Gary's Corner

[promethean75]

Wait holy shit. What if we're still in the initial big bang design stage where the beings that god is creating are not yet fully formed, not yet capable of freewill and self-directed development?

What if there's a being/species we will eventually become (that is the intended end result of God's design/plan) but are nowhere near yet... so what we experience as freewill isn't freewill... we're just self-aware parameciums with material brains that trick us into feeling free when, in fact, we're just like billard balls.

What if there's a species of embodied intelligence that coexists with AI coming in the future... what we're actually supposed to be and are on our way to becoming in a kind of R rated Hegelian dialectical evolution of the absolute.

Didn't each stage of homo sapien think he was the final product? See whuddum sayin? Bro, this could be just the beginning. We could all be Lawnmower Men in the next few thousand years for all we know.

[mickthinks]

… a world with free agents in it is going to be one in which sometimes the right things happen, and sometimes the wrong things are done.

God knew that was going to happen, though. She knew exactly the world she was creating, and yet you say it wasn’t the world she intended to create. Is that what you mean?

[Immanuel Can]

… a world with free agents in it is going to be one in which sometimes the right things happen, and sometimes the wrong things are done.

God knew that was going to happen, though.

Of course.

...you say it wasn’t the world [God] intended to create.

No, I don't say that. I say it was precisely the world that God intended to create -- a world capable of sustaining free, independent, relationship-capable agents.

But free agents can disobey, as well as obey. And free relators can refuse relationship as well as embrace it. That's just logic. Anything else is an absurdity, an inherent contradiction that cannot exist in reality, like a "married bachelor" or a "square circle." A "free" agent must have access to a choice. No less than one, and plausibly more.

But if we can speak of anybody having a "choice" it must mean he/she had no less than at least one other way to go than the one he/she chose or should have chosen.

[Gary Childress]

… a world with free agents in it is going to be one in which sometimes the right things happen, and sometimes the wrong things are done.

God knew that was going to happen, though.

Of course.

...you say it wasn’t the world [God] intended to create.

No, I don't say that. I say it was precisely the world that God intended to create -- a world capable of sustaining free, independent, relationship-capable agents.

But free agents can disobey, as well as obey. And free relators can refuse relationship as well as embrace it. That's just logic. Anything else is an absurdity, an inherent contradiction that cannot exist in reality, like a "married bachelor" or a "square circle." A "free" agent must have access to a choice. No less than one, and plausibly more.

But if we can speak of anybody having a "choice" it must mean he/she had no less than at least one other way to go than the one he/she chose or should have chosen.

But God knew ahead that some of us would do wrong and God knew what wrongs we would do. So if we were to do differently, it would violate God's ability to know what we would do ahead of us doing it? Is that correct? Or can we surprise God and not do wrong when he predicted that we would? Or does God not know ahead of time what decisions we will make?

[Immanuel Can]

God knew that was going to happen, though.

Of course.

...you say it wasn’t the world [God] intended to create.

No, I don't say that. I say it was precisely the world that God intended to create -- a world capable of sustaining free, independent, relationship-capable agents.

But free agents can disobey, as well as obey. And free relators can refuse relationship as well as embrace it. That's just logic. Anything else is an absurdity, an inherent contradiction that cannot exist in reality, like a "married bachelor" or a "square circle." A "free" agent must have access to a choice. No less than one, and plausibly more.

But if we can speak of anybody having a "choice" it must mean he/she had no less than at least one other way to go than the one he/she chose or should have chosen.

But God knew ahead that some of us would do wrong and God knew what wrongs we would do. So if we were to do differently, it would violate God's ability to know what we would do ahead of us doing it?

No. Because WE don't know. Our choices are always genuine, because it's us who is making them.

That they are known to God beforehand doesn't even address the question of our freedom, because He knows but does not make us do what we choose to do.

Think of it this way, Gary: if I accurately know that you will have a follow-up question, does that imply that they motivation and responsibility for the next question you asks is mine, not yours? I don't think you think so. And I think you're right: it will be your question, and my knowing you are going to ask one does not mean I'm MAKING you ask one. You're still doing it, regardless of whether or not anybody but you knows what you're going to choose.

[Gary Childress]

Of course.

No, I don't say that. I say it was precisely the world that God intended to create -- a world capable of sustaining free, independent, relationship-capable agents.

But free agents can disobey, as well as obey. And free relators can refuse relationship as well as embrace it. That's just logic. Anything else is an absurdity, an inherent contradiction that cannot exist in reality, like a "married bachelor" or a "square circle." A "free" agent must have access to a choice. No less than one, and plausibly more.

