08 Aug 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonWhy can’t a kind and all-powerful god simply make everybody inevitably CHOOSE to be kind because it is in their nature to be kind and so they WANT to be kind?
[b]…Because he wanted a world with real people who made real choices between good and bad and knew the difference between the two…
But why would he want us to have choices between good and bad RATHER than choices between various good actions if he is so kind? And if he is all-powerful and if he really wants as to knew the difference between “g ...[text shortened]... f the brain called the limbic system and its interaction with certain other parts of the brain.[/b]
So what if their nature makes them unable to choose otherwise -that’s a good thing. Just imagine what a wonderful world we would live in if everybody was bent on helping everybody: no more poverty; no crime; no wars etc.----------hamilton-------------------------
Yes , it would be good (in a way) , but it would be a world of automated robot humans who would be doing only what they were forced to do by God. All the acts of "kindness" and "love" and "good deeds" would be souless and devoid of meaning or depth because humans would only do them because they were hotwired to do them.
Compare that to the world God actually made where people make brave choices that they don't HAVE to make to further the course of goodness and love. People like Martin Luther King who despite death threats continued on anyway sacrificing his life for a greater cause out of choice.
Acts of courage would be meaningless in your world. A robot cannot be "courageous" it just follows orders. There would be no "struggle" for anyone. All humans would just do what they were programmed to do. Period. No surprises. No fear. But also no love (at least not as I undertsand it).
No , hard though it is , God went all the way and went for real people and real choice , real morality and real love. Proper grown up human beings not robots who have escaped from huxley's brave new world.
09 Aug 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterI think you missed the point…..
A vegetable feels no love, happiness etc so obviously I wouldn’t want to become a “body snatcher”. But I also wouldn’t ever want the “flaws” in my humanity because my “flaws” generally make me less happy -not more happy! Love and happiness doesn’t come from “flaws” as you suggest here, it comes from the part of the brain called the limbic system and it ...[text shortened]... you don't get this now I will be wondering whether you have been snatched yourself. LOL
….
…he meant he was losing something essentially human about himself. The ability to love …
Actually that was my point at least in part -the not being able to love or be happy part I mean. My point is that you don’t need hate, risk etc to be able to feel love -there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support such a hypothesis. What is the PREMICE of your belief that you need hate, risk etc to feel love? Have you really studied the scientific knowledge of how the human brain works? -although I am not an expert -I have! Can you give me any websites explaining any scientific research that gives evidence in support of this hypothesis?
09 Aug 08
4 edits
Originally posted by knightmeister…Yes , it would be good (in a way) , but it would be a world of automated robot humans who would be doing only what they were forced to do by God. All the acts of "kindness" and "love" and "good deeds" would be soulless and devoid of meaning or depth because humans would only do them because they were hotwired to do them…
Why can’t a kind and all-powerful god simply make everybody inevitably CHOOSE to be kind because it is in their nature to be kind and so they WANT to be kind?
So what if their nature makes them unable to choose otherwise -that’s a good thing. Just imagine what a wonderful world we would live in if everybody was bent on helping everybody: no more pove per grown up human beings not robots who have escaped from huxley's brave new world.
What is the PREMICE for that above hypothesis? In what way would being “hotwired” to WANT to be kind and also to naturally love (remember: we generally don’t CHOOSE who we love) make that love or kindness “soulless and devoid of meaning or depth”? I once fell in love at first sight. Although I can choose to be kind or unkind, I didn’t CHOOSE to fall in love -so I guess I am hardwired to fall in love in response to seeing her anyway. But I fail to see in what way that makes that love “soulless and devoid of meaning or depth” -I mean, it defiantly didn’t feel that way! Would you deny this?
…Acts of courage would be meaningless in your world....…
In the hypothetical world I talked about earlier, that is true. The need for real “courage” would only demonstrate there is something very bad about the world.
