Spirituality
07 Aug 08
07 Aug 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterCan your children drive? Can they fly by themselves? Do you really want them to have certain freedoms? Do they want them? Does giving someone the ability to cut his hand off necessitate cutting a few peoples hands off for them?
So you think it's possible to create a being that can go it's own way if it pleases but at the same time the risk of it going the way you don't want it to can be eliminated?
Look around you (eg politically correct health and safety laws) reducing risk leads to reduced freedom of choice. My children can't even do a three legged race anymore at school!!!!Lol
I will ask you again: What freedom is being provided in exchange for the death of a child to malaria? Is that death the direct result of a freedom that we have? Is it a direct result of a free action that was knowingly taken? If you cannot answer those simple questions then you have to admit that your whole argument is flawed through and through.
07 Aug 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat freedom is being provided in exchange for the death of a child to malaria?-------whitey-------------------
Can your children drive? Can they fly by themselves? Do you really want them to have certain freedoms? Do they want them? Does giving someone the ability to cut his hand off necessitate cutting a few peoples hands off for them?
I will ask you again: What freedom is being provided in exchange for the death of a child to malaria? Is that death the direct r ...[text shortened]... simple questions then you have to admit that your whole argument is flawed through and through.
There is no freedom provided by the death of said child. I don't have all the answers , and because I don't you will no doubt see that as an opportunity to say my argument is utterly flawed (which of course it is not)
I can only say that malaria is part of our fallen , imperfect universe which is the way it is due to God having let go of it and allowed it to be free so to speak. Thus there is an indirect link as it were.
My question now---
Do you think it's possible to create a being that can go it's own way if it pleases but at the same time the risk of it going the way you don't want it to can be eliminated?
I could also ask ---- "Is it possible to allow a universe containing sentience to become free and for it to be a totally safe universe. ?"
07 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeister-and you still haven’t explained exactly what this “logical contradiction” is. Can you demonstrate through logic in what way would it be a “logical contradiction” for a kind and all-powerful “god” to be able to give all of us a large number of choices (thus give us a lot of freedom) but EXCUDING those choices that could lead to suffering?
So why couldn’t this god eliminate risk? -the fact we mortals cannot eliminate risk is irrelevant to the issue.--------------hamilton--------------
It's not irrelevant if the issue is one of logical contradiction rather than power.
The only “logical contradiction” here that is that it is quite self-evident that it is a logical contradiction that such a “god” would NOT do such a thing.
If I was a parent of a child and if only it was in my power to, I would give that child a large number of choices (thus giving him a lot of freedom) but EXCUDING those choices that could lead to suffering.
So why should we not expect a kind and all-powerful god to do the same?
07 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton"If I was a parent of a child and if only it was in my power to, I would give that child a large number of choices (thus giving him a lot of freedom) but EXCUDING those choices that could lead to suffering.
-and you still haven’t explained exactly what this “logical contradiction” is. Can you demonstrate through logic in what way would it be a “logical contradiction” for a kind and all-powerful “god” to be able to give all of us a large number of choices (thus give us a lot of freedom) but EXCUDING those choices that could lead to suffering?
The only ...[text shortened]... uld lead to suffering.
So why should we not expect a kind and all-powerful god to do the same?
So why should we not expect a kind and all-powerful god to do the [WORD TOO LONG]
Your mistake is to equate quantity with quality of choice. As a parent you could give your child any number of choices but if you said " child , you can do x , y , z ..... (ad infinitum) but you cannot do anything contrary to what I want you to do " then that is freedom (in terms of quantity) but not REAL freedom for the child to go their own way if they so wish.
Let's say you create a robot and you want to make it capable of love. It's real love you want it to be capable of , not some cupboard love or love that's just going through the motions , but real deep love. You want to be able to enter into a truely loving proper relationship with you.
If you give your robot a million different ways of loving you have given it one sort of freedom. If you give your robot the ability to love or not love (hate) then that's a very different type of freedom. Who really rates love when love does not involve a choice? If your partner HAD to love you would that be love? Any geek could create a robot that had a trillion different choices available to it , but they would not have given it proper freedom or sentience.
