You cant have free will in a house with all inside and no outside.
Why can't I freely choose to use the top floor bathroom or the basement one? Why can't I freely choose to get closer and (possibly) love the woman in the family room while I stay away from the ones I don't like so much in the foyer? Why can't I freely choose to build electronics in the den vs. swimming in the indoor pool?
Are you saying that because I can't choose to go outside I can't make any decisions at all? How... unimaginative. That, seems to me, is like saying because I can't choose to breathe underwater then I can't make any decisions at all. But... we do make plenty of decisions without being able to breathe underwater... so this is obviously not true.
And if we can keep free-will, and especially the free-will to choose good, without requiring all-possible evil decisions... why not do that?
What possible connection is there between some terrible person choosing to punch someone else in the face to my choice to freely decide to love my wife over other women at the bar?
If I was physically unable to decide to punch people in the face, I would still have the ability to freely choose to love my wife over the other women at the bar.
Do you seriously not see this separation? "All-evil" is not required in order to make good, meaningful decisions. Besides - we already don't have access to all-evil. I can't decide to suddenly wipe out half-the-planet by the snap of my fingers. Such power is not possible for us. Does that mean we don't have free-will? Of course not. That's just silly.
This idea of "evil is required to have good!" is flatly false. It really shows nothing more than a lack of imagination.
Cant you accept the fact that a Deity would know more about how things must be than any created angels or humans?
I don't see how this is in conflict with a God who has enough self-esteem to not care if some people ignore Him?
If God creates "the best" place... why must He also only allow those who fan-boy all over Him? Why can't God create "the best" place as well as not caring if some people ignore Him? - That's what I would do.
(The counter-argument would assert that humans created the concept of the deity and could therefore also make up the parameters.)
This is not the counter-argument. The counter-argument is that a God who's self-esteem is below that of a high school rookie doesn't seem like much of a God.
Edited by Stile, : More typos are proof that I am not God...
It offers an explanation but it does strike me that we had to have exactly right chemistry available and the light had to trigger something that caused light to evolve in a way that produced vision without any knowledge of what vision is.
This would only make sense if human vision was somehow able to "see" all wavelengths. But, of course, this isn't reality.
Check out this link, especially the mini-picture where it shows the "visible light spectrum" along the full electromagnetic spectrum. Visible Light vs. Full Spectrum
We actually only see about 5-10% of what we "could see" if vision was all that it possibly could be. Ever see Star Trek: The Next Generation? Jeordi LeForge (the engineer) had some sort of vision problem. His eyes didn't work. But the available future technology made him a visor that took in wavelengths and transmitted the information directly to his brain for him... basically being his eyes. But, since it was intelligently designed, it could see a lot more than normal human eyes could. There were many story-lines where everyone would be baffled until Jeordi took a look and "saw" what was actually going on.
The reality that the visible spectrum is only a small percentage of what's available should tell us that our eyes are functioning at a "barely good enough" level rather than some sort of "intelligently designed" optimum set-point.
Maybe you are right but it does seem to me that allowing for a pre-existing intelligence is actually a simpler answer.
You've been saying something along these lines very often.
Let me get this straight. History of human knowledge growth:
*When people didn't understand something - many would have a "deep, intense feeling" that it must be caused by something supernatural (like by God) because it's just so complicated and so mysterious and so beyond our current level of comprehension and so interesting... there's no way it could come about by natural causes without an intelligence having a hand in it.
Like fire: almost everyone thought fire must be divine * In the same way you seem to think the origin-of-the-universe must be divine. But they were wrong. We've figured out that fire has a non-divine, non-God, non-intelligent explanation.
Like lightning: almost everyone thought lightning must be divine * In the same way you seem to think the origin-of-the-universe must be divine. But they were wrong. We've figured out that lightning has a non-divine, non-God, non-intelligent explanation.
Like weather patterns (famine, rain...): almost almost everyone thought weather patterns must be divine * In the same way you seem to think the origin-of-the-universe must be divine. But they were wrong. We've figured out that lightning has a non-divine, non-God, non-intelligent explanation.
Like planetary motion: almost everyone thought planetary motion must be divine * In the same way you seem to think the origin-of-the-universe must be divine. But they were wrong. We've figured out that planetary motion has a non-divine, non-God, non-intelligent explanation.
The latest in this line is now "the beginning of the universe."
You are free to believe/think that the beginning of the universe must be divine, that is your right in having your own mind and your own thoughts. However - to say that such an idea is "simple" or "expected" or even "reasonable" in light of all the previous similar ideas that have turned out to have non-divine, non-God, non-intelligent explanations... is rather comical.
I'm not saying that a divine answer is "wrong" or that a non-divine answer is "right." Because we don't know. Can't say either way. But we can look at the previous history of similar lack-of-knowledge situations and see how they moved along. In light of those similar situations - it's only reasonable to anticipate that this answer will have a non-divine, non-God, non-intelligent explanation.
