Originally posted by Lord Shark
Yes, your analysis of the weak point in your own argument is superb. It is your notion of 'real free will', which is question begging.

For me it's very simple. If a person is to be truely free and choose love and morality of his own volition then he also has to be free to choose evil and hate.

If a man can only choose A (love , God etc) then he is a robot. He must be compelled to chose that path because he is being forced to by something determining his life. He cannot be said to be self determining , and so the choice is not really his. It is being made for him - by a force greater than he.

If my son cannot rebel against me by his own free choice then what does it mean if he loves me? The value is hugely diminished. He is only doing what he is programmed to do. It's not real free will.

If you think about it simply , honestly and without complex rationalisations you will realise for yourself what I am saying is true , and you won't need me to waffle on about it any more.

Originally posted by knightmeister
For me it's very simple. If a person is to be truely free and choose love and morality of his own volition then he also has to be free to choose evil and hate.

If a man can only choose A (love , God etc) then he is a robot. He must be compelled to chose that path because he is being forced to by something determining his life. He cannot be said to ...[text shortened]... for yourself what I am saying is true , and you won't need me to waffle on about it any more.

Originally posted by knightmeister
For me it's very simple. If a person is to be truely free and choose love and morality of his own volition then he also has to be free to choose evil and hate.
This is at the heart of the Free Will Theodicy. Ever since I encountered it, so many years ago, I've been fascinated by why people present this as a plausible argument.

So I want to try to explain to you why it doesn't work for me. Not in order to persuade you that you are in error. I don't think that's an option. Rather, I hope that you might thereby help me understand how this argument fulfils its function.

You up for that?

I ask because I have thought about it a lot and with as much honesty and simplicity as I can muster. When that didn't work I deployed as rigorous an analysis as I could. And still, what you are saying appeared transparently false.

Which leaves a conundrum doesn't it. You're intelligent, and sincere. I might be a bit dim, but not that dim surely?

So, no waffle, let's try to tell it how it is, eh?

Originally posted by knightmeister
To see why, rerun your parent analogy but imagine you are all-powerful dad. You wouldn't have to restrict your son's freedom at all to ensure that no lasting irreversable harm came to him. You could both ensure that his choices had consequences sufficient to build moral character and set limits on how adverse those consequences could be.
------Lord s ...[text shortened]... control his environment , but I have to let go. Because I love him. It's agony though.

…real free will (and not some pseudo freedom)…

I don’t want to distract from Lord Shark’s taking a crack at your logic on this—and he is a better logical thinker than I am anyway.

But it seems to me that you are still confusing constraining the available choice-set with a person’s ability to effectively and freely choose from among the options that are in the choice-set. If “real free will” depends upon having an infinite choice-set, then none of us has “real free will” anyway.

The fact that choice entails consequences (both foreseeable and unforeseeable, potentially favorable and unfavorable, results of choosing) seems to me to have nothing to do with “free will”, since that could also be true in a strictly deterministic system. Except, perhaps, in “heaven” (as Lord Shark notes), where presumably you think people have “free will” without any potentially unfavorable results. Your rejection of the notion that an omnipotent God could create such a situation in this existence, because “in order for us to get to heaven , the conditions of this world have to take place first”, seems tantamount to saying that the conditions that hold in heaven logically (?!) require going through a world fraught with risk and suffering first. What “logic” constrains God in that respect?

Anyway, I hope you will take Lord Shark up on his challenge, since I’d like to see how he approaches it…

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Originally posted by knightmeister
[b]For me it's very simple. If a person is to be truely free and choose love and morality of his own volition then he also has to be free to choose evil and hate.
This is at the heart of the Free Will Theodicy. Ever since I encountered it, so many years ago, I've been fascinated by why people present this a ...[text shortened]... , but not that dim surely?

So, no waffle, let's try to tell it how it is, eh?[/b]

"..I have thought about it a lot and with as much honesty and simplicity as I could muster."

Dude. You're either honest and simple or dishonest and complex. You cant sit on the fence like that.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
"..I have thought about it a lot and with as much honesty and simplicity as I could muster."

Dude. You're either honest and simple or dishonest and complex. You cant sit on the fence like that.

Dude. You're either honest and simple or dishonest and complex. You cant sit on the fence like that.
That's rather black and white thinking from somebody who usually has such a colourful take on things..🙂

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]…real free will (and not some pseudo freedom)…

I don’t want to distract from Lord Shark’s taking a crack at your logic on this—and he is a better logical thinker than I am anyway.

But it seems to me that you are still confusing constraining the available choice-set with a person’s ability to effectively and freely choose from among the options ...[text shortened]... I hope you will take Lord Shark up on his challenge, since I’d like to see how he approaches it…[/b]

Originally posted by vistesd

I don’t want to distract from Lord Shark’s taking a crack at your logic on this—and he is a better logical thinker than I am anyway.
You're too kind.

I think you have made a good point here regarding the choice-set and I am interested to see how (if) knightmeister responds.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
[b]Dude. You're either honest and simple or dishonest and complex. You cant sit on the fence like that.
That's rather black and white thinking from somebody who usually has such a colourful take on things..🙂[/b]

Yes , I have a colorful take on things. i'm nuts!!

Now,Dear Lord Shark, can you be honest and simple or only try to be?
Do you understand where I'm going with this... 🙂

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Yes , I have a colorful take on things. i'm nuts!!

Now,Dear Lord Shark, can you be honest and simple or only try to be?
Do you understand where I'm going with this... 🙂

Originally posted by karoly aczel
can you be honest and simple or only try to be? Do you understand where I'm going with this...
I don't know if I understand where you are going, but let's see.