…There would be no "struggle" for anyone....…
In the hypothetical world I talked about earlier, that wouldn’t be necessarily true. You can "struggle" to perform a task that has no possibility of it causing suffering -as an extremely trivial example; “struggling” to solve the Rubik's Cube.
…for anyone. All humans would just do what they were programmed to do. Period. No surprises. No fear. But also no love (at least not as I understand it)....…
In the hypothetical world I talked about earlier, that wouldn’t be true. You could still have “surprises” and, if I was “all-powerful”, I may even allow just a bit of “fear” (e.g. “fear” that a person may have that they would fail to achieve some task) because, strangely, we humans sometimes want a bit of fear as long as it isn’t overwhelming although I wouldn’t allow shear terror because that would make me unkind. I would also definitely allow real and meaningful love.
…God went all the way and went for real people and real choice ,...…
In what way are a number of choices that have no harmful outcomes “not real”?
12 Aug 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIn the hypothetical world I talked about earlier, that is true. The need for real “courage” would only demonstrate there is something very bad about the world.-----------------hamilton---------------------------
[b]…Yes , it would be good (in a way) , but it would be a world of automated robot humans who would be doing only what they were forced to do by God. All the acts of "kindness" and "love" and "good deeds" would be soulless and devoid of meaning or depth because humans would only do them because they were hotwired to do them…
What is the PREM ...[text shortened]... [/b]
In what way are a number of choices that have no harmful outcomes “not real”?[/b]
Good .This is what I have been looking for. You have at least admitted that there is an aspect of human charater/growth that would be impossible to have in your sanitised hypothetical universe. Courage is a quality that could not flourish in your universe. An aspect of what makes us real live human beings can only happen in some universes and not others.
Courage is one quality that is intimately tied up with real choices because only a being that can make a real choice to resist fear can be said to be courageous. Courage can only happen if a being has a real choice (not a pseudo choice) between two real alternatives (eg - give in to fear - do not give in to fear)
Ok , now that's established , could this not also be said to apply to love and hate? How can a real act of compassion happen unless that being has a real choice between either staying indifferent or showing compassion? If my partner loves me only because she is hotwired to by instinct is that real love ? I suggest to you that despite what "science" might say , most people would say that they would not feel loved by a being that was forced to love them like a programmed robot.
12 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI once fell in love at first sight. Although I can choose to be kind or unkind, I didn’t CHOOSE to fall in love -so I guess I am hardwired to fall in love in response to seeing her anyway. But I fail to see in what way that makes that love “soulless and devoid of meaning or depth” -I mean, it defiantly didn’t feel that way! Would you deny this?-------------------------------hamilton-------------------------------------------
[b]…Yes , it would be good (in a way) , but it would be a world of automated robot humans who would be doing only what they were forced to do by God. All the acts of "kindness" and "love" and "good deeds" would be soulless and devoid of meaning or depth because humans would only do them because they were hotwired to do them…
What is the PREM [/b]
In what way are a number of choices that have no harmful outcomes “not real”?[/b]
You may not have chosen to fall in love but within you probably had the ability to squash or deny these feelings (as people often do) so in some sense it is still a choice. You probably chose at some point in your life to allow yourself to be open to these feelings.
What happened after that ? Did the love grow? Did you make any choices after that? Many relationships start off with strong feelings of "falling in love" and then flounder because people think love is just a "feeling" not an act of will. The stronger love comes when the intial romantic feelings die away (as they usually do) and they see the other person as they really are warts and all. That's when a different love kicks in. If you only love someone when you feel all gooey about them , that's easy. It's when they hurt you and irritate you that you find out if you really love them.
If you look around you you will see many relationships falling apart because the "deep and meaning" falling in love stage has past and people don't know how to handle it. Couples that last for 40 years or so do not rely on "feelings of falling in love" to sustain their relationship . They make conscious choices to maintain the love in their relationship. Often involving tough choices. You know it . I know it.