Of course, the reasonably anticipated answer isn't always the right one. But it usually is.
Edited by Stile, : Large chunk of the ending of my message went missing. Inserted now.
Ah... I was using an asterisk, followed by a space and then a left-angle-bracket, followed by a dash in my message.
I think that was being identified as a "comment" and blocking out a large portion of my message-text. Changed my formatting and it seems to be fine now. Sorry for all the figuring-it-out edits in my previous message.
I suggest that as humans we want to find concrete reasons to support our faith.
I don't understand how any reasonable person can make such suggestions.
I'm assuming you have no problems understanding that different people may have different levels of attraction to different flavors of ice-cream, yes? Wouldn't you think that "ice-cream" is a lot simpler and less-important than "finding concrete reasons to support our faith?"
So, on one hand, we have an incredibly simple and low-importance issue for humans to deal with (ice cream flavor comfort.) -And you would think it very strange if I stated something like "I suggest that as humans we want vanilla ice-cream for dessert."
However... we then take an incredibly complex and high-importance issue for humans to deal with (finding reasons to support our faith.) -And you don't see any problem whatsoever with making assumptions that "all humans" should be leaning in a single, specific direction??
It just doesn't make any sense to me.
What this statement should really say, and it makes much more sense this way, is:
"I suggest that some humans want to find concrete reasons to support their faith."
Many humans have a tendency to want to be part of a group - especially the "all humans" group. They want to justify their own behaviours by saying things like - "See? Everyone does it! I'm normal!!"
It is my suggestion that this is what you're doing here. Perhaps you have a personal inclination in "being part of the big group of agreement" and want your ideas to be "the ideas" that everyone else has too.
Unfortunately, such things don't exist even for simple issues like ice-cream comfort. They really don't exist for complex issues like finding reasons to support our faith.
I do believe you're right... for many people. Just very far from "all people." I think there's an equal amount of "many people" who do not prioritize finding concrete reasons for their faith... they put their faith as a lesser priority and would rather focus on "finding concrete reasons for reality" regardless of what that may do (or not do) to their faith.
I don't think there's a right or a wrong in a general sense... just different strokes for different folks.
Of course, in a specific sense... there would be right or wrong applications of the different ideas for identifying different answers. If you're looking to describe reality... perhaps you might want more people dedicated to reality than their faith. If someone is looking for help with their faith in a religion... perhaps you might want to include more people dedicated to their faith.
He says that the key to understanding the physical world is mathematics, an invention of the human mind. The fit between rationality in our minds and rationality in the world is to be expected if the world is a creation of the mind. Again it is not hard evidence but it is suggestive that we are the result of intelligence.
But science readily admits it doesn't have all the answers. Science readily admits it has not identified any "key to understanding the physical world" and that many questions remain. Science readily admits that it's possible that we'll never have all the answers. Therefore... there currently is no "fit between rationality in our minds and rationality in the world" - only on a superficial level (the level you and I are most used to). Such a thing does not exist when Scientists examine the details. There are too many confusing unknowns that persist.
According to your own quote, then... if a key does not yet exist (and may not ever) and this rational connection between human-minds and reality doesn't exist yet (and may not ever)... does this imply that we are not the result of intelligence?
Why I have come to the conclusion, and have faith in that conclusion, that we exist as a direct result of a loving god that wants us to reflect that love into the world, and you guys have not, is a mystery to me. It goes back to having free will I guess which also gives us freedom to believe what we will believe.
I don't see it as much of a mystery.
Only as big of a mystery as "different strokes for different folks." As big of a mystery as why I like chocolate over vanilla, and others like vanilla over chocolate.
As humans, almost all of us have a subjective side. That subjective side exists in all aspects of our life.
It exists in the simple, unimportant aspects - like ice cream flavor preference. It exists in the complex, important aspects - like personal conclusions on if God exists or not.
It is up to each and every one of us to identify when and how best to use our subjective side. It is also up to each and every one of us to judge when others are using their subjective side when they shouldn't be... or not using it when they should.
Getting back to the standards....it seems clear that Heaven and free will do not go together.
I don't know about that. I can imagine many versions of Heaven that work quite well with free will - and a loving, all powerful rule-making God. But I agree that it seems clear that the idea of Heaven as described here - where everyone does what God wants all the time - and free will do not go together.
Otherwise, not all of the saints would sing praises for eternity. jar used to joking say that he could imagine no worse hell than a heaven where people did nothing but grovel and sing exultations 24/7!
Well, I could imagine many worse hells. But this certainly does seem to make the grade of "a" hell.
Have you ever been bored in this temporary, mortal life? How long do you think it will take for you to get bored if you have all of eternity of only doing one thing?