iano responds to me:
quote:
You don't simply choose not to.
I most certainly do. Choice is the process of considering the consequences of my actions and
then making a determination as to which one would best achieve the goals I am seeking.
If I have no ability to consider consequences, then I am not making a choice. I am simply
guessing.
quote:
Hence there can be no talk of balance in the choice presented as to what to do with
your computer.
What is this "balance" you're talking about. There is never "balance." The only reason you
can possibly make a choice is because things are out of balance. If everything were perfectly
equal, then there would be no way to make a choice.
Instead, you'd have to guess and guessing is not choosing.
quote:
Or which simply assert a free will can be created that can choose evil but never will.
I've shown you at least one way in which it can be done. Since it can be done, why didn't god
do it? Why did god choose a method that you admit necessarily requires evil?
How is that good?
quote:
Providing choice doesn't mean you want all options that can be chosen.
I never said it did. The problem is not that evil is a possibility. It's that evil is a
result. Since there are ways to generate the universe such that evil will never be a result
even though it is a possibility, why would god choose a system such that evil is necessarily a
result?
How can that be good?
quote:
Not in terms of choosing evil he hasn't.
So if god can manage to have choice but never choose evil, then why can't we?
Why would god create a system that necessarily results in evil?
How can that be good?
And more importantly, how is that not a very contradiction of what was just established? If
god cannot choose evil, how can he choose to create a system that necessarily results in evil?
Does god not have a choice?
quote:
A balanced choice is one that lies at the other end of the spectrum to your example of
the computer going out the window.
But such a scenario doesn't result in a choice but rather a guess. If I cannot weigh the
consequences and determine that one path is more favorable than another, then I am incapable
of making a choice. Any path I follow is not the result of choosing but rather of guessing.
A guess is not a choice.
quote:
That was an example of a skewed choice
All choices are skewed. That's what makes them choices.
quote:
Theirs wasn't a moral choice. It was a consequential one.
Huh? Sin isn't about morality?
And you still haven't answered the question: How were they supposed to choose between the lie
of god and the truth of the serpent when they were constitutionally incapable of making a
choice, being innocent and not having eaten from the tree of knowledge?
Remember, you were the one who defined evil as "any action/thought that is against Gods will."
Since sin is defined as "doing evil," then the act of eating from the tree of knowledge was
necessarily a "moral choice."
But they couldn't make a moral choice. They were innocent as they hadn't eaten from the tree
of knowledge yet.
Remember, they were sinning up a storm before they ate from the tree and nobody seemed to
mind. Remember, the very first thing they do once they eat from the tree is not panic over
having eaten from the tree. After all, that is the only thing they have ever been told about
god's will (that we know of): "Don't eat from the tree." So why is it they immediately panic
over something else?
quote:
Death (whatever they understood by that) on the one hand vs. being like God (whatever
they understood by that) on the other.
Adam and Eve were always going to die. That's what the tree of life was for.
quote:
She didn't need to eat of the tree to understand a prohibition.
Yes, she did. The only way to understand a prohibition is to understand good and evil. Since
she hadn't eaten from the tree, she didn't understand good and evil. Thus, she was
constitutionally incapable of understanding god's prohibition.
How on earth is someone who does not know what good is supposed to know that god is good and
should be followed? You're assuming what you're trying to prove.
How were Adam and Eve supposed to know that they should follow god's lie rather than the
serpent's truth?
quote:
"Don't do that or else" is a consequential prohibition - not a moral one.
Incorrect. It's a moral one. "Or else what"? By your definition, evil is "any
action/thought that is against Gods will." Since sin is "doing evil" and necessarily an act
of morality, then when god tells you, "Don't do that," that's a moral prohibition, not a
consequential one.
Besides, god's answer to "Or else what?" was a lie.
quote:
Consequential choice requires that you have some idea of the consequences on both (or
more) sides.
Now I'm confused. When those consequences are "good" and "evil," that makes it a moral
choice. But you said moral choices aren't consequential choices. I'm confused.
At any rate, Adam and Eve were incapable of making such choices. They were innocent. They
hadn't eaten from the tree of knowledge and thus were constitutionally incapable of choosing
between good and evil, not knowing what good and evil were.
quote:
They were promised consequences and they got them.
Indeed, but the consequences they got were the ones the serpent told them.
God lied to them.
But that doesn't answer the question: How were they supposed to distinguish between god's lie
and the serpent's truth when they were constitutionally incapable of understanding good and
evil having not eaten from the tree?
quote:
If a choice can be skewed towards option A by means of attractive reasons for option A
and a choice can be skewed towards option B by way of attractive reasons for option B then it
is clearly possible to find a balance in the middle where the skewing is neutralised. And the
will is left to decide for itself.
That's not a choice. That's a guess.
quote:
Weighing the consequences isn't in itself choosing.
Incorrect. It is the very essence of choosing. Once cannot make a choice without weighing
consequences. If you don't, you're not choosing.
You're guessing.
quote:
I think there is a mechanism whereby you can shift yourself to one option in the face
of an actual balanced set of options.
If you can, then they are clearly not balanced. Something shifted you. If they were truly
balanced, then there would be no reason to choose one over the other.
Instead, you just guess. When Monty Hall presents you with the three doors, there is no
reason to choose the one you did.
And that's because you didn't choose. You guessed.
quote:
Assuming Eve was faced with balance: prohibition on one side, desire for gaining wisdom
on the other.
But how was Eve supposed to weigh the consequences when that requires knowing good and evil and she didn't know what good and evil were?
quote:
Through an act of her will she could presume that God didn't mean what he said.
That "act of will" is called "guessing."
And the exact same thing is true with the serpent's statement. Why one and not the other?
That's because it isn't choosing. It's guessing. God and the serpent are saying contradictory things. They can't both be true. Eve has no way to choose because she doesn't know what good and evil are as she hasn't yet eaten from the tree.
We're back to one of my questions that never gets answered:
Beetaratagang or clerendipity, iano?
One is good, one is evil. Make your choice. If you respond to nothing else, this is the question I want you to answer:
Beetaratagang or clerendipity?
Rrhain
Thank you for your submission to
Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
™ Version 4.2
