Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Concept of God -- Need Logic Help
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 3 of 81 (565815)
06-21-2010 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Prince Thrash
06-20-2010 7:17 PM


I'm sorry to say that I don't think that this argument is very good, nor do I see any obvious way to patch it up.
quote:
Because of our assumptions about the nature of omnibenevolence, God is unable to escape its dictates. Therefore God lacks the free will that us morally ambiguous humans get (thank God). As a result, he lacks power over himself. Which means he lacks omnipotence.
I think that you are missing a point here. Omnibenevolence is supposed to be an aspect of God's character, not something imposed upon God. Thus in doing what is best God is simply doing what he wants to do - and it is hard to see that as a clear violation of free will.
Taking this into account let's look at something you said earlier:
quote:
Omnipotence need not be expressed. It can simply be potential. God is not, for instance, using his omnipotence constantly. Otherwise everything and anything would be happening incessantly. Our only demand for an omnipotent being is that it COULD do anything and everything.
Now obviously the distinction is that God would do the things that he wanted to do and would not do the things he didn't want to do. So, if the only reason why God doesn't do something is that he doesn't want to, then he would still be omnipotent.
Just to be clear, not wanting to do something must be the ONLY reason God doesn't do it. If God couldn't do something even if he did want to - even something he would never want to do - then he would not be omnipotent. But simply not doing something he doesn't want to do isn't a problem.
So we come back to the point that omnibenevolence is about what God wants to do. And because it is about what God wants to do, rather than God having to do the best thing no matter what he wants there is no conflict between omnipotence and omnibenevolence.

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

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 9 of 81 (565919)
06-22-2010 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Prince Thrash
06-21-2010 11:53 PM


Re: Interesting Responses
quote:
Would you disagree that God's goodness, then, does not predetermine his actions? Is God not, like gravity and unlike man in some conceptions, perfectly predictable? The entity in question, in fact, need have no mind? Need have no choice? Because the end result is identical.
Presumable you mean perfectly predictable to someone with perfect knowledge. However, I would say that the same is likely true for all intelligent beings anyway.
quote:
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.
If you assume that Good is itself an intelligent being, above and beyond God then you''re not talking about any recognisable theology.
But if you don't assume that then your point doesn't really make a lot of sense. You might as well say that your will is an "instrument of control" by which your personality controls your actions.
quote:
Remember that Hindu thinker, what was his name? Vivekananda I think? He was a classic determinist, and monist -- classic Hinduism -- but he argued that the roots of predetermination of a being happen *before* the will. They *inform* the will WHAT to will. Though I dont personally hold to this idea necessarily, I think it shows that simply because there is such and such a thing that one might call a "will", this does not make this will "free".
Whether you go for determinism or not it seems pretty clear that aspects of your personality inform your will. In fact it must be so for you to have any will worthy of the name.
quote:
Haha, this is a funny situation, because in your responses, you very nicely show how God is controlled, yet in opposition to my initial argument. I, oddly, see these particular refutations as detailed affirmations concerning the HOW of God's slavery.
What is really funny is that is that your idea of "free will" seems to be all "freedom" and no will. A being that acted completely randomly, without conscious thought or any concern for it's own wants would seem to be your ideal of "freedom". But such a being lacks free will in any meaningful sense, and might be better described as a slave to chance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Prince Thrash, posted 06-21-2010 11:53 PM Prince Thrash has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 15 of 81 (566457)
06-24-2010 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Prince Thrash
06-24-2010 5:43 PM


Re: Interesting Responses
quote:
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.
I think that you fail to understand the point. Hunger, as a need of the body, is often seen as something external to the mind. Which would arguably make it a restriction on free will. By replacing it with a desire that is generated within the mind, that issue is removed.
quote:
You and BlueJay need to discuss this issue, because BlueJay believes that a motivating factor is a type of determinist agent. As he said, even the presence of the "personality" is counter to free will. To this I would say, since God has a personality, one of omnibenevolence without possibility of deviation, his free will is negated.
You have a very odd idea of free will. Surely free will is doing what you choose, without external constraints, such as coercion. If there isn't a personality - you - making choices, how can it even be called will ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Prince Thrash, posted 06-24-2010 5:43 PM Prince Thrash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Prince Thrash, posted 06-24-2010 7:33 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 29 by Phat, posted 06-15-2014 4:03 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 19 of 81 (566505)
06-25-2010 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Prince Thrash
06-24-2010 7:33 PM