12 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIn the hypothetical world I talked about earlier, that wouldn’t be necessarily true. You can "struggle" to perform a task that has no possibility of it causing suffering -as an extremely trivial example; “struggling” to solve the Rubik's Cube. -----------------------------------hamilton---------------------------------------------------------
[b]…Yes , it would be good (in a way) , but it would be a world of automated robot humans who would be doing only what they were forced to do by God. All the acts of "kindness" and "love" and "good deeds" would be soulless and devoid of meaning or depth because humans would only do them because they were hotwired to do them…
What is the PREM [/b]
In what way are a number of choices that have no harmful outcomes “not real”?[/b]
A rubik's cube would require a physical world containing objects with weight and mass. It would require also that you have hands and eyes and exist as a physical being. Such a world would have the capacity for injury (to your eye for example). Any physical universe with human beings in it has the capacity for injury and suffering.
What you need to really think about is how radically different the universe would have to be to eliminate all suffering. It would be unrecognisable.
12 Aug 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonMy point is that you don’t need hate, risk etc to be able to feel love -there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support such a hypothesis. What is the PREMICE of your belief that you need hate, risk etc to feel love? Have you really studied the scientific knowledge of how the human brain works? ------hamilton---------------------------
[b] I think you missed the point…..
….
…he meant he was losing something essentially human about himself. The ability to love …
Actually that was my point at least in part -the not being able to love or be happy part I mean. My point is that you don’t need hate, risk etc to be able to feel love -there is absolutely no scientific evidence to ...[text shortened]... y websites explaining any scientific research that gives evidence in support of this hypothesis?[/b]
Yes I have. I know about the limbic system and am familiar with evolutionary behavioural science. However, I believe that science is just an aspect of human knowledge. Science only gives us a certain perspective on things and results in a specific kind of knowledge.
Fior example , I can "know" scientifically everything there is to know about chocolate but if I have never tasted chocolate then what do I know? Science can never give us all the jigsaw pieces. It can never "prove" that Ghandi was right and Hitler was wrong.
The reason why I think hate is neccesary for love is because love needs to be a choice. If I only love someone because non-love is impossible for me then it's dead love to me. I may give affection etc but the person will always know that I am loving them not out of choice but out of a hotwired pre-programmed instinct to do so. I would have no choice but to love. Like my eye has no choice but to blink.
12 Aug 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou could still have “surprises” and, if I was “all-powerful”, I may even allow just a bit of “fear” ----------hamilton-----------------------
[b]…Yes , it would be good (in a way) , but it would be a world of automated robot humans who would be doing only what they were forced to do by God. All the acts of "kindness" and "love" and "good deeds" would be soulless and devoid of meaning or depth because humans would only do them because they were hotwired to do them…
What is the PREM ...[text shortened]... [/b]
In what way are a number of choices that have no harmful outcomes “not real”?[/b]
Please explain how you would do this whilst also maintaining complete control?
Also , even a little amount of fear in your world is suffering because it makes someone less happy than they would be otherwise. By introducing even a small amount of fear you would be decreasing happiness in your universe. Your universe would be less than perfect and you would have allowed it to be so for a specific reason. Which is exactly what God has done except he went a bit further , but the principle is the same nonetheless.
20 Aug 08
Originally posted by mazda9934God is a spirit. When the baby die, he/she dies physically. That is a problem for most non-believers and some believers as well. The baby will go to heaven and be spared from this evil, filthy earth. So you might think he is inconsiderate or whatever, but which is best? Living on earth or in heaven?
Please bring to mind your image of God.
Then, please tell me why he allows very small children to suffer and die ??
(No one has EVER given me a plausible answer to this question)
20 Aug 08
Originally posted by C U SoonAre you saying that “god” allows babies to die because it is better to live in heaven than on Earth? -if so, then why wouldn’t this “god” not just merely “allow” babies to die but kill all babies to send them to heaven as an act of mercy?
God is a spirit. When the baby die, he/she dies physically. That is a problem for most non-believers and some believers as well. The baby will go to heaven and be spared from this evil, filthy earth. So you might think he is inconsiderate or whatever, but which is best? Living on earth or in heaven?
