how programming works, formulas determine their actions, formulas coded by the programmer. He would accept his code is flawed.

Omnipotent, everything about him is true, yet there is false in this universe. Who is responsible for false then? Not God?

More bonuses maybe but enough for now, I suppose

Zikkyy: Have observed that when people say there is nothing like freewill (or is it free-choice) in the bible, they are actually telling you that freewill (free-choice)does exist. now compare the comment below:



with this one:



Same author, same post. LOL

You fail to get the gist. Look at it this way:

You are told that you have freedom of speech (freewill) and you decide to exercise this freedom (choice) by voicing out your displeasure, but then you're instantly arrested and locked up for choosing to exercise your right, would you still be able to say that you really have that freedom of speech (freewill) despite that seeming choice you had? Certainly not.

And that's the point. The idea that people will be punished for exercising their freewill negates the very idea of freewill in the first place. In other words, I am only allowed to do what God wants me to do, else I face the punishment --- that certainly does not sound like freewill to me.

Purist:

You fail to get the gist. Look at it this way:

You are told that you have freedom of speech (freewill) and you decide to exercise this freedom (choice) by voicing out your displeasure, but then you're instantly arrested and locked up for choosing to exercise your right, would you still be able to say that you really have that freedom of speech (freewill) despite that seeming choice you had? Certainly not.

And that's the point. The idea that people will be punished for exercising their freewill negates the very idea of freewill in the first place. In other words, I am only allowed to do what God wants me to do, else I face the punishment --- that certainly does not sound like freewill to me.

It is you who doesn't get it.
The life is not yours in the first place, it is borrowed. you are told how best to use it so that it can benefit you

wiegraf:
Maybe, but there isn't any evidence of some omnixxx around. There's just copious evil, much more than necessary to justify any conceivable motive that isn't nefarious.



Like you've said, there are other ways a God, or even mere mortals, could have gone about solving the issue ie. assuming they could see the future (besides I thought God doesn't interfere with their choice making, yet he has a problem with their future choices and interferes by having them killed off?). And I'm not talking about simple bullet to the head deaths, I'm talking about horrible, serial killer type deaths (indeed worse than many a serial killer deaths). In nature for instance, you have viruses that eat other life from the inside out over a period of weeks (I think, not too sure of the duration). Or the infamous fungi that turn ants into zombies, reanimating dead ants after they've eaten some of their organs, killing them in the process, and then using their bodies to move around. The levels of natural evil available are far more than what would be sufficient to achieve some 'good' aim down the road. Why should the investigator assume a 'good' motive? There's absolutely no reason to other than naiveté. Said investigator would be deemed as highly incompetent by any rational being judging him.




If he knew what was going on, not to mention what would happen in the future, had unlimited resources to aid, had a 'good' purpose and was by nature averse to suffering, then like you've already stated there very likely would be other less evil ways to achieve this greater good.

Bonus: Your reply to my point about omniscience, you might as well just have said whargarrble. You basically just asked me to accept his claims, which he didn't even make to me himself nor did he supply any good evidence of having made said claim, on faith. Like I already said, there's no way he could know for sure, unless logic does not apply to him. You think a supposedly wise being would not be able to see my point? Even if God himself showed up and told me personally he was omniscient I'd tell him he was being disingenuous.

I'm not sure what your free-choice entails, but you also state that ultimately man is not in control of his destiny, yet he has free-choice. He isn't in charge, yet he has free-choice? And God still judges him for his perceived failures. (Sometimes for things like eating shellfish or pig, or working on sabbath, but that's another issue). As for your computer analogy, trust me, any programmer would accept that his AI's flaws are his own. He would set about making a better program if he cared (even the architect in the matrix did so). That's simply not how programming works, formulas determine their actions, formulas coded by the programmer. He would accept his code is flawed.

Omnipotent, everything about him is true, yet there is false in this universe. Who is responsible for false then? Not God?

More bonuses maybe but enough for now, I suppose

I'll come back to this

Mr_Anony:
It is you who doesn't get it.
The life is not yours in the first place, it is borrowed. you are told how best to use it so that it can benefit you

If the life is not mine, basically everything I do is according to the whims of the "owner" of my life. So tell me, whence cometh the freewill then? I'm told how best to live my life and if I fail to do as expected, I am punished for choosing otherwise. In essence, the so-called choice is at best a charade. Do you also believe in predestination?

Mr_Anony:
I'll come back to this

Take your time. I'm paying the price for my indolence atm... Sort of

Purist:

If the life is not mine, basically everything I do is according to the whims of the "owner" of my life. So tell me, whence cometh the freewill then? I'm told how best to live my life and if I fail to do as expected, I am punished for choosing otherwise. In essence, the so-called choice is at best a charade.

If I give you a television set and give you an instruction manual about how best to use it, You have your freedom of choice on how to use it. if you break it, that's your problem not mine. You can't eat your cake and have it.

Do you also believe in predestination?

If you scroll up, you'll see my discussion with weigraf about the nature determinism and freechoice, also I linked mazaje to a thread where these things were discussed in depth.

