Deism in the Dock

You're trying to tell me that I "have not addressed" a question I have asked myself, in this and other threads, an innumerable number of times?If you're interested in my thoughts on the answerability of questions, direct yourself to one of the other threads. What we're talking about here are questions that we have already agreed to consider unanswerable. You asserted that some questions were unanswerable. I'm simply taking you at your word. The question Rilke poses is the one you should be asking yourself before you unilaterally declare some questions to have no answers.If you now adopt the position that there are perhaps no unanswerable questions, then what exactly are we arguing about? It seems like you've backpedalled right out of the position I was arguing against. Yes. Because the destination is more important than the journey. Otherwise there would never be a need to do anything but walk in circles.Look, you need to learn that sometimes people say things that sound like wisdom simply because they sound different than what is obviously true. Things like "black is white" or "up is down" or "the journey is more important than the destination." Things like "intuition is just as good as science." Things like "theists and atheists are exactly the same."Part of growing up is realizing that these statements have only the false veneer of wisdom. What's wise in being talked out of what you can plainly see with your eyes? You've simply fallen prey to the "wisdom" of contrarian soundbites. No big deal, most smart people do at some point; we usually call that time "philosophy major, sophomore year."

Then what the hell does he do all day? Why keep the old boy around if he doesn't do anything?What's the purpose of the deistic God? What's the point? Available to do what, exactly?Deism just sounds like atheism for people who don't even have the courage to call themselves "agnostic" (which is the next weeniest position.)

I'm not inferring anything. You're the one asserting a supernatural power, on the basis of no evidence or logic, that would allow God to be observing things without observing them. I'm not a physicist. I probably don't even know what I'm talking about. It would be better for you to get the information from a more knowledgeable source, otherwise it's the blind leading the blind, here.I'm not trying to pull a fast one on you. I'm trying to avoid misinforming you. Then he'd be the discoverer, obviously, and there would be no uncollapsed eigenstate to detect in the first place.

But that's just nonsense. (You shouldn't rely on C.S. Lewis for good theology; his work is pablum. He's probably the single worst theologian in English history.)We're already constrained by the laws of physics. If you contend that we have free will and choice now - even though I can't, for instance, choose to flap my arms and fly like a bird - then restricting our options even further could hardly be detrimental to our free will.There's already an infinite number of ways to do the right thing. Eliminating all the ways to do evil would hardly represent the elimination of choice.If the laws of physics don't eliminate free will, then a few more laws of physics - like a physical law that would prevent someone from murdering, for instance - don't eliminate free will. Our choices are already restricted all the time. A few more wouldn't hurt anything. I attempted your experiment and was unable to replicate your results. Asking God results in nothing.

How could I be angry with what doesn't exist? All that I want is a response I can distinguish from my own imagination. I don't think that's too much to ask for the God described in the Christian religion. And the joy that results from its flight, yes.We still have free will, even in a universe where we're constrained by the laws of physics. A universe where we're restrained by a few additional physical laws could hardly represent a major loss of free will or something.Lewis is just out to lunch on this. You don't need to be able to do evil in order to have choice. There's an infinite number of ways to do the right thing. You can't beat the laws of physics.But, wait. Are you saying that we're more powerful than God? That, no matter what, we can't be constrained by him?That's an.... unusual position for a theist, I must say. Blah blah blah. Heard it. You should spend your time rebutting my arguments, not trying to shrink me over the internet or deliver sermons. Lewis is wrong; I just proved it. Can you defend his remarks, or not?