Re: Interesting Responses
quote:
I was quoting BlueJay about the place of the personality within the free will debates, not myself. Direct your comments to him, I was just quoting him to show an inconsistency between Dr. Adequate and BlueJay. I believe in personalities, I assure you.
The question is not whether you believe that personalities exist. The question is whether they have a negative impact on free will. You agree with Bluejay on this. e.g.
To this I would say, since God has a personality, one of omnibenevolence without possibility of deviation, his free will is negated.
And before Bluejay made his claims:
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.
quote:
Either way, your statement stands, and it's an interesting one. I am unaware of a thinker to have ever attributed the mind as being wholly free? Do you really believe that the mind is wholly free? And not just the "free will part", but rather, anything of the mind, whatsoever, is free? Would you commit to that statement?
This seems to be a diversion, since I am simply discussing the concept of free will. And I have not even said that any human's will is entirely free. All of us have bodily needs, likely all of us have experienced coercion at some point in our lives.
quote:
We're going off into some odd areas now, but so be it. I didn't think a type of extreme Cartesian dualism would come into play.
If you want to introduce this idea then it is up to you. But even an extreme Cartesian Dualism will not save your arguments.
quote:
I say this, because this idea that anyone does anything without "external constraints" reminds me of a type of solipsist sort of view?
You think that somebody has suggested this ? How very odd.
quote:
I say this, because this idea that anyone does anything without "external constraints" reminds me of a type of solipsist sort of view? That humans can operate in a sort of bubble, without influence/constraint? I'm sure you didn't mean this?
Not only did I not mean it, I didn't say anything that could be reasonably interpreted as meaning it. The issue is that a decision dominated by external constraints is not considered a free will choice. That is all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Prince Thrash, posted 06-24-2010 7:33 PM Prince Thrash has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 20 of 81 (566507)
06-25-2010 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Blue Jay
06-25-2010 2:05 AM


Re: Interesting Responses
Bluejay, I think that you need to explain your position more clearly.
Omnibenevolence would appear to add up to the "compulsory" form of personality (that is Prince Thrash's point) and he says that that negates God's free will. You appear to agree that God's free will would be negated if that were the case.
But if God's character does not compel him to always choose the (morally) best option is it not the case that God might make a decision that fell short of moral perfection ? But that would make God less than Omnibenevolent in the full sense of the word.
So how do you resolve this apparent conflict between Omnibenevolence and your idea of free will ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Blue Jay, posted 06-25-2010 2:05 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Prince Thrash, posted 06-25-2010 4:16 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 27 by Blue Jay, posted 06-26-2010 1:04 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 22 of 81 (566515)
06-25-2010 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Prince Thrash
06-25-2010 4:16 AM


Re: Interesting Responses
quote:
Remember, this is not a general question of the free will of humans. It is a question of the free will of God. The free will of humanity, who cannot be said to have any specific "omni" attribute, and the free will of God, should have entirely different types of discourse (at certain parts). I guess the question is, what is the key that makes them different? (haha, nice top-down stance...)
The general concept of free will must be the same in each case. If it is claimed that specific circumstances make a difference it must be argued, not simply assumed. Certainly we can use human examples to illustrate the issues - and should do, since there are no adequately understood non-human examples.
quote:
Look at Philosophy of Religion 101. People say "Why didn't God just make man incapable of doing evil?" It's a question that almost every Western child will come to once they are old enough to learn about the home team religions. And the response that most of us will take as logical is "Because, then Man would have no free will". This is a common argument in the Philosophy of Religion, or Western Theology, and I'm sure none of you are new to it.
No, I've long regarded this argument as fallacious. Now certainly you can point out that this is inconsistent with maintaining that God has free will, but you cannot assume that any particular person will choose to stick with this questionable argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Prince Thrash, posted 06-25-2010 4:16 AM Prince Thrash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Prince Thrash, posted 06-25-2010 1:23 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 24 of 81 (566592)
06-25-2010 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Prince Thrash
06-25-2010 1:23 PM


