Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,404 Year: 3,661/9,624 Month: 532/974 Week: 145/276 Day: 19/23 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Concept of God -- Need Logic Help
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 4 of 81 (565865)
06-21-2010 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Prince Thrash
06-20-2010 7:17 PM


I agree with Paul. The "vol" in "omnibenevolence" means will (and in fact has the same Indo-European root as our English word "will"). So it means that God's will is to do good.
To will one thing rather than another cannot be seen as a constraint on one's freedom of will without rendering the concept of "free will" meaningless --- no-one's will can be so free as to be free of their will.
Further, you write:
Our only demand for an omnipotent being is that it COULD do anything and everything.
Now I think that the ambiguity of this has mislead you. For there are two ways of reading "COULD do anything and everything":
(1) Could, in principle, do whatever it wants.
(2) Has an actual possibility of doing something that it doesn't want to do.
Case (1) is omnipotence. Case (2) would actually be contrary to omnipotence --- a being that does something that it doesn't want to do would not be omnipotent. It would have the divine equivalent of Tourette's syndrome, being unable to control even its own actions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Prince Thrash, posted 06-20-2010 7:17 PM Prince Thrash has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 10 of 81 (565925)
06-22-2010 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Prince Thrash
06-21-2010 11:53 PM


Re: Interesting Responses
I think the "God's will" argument is being used with too many free-will implications from the get-go. It is the Will itself which is the very vehicle of control; the method by which the entity is controlled by Good.
[...]
From this angle, God does what he wants to do, while Good informs him of what that will be. God would not be conquered and directed by Goodness, unless Goodness owned that very will.
If I want to eat a cheese sandwich, is that free will, or is that the "very vehicle of control", the method by which I am controlled by cheese sandwiches?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Prince Thrash, posted 06-21-2010 11:53 PM Prince Thrash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Prince Thrash, posted 06-22-2010 2:47 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 12 of 81 (565945)
06-22-2010 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Prince Thrash
06-22-2010 2:47 AM


Re: Interesting Responses
In your example, it is obvious that hunger is the "vehicle of control". You chose the sandwich, but you only did so because your hunger forced you into making such a choice. Your choice was simply the FORM your intellect took in satisfying demands far outside of its control. In other words, you could have chosen to eat something other than a sandwich, but in no way could you have simply decided not to be hungry or chosen to no longer motivated towards food by hunger.
You have ignored the possibility that I am not hungry, but a gourmand motivated by self-indulgent gluttony. If you think that unlikely, you should taste one of my cheese sandwiches. Lucullus himself could have desired no more.
However, if this example leaves you unpersuaded, what if I want to listen to the second Brandenburg Concerto? Am I being controlled, via my will, by the object to which my will is directed? Who's in charge round here, me or J. S. Bach?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Prince Thrash, posted 06-22-2010 2:47 AM Prince Thrash has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 16 of 81 (566462)
06-24-2010 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Prince Thrash
06-24-2010 5:43 PM


Re: Interesting Responses
I think you misunderstood the general meaning of what I meant. But I can see how I was over-specific.
Replacing "hunger" with "gluttony" changes nothing. You have X, a motivating factor, leading to Y, action. I subbed in "hunger" as that motivating factor. It seems that we both agree on this issue -- that there is a motivating factor, and I say this because you subbed in one of your own.
Though you example of music is more cleverly difficult, but again, we can imagine a gambit of motivating factors leading one to music (boredom is a good one, but one of many, as you pointed out).
But you seem to be saying that my will isn't free if I have some sort of motivation. Apparently "free will" requires that my will should be completely arbitrary; unrelated not only to factors external to my mind (such as having an empty stomach) but also even unrelated to my own mental states, such as boredom.
Well, this just isn't what I'd mean by free will. Apart from anything else, I wouldn't want my will to be independent of my state of mind or my circumstances.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Prince Thrash, posted 06-24-2010 5:43 PM Prince Thrash has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024