Mr_Anony:
If I give you a television set and give you an instruction manual about how best to use it, You have your freedom of choice on how to use it. if you break it, that's your problem not mine. You can't eat your cake and have it.

In that case, the television is mine, right? And if I break it, it is entirely my problem. I don't have to be punished by NTA or you (because you gave it to me) for breaking my own TV. This opposes the nature of the monotheistic gods and the explanation you put up earlier about "borrowed" life.

Mr_Anony:
If you scroll up, you'll see my discussion with weigraf about the nature determinism and freechoice, also I linked mazaje to a thread where these things were discussed in depth.

Okay, I'll look it up.

Purist:

In that case, the television is mine, right? And if I break it, it is entirely my problem. I don't have to be punished by NTA or you (because you gave it to me) for breaking my own TV. This opposes the nature of the monotheistic gods and the explanation you put up earlier about "borrowed" life.

basically yes, in the same way your life is yours and if you destroy it, it is entirely your problem. . . . .but remember I gave you the TV, you did not buy it yourself so I have every right to be displeased but your punishment is in the sin itself i.e. as the breaking of the TV results in the loss of the TV so does sin result in death.
You cannot eat your cake and have it.

Purist: Okay, I'll look it up.

I think you'll find it interesting

Purist:
You fail to get the gist. Look at it this way:

What exactly is freewill (free-choice)? I think we see free-will (free-choice) from a different perspective; reading your post, i'll assume you see free-will as the ability to control the outcome of your decisions. You can only control what's within your power to control, e.g. you cannot chose to live & exceed Methuselah's record (atleast for now). But that's is not say you have no control over your actions.

Purist:
You are told that you have freedom of speech (freewill) and you decide to exercise this freedom (choice) by voicing out your displeasure, but then you're instantly arrested and locked up for choosing to exercise your right, would you still be able to say that you really have that freedom of speech (freewill) despite that seeming choice you had? Certainly not.

The lack of freedom of speech does not imply lack of choice. Are you saying the existence of National constitution/law takes away the freedom of choice? if the law says stealing or fraud (419/yahoo) will land you in prison, it is not taking away your ability to choose. That's why the government went ahead and built prisons; for those that will make that choice. You have to be in charge (or be an island independent of God/nature/societal rules men set for themselves e.t.c) to control every outcome.

Purist:
And that's the point. The idea that people will be punished for exercising their freewill negates the very idea of freewill in the first place. In other words, I am only allowed to do what God wants me to do, else I face the punishment --- that certainly does not sound like freewill to me.

No, those are rules/commandments/guidance. You have a choice to be in God's good book or he send you packing. And it because he is in charge, he runs things. Your company can say visiting NL during working hours will earn you a two week suspension from work, that is not to say you cannot visit NL during working hours.

Mr_Anony:
basically yes, in the same way your life is yours and if you destroy it, it is entirely your problem. . . . .but remember I gave you the TV, you did not buy it yourself so I have every right to be displeased but your punishment is in the sin itself i.e. as the breaking of the TV results in the loss of the TV so does sin result in death.
You cannot eat your cake and have it.

You sure have every right to be displeased, but if I found the manual to contain half-truths, untruths and contradictions, I shouldn't be punished for treating the TV in a way that would eventually lead to its destruction, especially if I genuinely felt that was the best way to go about it as logic dictated. You as the omnipotent TV giver on the other hand, should have handed me a manual that is so clear and without any equivocations, so easy to understand that it would simply be impossible to interpret in any other way unintended by you. But since it is clearly not the case, you're the most culpable and should be rightly sued.

You cannot eat your cake and have it.

Zikkyy:

What exactly is freewill (free-choice)? I think we see free-will (free-choice) from a different perspective; reading your post, i'll assume you see free-will as the ability to control the outcome of your decisions. You can only control what's within your power to control, e.g. you cannot chose to live & exceed Methuselah's record (atleast for now). But that's is not say you have no control over your actions.



The lack of freedom of speech does not imply lack of choice. Are you saying the existence of National constitution/law takes away the freedom of choice? if the law says stealing or fraud (419/yahoo) will land you in prison, it is not taking away your ability to choose. That's why the government went ahead and built prisons; for those that will make that choice. You have to be in charge (or be an island independent of God/nature/societal rules men set for themselves e.t.c) to control every outcome.



No, those are rules/commandments/guidance. You have a choice to be in God's good book or he send you packing. And it because he is in charge, he runs things. Your company can say visiting NL during working hours will earn you a two week suspension from work, that is not to say you cannot visit NL during working hours.

Perhaps I should have clarified my stance earlier on. My main grouse with the freewill concept is its incompatibility with the concept of predestination. Of course every human has a choice (freewill), you cannot argue against that. But when you begin to claim that it is God that gave this freewill (or you attempt to give the concept a religious feel), then that goes against the nature and notion of the monotheistic gods, because with them, "choice/freewill" is simply a farce (refer to Jeremiah 1:5, Romans 9:17, etc). Serve me or burn forever! Do my will or perish! -- dictator style; that's how they role. Revisit my freedom of speech analogy to gain some perspective.