Do you understand the difference? Proper freedom implies the choice to do the thing or not do it. The choice and it's opposite choice. This can apply to doing good /bad choosing to be happy or self destruct etc .
Now please stop going on the offensive like your position is an open and shut case. It is not. I can put you back on the defensive in many ways. You are either going to think deeply about this or you are not. You have that choice , guess who gave it to you.
07 Aug 08
4 edits
Originally posted by knightmeister…Your mistake is to equate quantity with quality of choice. As a parent you could give your child any number of choices but if you said " child , you can do x , y , z ..... (ad infinitum) but you cannot do anything contrary to what I WANT you to do.….(my emphasis)
"If I was a parent of a child and if only it was in my power to, I would give that child a large number of choices (thus giving him a lot of freedom) but EXCUDING those choices that could lead to suffering.
So why should we not expect a kind and all-powerful god to do the same?"-----------------------------hamilton------------------------------------ hink deeply about this or you are not. You have that choice , guess who gave it to you.
That wasn’t quite what I was suggesting: I wasn’t suggesting making the child to whatever I WANT him to do, rather I was suggesting letting him do what ever HE likes EXLUDING those things that can cause suffering -even if I don’t particularly LIKE some of those choices (despite the fact they cannot cause suffering). This would not only produce a good quantity of choices but also good quality in terms of the range of very different types of choices.
If I was “all-powerful” then I would arrange for my child to have the option to learn to ride a bike but, using my infinite powers, without the risk of hurting himself if or when he falls off the bike because pain or injury is not an essential part of the learning process. I assume most (“normal&ldquo😉 children do not particularly want to cause suffering to others let alone themselves so I don’t think most would not feel that there choices/freedom would be unacceptably limited if they know that a minority of choices where denied to them because of the potential for those particular choices to cause suffering.
…Who really rates love when love does not involve a choice? . .…
Err…haven’t you heard of love at first sight? -just ask people who has fallen in love at first sight and I think they will confirm they would rate that love very highly.
When I love, like most (or all?) people, I do not “choose” to love because love is a raw emotion that is not directly controlled by the rational mind. I do not get up one day and think to myself: “I think I choose to fall deeply in love sometime today with that woman I sometimes see next door” and then do just that.
So if there is an all powerful “god”, then he apparently didn’t give us much “choice” anyway -at least regarding who we full in love with.
…You are either going to think deeply about this or you are not...
Please don’t insult my intelligence by making out I don’t think sufficiently.
…have that choice , guess who gave it to you..…
Usually nobody. Sometimes people give me choices but usually just the current situation is what presents me with choices -no “god” needed there to explain why I have choices.
07 Aug 08
The thread title reminded me of being really bored on a recent weekend and watching some kind of BMX biking event where they rode around on ramps and did tricks and flips. I'm not sure what the 'proper' name for it, but it was like skateboarding except with even more spectacular and painful looking falls. One guy flew over a ramp and landed face-first on the other side. Naturally, he did not have the foresight to wear a proper protective helmet.
This world seems more like that obstacle course. There is no parent holding the handlebars and keeping junior away from traffic. And almost everyone who runs it ends up flat on their arse at several points along the way.
08 Aug 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterThere is a basic principle to understand about the relationship between allowing for the freedom of a person and their development and the potential for suffering.
There is a basic principle to understand about the relationship between allowing for the freedom of a person and their development and the potential for suffering.
If you don't accept the principle you will find the God /+ suffering debate to be clearly in favour of Atheism. If you do accept it you will find Theist arguments about suffering more pla ...[text shortened]... ren learning to ride bikes is one of these things , another is sentient beings with free will.
Well, even if that is true, such a relationship would clearly not be surjective. I mean, there are instances of suffering that have nothing to do (at least no non-ersatz relationship) with the free actions of humans. I believe your argument here dissolves when we consider compatibilist freedom. But since the last thing I want to do is get into another debate with you on libertarianism versus compatibilism, I will simply point out that your approach here is, in yet another way, insufficient to meet the general argument from evil. There are any number of "potential(s) for suffering" that just don't have really anything to do with human free will: plagues, cancers, natural disasters, and many more. Why does god permit such things when he could simply make the world such that they do not obtain?