Re: Interesting Responses
quote:
Can you refute the classic argument directly? Just curious how you'd go about it. Even if it's just a gut instinct of wrongness, let me know which premise or whatever doesn't sit well.
THere are three basic arguments I could use:
1) An omnipotent being can bring about any situation which is not logically impossible.
2) It is logically possible for any and all free-willed beings to never choose to do evil.
3) Therefore an omnipotent being can create a universe inhabited by free-willed beings who never choose to do evil.
Also - and if you feel uneasy about the first you need to consider this:
1) In Christianity, Omniscience is taken to include certain knowledge of the future.
2) This entails that the future is fixed and inevitable, including all our choices. (Where God fits into this is problematic for Christians, but I think we can ignore that issue for now. You could possibly use it to produce an argument that God must lack free will, though).
3) Therefore the entire history of the universe was set at the moment of creation. From that point on, everything that happens is inevitable.
4) An omniscient and omnipotent creator would have known that future in advance and must have deliberately chosen this universe - including every event that ever happens in it - rather than any other.
Thus, all our choices were dictated by God at the moment of creation.
5) Therefore God has dictated all of our choices in advance, free or not, good or evil.
6) Since our choices are dictated in advance anyway, it does no extra harm to our free will to dictate that we choose good instead of choosing evil.
And finally.
1) The argument assumes libertarian (non-deterministic) free will.
2) Libertarian free will is logically impossible.
3) Therefore the argument relies on a false assumption.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Prince Thrash, posted 06-25-2010 1:23 PM Prince Thrash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Prince Thrash, posted 06-25-2010 3:14 PM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 28 of 81 (566710)
06-26-2010 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Blue Jay
06-26-2010 1:04 AM


Re: Omnibenevolence
quote:
Omnibenevolence is a pattern in God’s behavior, an aspect of God’s personality.
A pattern in behavior only implies compulsion under a deterministic model.
A non-deterministic model would imply breaks in the pattern. If there are no breaks then it needs to be questioned.
quote:
What is the full sense of the word "omnibenevolence"?
It means that God ALWAYS acts for the best. Absolutely always, And all the explanations I have seen ground it in God's nature. You're the first person I've seen suggest that there is a random element in God's decision-making that might cause him to act otherwise. Are you sure that that is a common religious view ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Blue Jay, posted 06-26-2010 1:04 AM Blue Jay has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 30 of 81 (729623)
06-16-2014 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Phat
06-15-2014 4:03 PM


Re: Interesting Responses
quote:
Unless you go with the "spiritual warfare" theory...which asserts (if I think it right) that in the beginning there was but one will...Gods. Lucifer was allowed to rebel, "freeing" his will from Gods will. Humans inherited the same offer...with the one provision that there were now 3 wills...Creator God, satans, and humans.
That has nothing to do with the point you quoted.
quote:
We could argue that God foreknew all of this--hence He is evil. Satan has the same argument...that its not his fault that he became who he is. Its Gods fault.
If God created Satan in such a way that Satan would inevitably rebel then God is certainly responsible. Free Will would make Satan also responsible, but can't absolve God.
quote:
As humans, we can wave all of the unproven spiritual reality away and assert that it is in reality one will...our own. Our will is only truly free without hindrance from any other spiritual entity.
Calling your beliefs reality doesn't make them so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Phat, posted 06-15-2014 4:03 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Phat, posted 07-17-2014 8:11 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 33 of 81 (733545)
07-18-2014 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Phat
07-17-2014 8:11 PM