There is potentially a problem with trying to be simple because it might be subject to the principle of inversed effort-as in the case where you try harder to grasp on to a slippery fish and that makes holding it more rather than less difficult.

It is also tempting to view each of these, 'honesty' and 'simplicity' in essentialist terms, as fundamental aspects of self or character that one either has or has not.

But actually I don't see things quite like this. I see honesty and simplicity as ways of behaving. And if I have been as honest and appropriately simple as I can, given the task, it isn't for you to say that I have fallen short of the mark. I might have, I might not, but I don't think you can know that from there.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Originally posted by knightmeister
[b]For me it's very simple. If a person is to be truely free and choose love and morality of his own volition then he also has to be free to choose evil and hate.
This is at the heart of the Free Will Theodicy. Ever since I encountered it, so many years ago, I've been fascinated by why people present this a , but not that dim surely?

So, no waffle, let's try to tell it how it is, eh?[/b]

I don't think either of us are dim or dishonest. I'm up for it ...whatever you have planned.

I first came up with the term "real free will"(RFW) to counter the compatabilist free will (CFW)idea because to me CFW is just a Kop out. It seems to me to just say that we do make choices but the outcomes are inevitable and determined. This always seemed to me to be very distinct from choices that could be made where two outcomes are possible. To me if there is only one outcome then how can it be a proper choice?

Then again you might not be a compatabilist....However , the term RFW also entails for me something to do with love and moral responsibility. I assign respect and value on my wife's choice to love me because I believe she is free to not love meand not loving me is a possibility. If she hits me angrily with a frying pan (which may happen shortly if I don't let her get to her emails) then I hold her morally responsible for her actions because her choice to do so was not inevitable.

To me it's totally logical that to allow RFW to exist is going to result in at least some undesirable outcomes. I don't see how you can get one without the other. This is not a case for saying that this world had to be the way it is because it's not as if Christians are immune from wondering why the world has to be so gruesome , especially when we see things like the Haiti earthquake. I'm very aware of how hollow a theoretical debate on suffering can sound in the light of current events.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]…real free will (and not some pseudo freedom)…

I don’t want to distract from Lord Shark’s taking a crack at your logic on this—and he is a better logical thinker than I am anyway.

But it seems to me that you are still confusing constraining the available choice-set with a person’s ability to effectively and freely choose from among the options ...[text shortened]... I hope you will take Lord Shark up on his challenge, since I’d like to see how he approaches it…[/b]

What “logic” constrains God in that respect?

------------visted--------

The way I think about it - God has to "let go" of creation and intelligent creatures in order to allow for free choices and sentience. He could have populated heaven with automatons who would know nothing of separation from God and have no choice other then to be at one with God.

But God wanted more than this. The whole joy of heaven for God and us , is it being voluntary and not enforced. But in order for it to be voluntary we have to want to go there - but that entails the possibility of not choosing to go there also. It also means that sentient , choosing beings must exist (at least for a while) in an existence that is not heaven and not suffocated by God's presence. And here we are.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I don't think either of us are dim or dishonest. I'm up for it ...whatever you have planned.

I first came up with the term "real free will"(RFW) to counter the compatabilist free will (CFW)idea because to me CFW is just a Kop out. It seems to me to just say that we do make choices but the outcomes are inevitable and determined. This always seemed ...[text shortened]... how hollow a theoretical debate on suffering can sound in the light of current events.

knightmeister,

Thanks for engaging honestly, I appreciate it.

I'll have to think carefully about my response. For now, I'll say that there are two strands to your position. You are committed to a kind of libertarian free will which you call RFW and you see this as a necessary condition for what I'll call deep moral responsibility (DMR).

The other strand distinguishes the Logical Problem of Evil and the Evidential Problem of Evil. We agree that introducing RFW free and thus DMR solves the Logical Problem of Evil, but the Evidential Problem of Evil is tricky. Why is the world quite so icky? Perhaps the mystery card is required.

I think this does shed light on why we differ on this, since I am a compatibilist.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Originally posted by karoly aczel
[b] can you be honest and simple or only try to be? Do you understand where I'm going with this...
I don't know if I understand where you are going, but let's see.

There is potentially a problem with trying to be simple because it might be subject to the principle of inversed effort-as in the case where yo ...[text shortened]... f the mark. I might have, I might not, but I don't think you can know that from there.[/b]

You know whether you're honest. And you know what, judging from your posting history, I'm going to take your word for it🙂

Originally posted by josephw
Is god willing to prevent evil, [b]Yes.

but not able? He is able.

Then he is not omnipotent. Irrational conclussion.


Is he able but not willing? He is able and willing.

Then he is malevolent. An insolent conclussion.


Is he both able and willing? Why wouldn't He be?

Then whence cometh evil? [ ...[text shortened]... ither able nor willing? Moot point.

Then why call him God? Because He is. 🙂[/b]

No, he is not willing to stop people from doing evil.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
By your achingly selective and narrow reasoning, anything beyond our ability to comprehend fully is 'wanting it both ways.'

Or, in other words, nonsense. Anything we ascribe as being beyond our descriptive abilities, e.g., pi, infinity, how the universe began, or etc., becomes a black hole of circular reasoning lacking both beginning or end and eventually dissolves into absurdity.

What makes you think pi and how the universe began are beyond our descriptive abilities?

Pi is especially easy. It's the ratio of the circumference to the radius of a circle(right? Something like that).

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Must God be omnipotent? What's the problem if God isn't?

Then the Christians, Muslims and Jews are wrong.