You either accept that there are some things that cannot logically happen without allowing for the potential for suffering/pain or you don't.
Again, even if you were to show that some instances of what we take to be suffering are logically necessary for the greater good, that is not good enough in itself to meet the problem of evil. The argument will still pack its punch if we can show that it is likely that instances of logically unnecessary suffering exist. That is if the theist insists that god is omni-potent/scient/benevolent.
08 Aug 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterMy question to you is how does God go about creating a free universe whilst simultaneously controlling every outcome and making it 100% risk free.
why couldn’t this god eliminate all risk while still giving everybody numerous choices? ---------hamilton--------------------------------------
And this is the very question we have to ask. Why can't he ? If it was merely a question of power then in theory it should be possible. But what if there is more to it than that.
To a Christian the que ...[text shortened]... universe whilst simultaneously controlling every outcome and making it 100% risk free.
In short, he gives us compatibilist freedom to go along with spectacularly good characters and creates us such that we freely exhibit the proper responsiveness to practical reasons that accord with virtuous living. Something along those lines.
He could also ixnay the other things that cause suffering and "risk" for seemingly no good reason (and that don't have anything to do with free will).
08 Aug 08
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterIf you like Star Trek you will know about Data's struggle to be human. In my mind the next step of his development might involve some potential risks. He could become more human by learning to love and feel emotion but could this be achieved without the capacity for hate?
The Christian belief (and I also think this quite logical) is that it's logically impossible. Atheists always say this sort of thing but don't seem to be able to back it up with a logical alternative that is risk free. It's a bit like asking why couldn't God have just helped us make cars that go really fast but never crash?
A universe that is set p between freedom and potential pain then it becomes easier to get your head around things.
Why couldn't it be achieved without the capacity for hatred? And, even if achieving these things did require the capacity for hatred, it doesn't seem like they would require that such capacity be exercised.
Also, I'm not too familiar with Data (or Star Trek). What is the extent of Data's mentality?
The Christian belief (and I also think this quite logical) is that it's logically impossible....It's a bit like asking why couldn't God have just helped us make cars that go really fast but never crash?
Um, but it's logically possible that God helps us make cars that go really fast but never crash. That state of affairs doesn't entail a logical contradiction.
08 Aug 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterSo you fully admit that if your argument was an attempt to explain the existence of suffering, then it is invalid, as you fully admit the existence of suffering that has nothing to do with free will.
There is no freedom provided by the death of said child. I don't have all the answers , and because I don't you will no doubt see that as an opportunity to say my argument is utterly flawed (which of course it is not)
Now lets look at quantity. If there is a logical argument which proves that freedom, no matter how small requires the existence of suffering then we must ask how much suffering for how much freedom? Will your logical argument provide the formula? If not then is it possible that:
1. the suffering required is minuscule to the extent that it is meaningless.
2. the suffering required is nearly infinite.
08 Aug 08
Originally posted by LemonJelloUm, but it's logically possible that God helps us make cars that go really fast but never crash. That state of affairs doesn't entail a logical contradiction.----------lemon---------------
[b]If you like Star Trek you will know about Data's struggle to be human. In my mind the next step of his development might involve some potential risks. He could become more human by learning to love and feel emotion but could this be achieved without the capacity for hate?
Why couldn't it be achieved without the capacity for hatred? And, even i ...[text shortened]... y fast but never crash. That state of affairs doesn't entail a logical contradiction.[/b]
I imagine such a car would have to be stuck to the road via such a strong railing system that it would more likely resemble a train. In any case the freedom behind the wheel would have to be severely restricted.
08 Aug 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo you fully admit that if your argument was an attempt to explain the existence of suffering, then it is invalid, as you fully admit the existence of suffering that has nothing to do with free will. ----------------whitey----------------------
So you fully admit that if your argument was an attempt to explain the existence of suffering, then it is invalid, as you fully admit the existence of suffering that has nothing to do with free will.