Re: Interesting Responses
quote:
Based on this logic, God is responsible for literally everything
Which I disagree with.
Then your problem is with the concept of responsibility.
Perhaps you would like to suggest how it should be changed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Phat, posted 07-17-2014 8:11 PM Phat has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 41 of 81 (733601)
07-19-2014 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Phat
07-18-2014 5:57 PM


Re: Interesting Responses
quote:
All I am saying is that the "Christian God is not responsible for what you or I choose to do,think, or behave. He may well be responsible for allowing the possibility of evil but not the choice itself, even if foreknown.
"Foreknown" greatly understates the degree of God's involvement. "Intentionally arranged" comes closer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Phat, posted 07-18-2014 5:57 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 49 of 81 (733677)
07-20-2014 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by NoNukes
07-19-2014 5:55 PM


Re: Interesting Responses
quote:
The picture of omnipotence I am throwing out the window is a silly childish one. I don't care how much power you want to specify is it possible for God to create a rock he cannot lift, to create an invisible, opaque object, or to create a universe where all beings have free will, yet God dictates every one of their daily actions. Those things are not conundrums; they are just down right silly.
Unofortunately one of those is not like the others. In fact given a truly omnipotent and omniscient creator (and accepting the idea of a fixed future) it follows that God HAS dictated the daily actions of every living being whether they have free will or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by NoNukes, posted 07-19-2014 5:55 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by NoNukes, posted 07-20-2014 12:58 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 51 of 81 (733698)
07-20-2014 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by NoNukes
07-20-2014 12:58 PM


Re: Interesting Responses
quote:
Who says that the future is fixed?
It's necessary for complete and infallible knowledge of the future.
It's generally claimed that God has that sort of foreknowledge, so it seems a reasonable assumption.
If I were looking for a Biblical example I'd go with Jesus' prediction that Peter would deny him three times before cock-crow. To get that right - involving multiple free will decisions by multiple people - seems quite impressive if free will decisions are not knowable in advance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by NoNukes, posted 07-20-2014 12:58 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by NoNukes, posted 07-20-2014 3:52 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 57 of 81 (733721)
07-20-2014 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by NoNukes
07-20-2014 3:52 PM


Re: Interesting Responses
quote:
Is it necessary? I think there are other possibilities.
If the future isn't fixed it can't be infallibly known. It's a logically necessary precondition.
quote:
Yes. That would be impressive, but if we are going to assume that some kind of infinite ability was involved, being "impressive" is not really the same as being impossible. I can at least imagine that Jesus accomplished it my knowing Peter really well (super naturally well) rather than by Yahweh tell him what Peter was going to do because it was pre-ordained.
Even if Jesus had a good idea of what Peter would do I think that it would be considerably harder to work out the exact number of people who would challenge him before cock-crow. As I said, the actions of multiple people are involved.
quote:
I can imagine just as easily imagine that omniscience works by reading people and events and forecasting outcomes in a way analogous to forecasting the weather as opposed to simple having prior knowledge of everything that is going to happen because everything is under my own control or is predetermined.
I don't think that fallible predictions count as omniscience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by NoNukes, posted 07-20-2014 3:52 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by NoNukes, posted 07-20-2014 4:54 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 59 of 81 (733728)
07-20-2014 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by NoNukes
07-20-2014 4:54 PM


Re: Interesting Responses
quote:
Yes, it would be extremely hard. So what? Aren't we supposing that the feat was super natural?
It's difficult enough to suggest that free will decisions are quite amazingly predictable. Even if the last one held back for a couple of minutes the prediction would have failed.
quote:
And why would an infalliable knowledge of the future not be achievable by simply extending the same principle, infinitely far. You insist that this could not work, but you do not give any explanation of why it would not.
For perfect knowledge of the future to be possible the future must be fixed somehow. If you prefer to handle it by saying the the universe operates deterministically - including all free will decisions - then that's your view. I don't see how it helps you though. The mechanism isn't the problem I'm talking about - although determinism arguably makes the problem worse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by NoNukes, posted 07-20-2014 4:54 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by NoNukes, posted 07-20-2014 6:38 PM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024