20 Aug 08
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeister…Please explain how you would do this whilst also maintaining complete control?….
You could still have “surprises” and, if I was “all-powerful”, I may even allow just a bit of “fear” ----------hamilton-----------------------
Please explain how you would do this whilst also maintaining complete control?
Also , even a little amount of fear in your world is suffering because it makes someone less happy than they would be other ...[text shortened]... ctly what God has done except he went a bit further , but the principle is the same nonetheless.
In this hypothetical scenario where I would be “all-powerful”, I would arrange things to happen that would be surprising to him but not to me because I would have arranged it. Alternatively, I could allow some true chance but restrict the range of possible outcomes to those that don’t allow anything really nasty to happen.
…Also , even a little amount of fear in your world is suffering because it makes someone less happy than they would be otherwise. By introducing even a small amount of fear you would be decreasing happiness in your universe. .…
Yes. But earlier you asked me what if the child specifically requested to take a real “risk” and I answered by saying that I would allow him that option but only if he chose it and with the full understanding that it may involve a bit of real “fear” but short of unbearable terror. What I wouldn’t do is give the child reason to fear or put the child in risk when the child didn’t request it nor chose it.
…Which is exactly what God has done except he went a BIT FUTHER… (my emphasis)
If there is a “god”, he apparently went a “BIT FUTHER” by putting people at risk that didn’t choose to be put at risk and also causing many to suffer when, no matter what choices they had made, non of those choices could have prevented their suffering.
20 Aug 08
Originally posted by ZahlanziGod is going to stop it, if you accept the God of the Bible as God, you
he is arguing that a benevolent god with the power to stop evil would do so. if god has the power to stop children from dieing and he doesn't do so then he doesn't exist or he is not benevolent.
that's bullshlt. not only you are asking God to do something you are not willing to do but you are also asking him to do your job(our job). why not ask god to ma ...[text shortened]... trength and intelligence to alter the world. what happens on earth is entirely man's fault
also have to accept those things He has done, is doing, and will do
as well. Death at least the one we look at now will only last a short
time, the 2nd death is the one to avoid.
Kelly
20 Aug 08
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonif that was to happen, then the human race would become extinct -> making the creation of earth kind of useless. God is allowing babies to die just as much as he allows someone from any other age group to die.
Are you saying that “god” allows babies to die because it is better to live in heaven than on Earth? -if so, then why wouldn’t this “god” not just merely “allow” babies to die but kill all babies to send them to heaven as an act of mercy?
he wants us to stand in relationship with him (reason why we were created)
20 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeister…You may not have chosen to fall in love...…
I once fell in love at first sight. Although I can choose to be kind or unkind, I didn’t CHOOSE to fall in love -so I guess I am hardwired to fall in love in response to seeing her anyway. But I fail to see in what way that makes that love “soulless and devoid of meaning or depth” -I mean, it defiantly didn’t feel that way! Would you deny this?-------- love in their relationship. Often involving tough choices. You know it . I know it.
Correct.
…but within you probably had the ability to squash or deny these feelings (as people often do). ...…
Firstly, I am not aware of any ability to squash or deny my feelings -perhaps you have this ability but that would just mean that we have very different psychology.
Secondly, even if I had an ability to squash or deny my feelings, why on earth would I want to deny even to myself that I am in love?
…You probably CHOSE at some point in your life to allow yourself to be open to these feelings. .… (my emphasis)
No. I simply WAS open to these feelings -there was no “choosing“ about it.
… What happened after that ? Did the love grow? Did you make any choices after that? . …
I had to move address because it was too expensive to live where I was living but that meant I couldn’t see her again. I didn’t even get her name so tracing her would be virtually impossible. If I had stayed and formed a lasting relationship with her, then, of course, I would make “choices”. But I don’t “choose” to love her or anyone else, -if I do love, I just do -no choice! I cannot force myself to love somebody that I just don’t naturally love no matter how much I think I “should” love that person.