Wrong question. How could I have attended a concert that never happened? Once again, you seem to have forgotten that I did know "him", that I was a Christian. But it became obvious that the only think I was knowing was myself. When prayers were "answered", I was doing the answering. The presence of God was simply the presence of my imagination.As it is for you. I don't expect you to believe me yet, of course. You need to consider the problem without introducing your own "feeling" that God exists. Once you understand that, in all likelihood, there's no such thing as God, you'll wonder who it was that has been talking to you for all this time.Simple. You've been talking to yourself. That's why the God that you worship believes the exact same things as you (gays are icky, etc) - because it is you. Duh. I think the problem is, you're not paying attention to what I'm saying.I'm saying, even if you got rid of all the "not-right" choices, there would still be an infinite number of choices. How can choice be said to be eliminated if we'd still have infinite choice? The laws of physics already constrain us, but you don't hear Lewis complaining about it. If we're still free under those constraints, a few more couldn't hurt. I'm not talking about being programmed, any more than a stone is programmed to fall when released from a height.The laws of physics constrain us without programming us, somehow. We'd be no more programmed by incontrovertible laws of morality in addition to that.Don't you understand, yet? Lewis thinks that we need unrestricted choice to be free - but we clearly don't, since we're still free under the laws of physics. So we could just as easily add laws of morality to that and still be free. The Space Shuttle is just as restrained by gravity as anything else. It comes back down, doesn't it? But that's inconsistent. God doesn't ask us to follow the laws of physics - he forces us to do so, apparently.God asks us to follow moral laws, but forces us to follow the less-important physical laws? That doesn't make sense. If we can be forced to follow physical law without a loss of free will, surely we can be forced into moral law without losing free will, as well. How do you know it's not? You "just know?"I "just knew", too. Until I realized that I didn't. Don't think that you know something "better" than I do. Except the laws of physics, which are imposed on all. Why not impose the laws of morality, too, and make it a much better world? We wouldn't be any less free, obviously.

We're talking past each other. I'm rebutting Lewis's argument; you're using it as an opportunity to make unconnected sermons.Are you going to defend Lewis's position, or not? Because infinity, minus some finite sum (or even an infinite sum), is still infinity. That's basic mathematical truth. For instance, if you take all the whole numbers, and then take out all the odd numbers, what's left is the even numbers, but there's still an infinite number of them. I'm not talking about getting rid of any laws. Do you understand? I'm talking about adding new ones. ...what on Earth does that have to do with what I'm saying?We're not programmed. I was agreeing with you, Rob. Are you paying attention? Or just free-associating?

Yes, I am. I think a less diverse universe is an appropriate price to pay for, say, nobody ever raping to death 10-year-old girls.For example. Nothing so pedestrian. We live in a universe that includes incomprehensibly meaningless and wanton suffering of innocents. Lewis says God can't prevent that without us becoming robots. (You say it's about preserving the diversity of the universe, as though we're somehow all enriched because sickos can rape 10-year-old girls to death.) I say that, if God existed, he could prevent that without us becoming robots.The reason God doesn't is because there's no such thing as God.

If he existed and was so inclined, yes. He's supposed to be omnipotent, right?You set a pretty low bar for omnipotence, I guess. I'm pretty sure God comes down against raping 10-year-old girls to death, but I could be wrong, I guess. Lewis's problem was that nobody had invented game theory when he was around. Game theory is a branch of mathematics that (sort of, kind of) attempts to describe the advantageous and disadvantageous strategies in various sorts of games, like the prisoner's dilemma.One finding of game theory is that, in a test where you subject various hypothetical individuals to the prisoner's dilemma over and over again, the individual who pursues a strategy of retribution - favoring those who acted favorably towards him, punishing those who punished him - is the most successful.This suggests that people do good because there's a marked advantage, generally, towards following the golden rule. Of course, suggesting that people are motivated to do good by self-interest also implies that they'll cheat or behave immorally when that's in their self-interest - i.e. when they don't think they'll be caught - and oddly enough, that's also exactly what we see.There's good because we live in a society that rewards good and punishes bad. You and Lewis act like that's some kind of miracle, but it's the most mundane thing. Look, I'll pay my parking tickets or whatever if it means no more 10-year-olds raped to death. That's still a pretty small price to pay.You're really reaching here to defend a God that allows that kind of shenanigans for no good reason.

We're getting way off-topic, I think. I still don't think you've responded meaningfully to my arguments. I'm not angry. Seriously, I'm not an angry person at all. The things that go on in this world offend the conscience of all decent people - but like most normal people, I can deal with that. What are we, teenagers?I don't feel any sense of injustice that God allows these things - because I don't believe in a God that can prevent them. It would be like being angry at the wind for blowing.The anger you're sensing isn't coming from me. I suspect it's the anger you feel deep inside at a God who allows such injustice - the anger you can't ever admit to feeling. I don't expect you to do anything but disagree, of course.