Now lets look at quantity. If there is a logical argument which proves that freedom, no matter how small requires the existence of suffering then we must ...[text shortened]... s minuscule to the extent that it is meaningless.
2. the suffering required is nearly infinite.
No , I said that malaria does not provide freedom but that does not mean there is no link. Co2 gases do not provide any power to cars but they are just a nasty side effect of combustion. In that sense there is a direct link between co2 and travel , but co2 does not PROVIDE or create travel.
08 Aug 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIf I was “all-powerful” then I would arrange for my child to have the option to learn to ride a bike but, using my infinite powers, without the risk of hurting himself if or when he falls off the bike because pain or injury is not an essential part of the learning process.------------------hamilton----------------------------
[b]…Your mistake is to equate quantity with quality of choice. As a parent you could give your child any number of choices but if you said " child , you can do x , y , z ..... (ad infinitum) but you cannot do anything contrary to what I WANT you to do.….(my emphasis)
That wasn’t quite what I was suggesting: I wasn’t suggesting making the child ...[text shortened]... ituation is what presents me with choices -no “god” needed there to explain why I have choices.[/b]
And would such a process be voluntary or would you force it on said child? What if the child wanted to try it a different way? What if the child thought that the risk of falling off was worth it?
Would you "force" your child to do it your way , or would he have a choice in the matter?
(Of course all of the above assumes that you had endowed your child with the ability to think for himself or go his own way or disagree with you if he so wished - your scenario assumes that your child will just do as he is told and follow your instructions without question - which as any parent knows is not the kind of behaviour one gets from a thinking , feeling , sentient being with a mind and will all of it's own)
08 Aug 08
Originally posted by LemonJelloAnd what if we didn't like this idea or didn't want to co-operate with God in this endeavour? Would we have to sign up or would it be voluntary? In short , would we be volunteers in such a universe or conscripts?
[b]My question to you is how does God go about creating a free universe whilst simultaneously controlling every outcome and making it 100% risk free.
In short, he gives us compatibilist freedom to go along with spectacularly good characters and creates us such that we freely exhibit the proper responsiveness to practical reasons that accord with vi ...[text shortened]... and "risk" for seemingly no good reason (and that don't have anything to do with free will).[/b]
08 Aug 08
3 edits
Originally posted by knightmeister…And would such a process be voluntary or would you force it on said child?….
If I was “all-powerful” then I would arrange for my child to have the option to learn to ride a bike but, using my infinite powers, without the risk of hurting himself if or when he falls off the bike because pain or injury is not an essential part of the learning process.------------------hamilton----------------------------
And would such a proc our one gets from a thinking , feeling , sentient being with a mind and will all of it's own)
In this totally hypothetical scenario I have made up, it would be voluntary.
…What if the child wanted to try it a different way? ….
In this totally hypothetical scenario I have made up, I would allow him to do it any way he wants. But, because I am “all-powerful“, I would so arrange it so all those “alternative ways” will not lead him into hurting himself.
…What if the child thought that the risk of falling off was worth it? ….
In this totally hypothetical scenario I have made up, because I would be “all-powerful”, I would so arrange it so that he could fall off without hurting himself. I think how I do this is irrelevant but perhaps, say, I could suddenly create an invisible soft mat in exactly the right position and moment each time when and where he falls off so that he doesn’t hurt himself because he will fall on the mat.
…your scenario assumes that your child will just do as he is told and follow your instructions without question ….
In this totally hypothetical scenario I have made up, I would give the child the option of ignoring my instructions -so any “instructions” I may have are merely “suggestions“.
So why wouldn’t a kind and all-powerful “god” (assuming such a thing exists for a moment) be facing this same kind of scenario? -if he is “kind” and “all-powerful” why would he not give us good quality freedom but without the suffering? -logically such a “god” would and yet we can observe that there is suffering in the real world thus logic dictates that IF there is a “god”, he cannot be simultaneously totally kind AND all-powerful although obviously this doesn’t exclude the possibility he is only one or the other.