But if we can speak of anybody having a "choice" it must mean he/she had no less than at least one other way to go than the one he/she chose or should have chosen.

But God knew ahead that some of us would do wrong and God knew what wrongs we would do. So if we were to do differently, it would violate God's ability to know what we would do ahead of us doing it?

No. Because WE don't know. Our choices are always genuine, because it's us who is making them.

That they are known to God beforehand doesn't even address the question of our freedom, because He knows but does not make us do what we choose to do.

Think of it this way, Gary: if I accurately know that you will have a follow-up question, does that imply that they motivation and responsibility for the next question you asks is mine, not yours? I don't think you think so. And I think you're right: it will be your question, and my knowing you are going to ask one does not mean I'm MAKING you ask one. You're still doing it, regardless of whether or not anybody but you knows what you're going to choose.

But you are not God so you did not create me knowing what I would do ahead of time. Knowing what I will do ahead of time is logically inconsistent with having free will.

[Immanuel Can]

But God knew ahead that some of us would do wrong and God knew what wrongs we would do. So if we were to do differently, it would violate God's ability to know what we would do ahead of us doing it?

No. Because WE don't know. Our choices are always genuine, because it's us who is making them.

That they are known to God beforehand doesn't even address the question of our freedom, because He knows but does not make us do what we choose to do.

Think of it this way, Gary: if I accurately know that you will have a follow-up question, does that imply that they motivation and responsibility for the next question you asks is mine, not yours? I don't think you think so. And I think you're right: it will be your question, and my knowing you are going to ask one does not mean I'm MAKING you ask one. You're still doing it, regardless of whether or not anybody but you knows what you're going to choose.

But you are not God so you did not create me knowing what I would do ahead of time. Knowing what I will do ahead of time is logically inconsistent with having free will.

Actually, no. Because knowing and making-to-do are very different verbs. Parents "make" children; but they do not "make" those little free agents do everything that they choose to do. If they did, we could incarcerate a parent for crimes the child committed.

Now, if what God had been creating were robots, then yes, what you say would be exactly right: for being incapable of free choice, the robots could only have done what their creator programmed them to do. However, you and I are not robots, and not programmed. We're free agents. And free agents can do things God knows they're going to do, but that He doesn't want them to do, and isn't responsible for them having done it. The choice, ultimately, was theirs.

If the cost of having genuinely free agents in creation is that some of them are going to do the wrong thing, this is the price God is willing to pay for the surpassing good of also having genuinely free agents capable of the choice of loving and relating to Him.

[Gary Childress]

No. Because WE don't know. Our choices are always genuine, because it's us who is making them.

That they are known to God beforehand doesn't even address the question of our freedom, because He knows but does not make us do what we choose to do.

Think of it this way, Gary: if I accurately know that you will have a follow-up question, does that imply that they motivation and responsibility for the next question you asks is mine, not yours? I don't think you think so. And I think you're right: it will be your question, and my knowing you are going to ask one does not mean I'm MAKING you ask one. You're still doing it, regardless of whether or not anybody but you knows what you're going to choose.

But you are not God so you did not create me knowing what I would do ahead of time. Knowing what I will do ahead of time is logically inconsistent with having free will.

Actually, no. Because knowing and making-to-do are very different verbs. Parents "make" children; but they do not "make" those little free agents do everything that they choose to do. If they did, we could incarcerate a parent for crimes the child committed.

Now, if what God had been creating were robots, then yes, what you say would be exactly right: for being incapable of free choice, the robots could only have done what their creator programmed them to do. However, you and I are not robots, and not programmed. We're free agents. And free agents can do things God knows they're going to do, but that He doesn't want them to do, and isn't responsible for them having done it. The choice, ultimately, was theirs.

If the cost of having genuinely free agents in creation is that some of them are going to do the wrong thing, this is the price God is willing to pay for the surpassing good of also having genuinely free agents capable of the choice of loving and relating to Him.

Unless God is truly like a parent and doesn't know the future of their child with 100% certainty, and God doesn't have the ability to intervene for the good or the desire to intervene for the good of the child and the world, then you are making a false comparison. If God knows what a person will do with 100% certainty, then that is not logically consistent with free will because the future is essentially determined, God cannot be surprised to find out that his premonition was wrong. If you want to remain logically consistent you would have to amend your beliefs about God, or you are free to throw out logic if that is what you wish to do, however, I don't recommend it since you regularly profess that your conclusions follow logic (which they do not).

[Gary Childress]

The bottom line is that ALL your speculations about God are speculations. They are not backed up by anything other than your desire to posit the existence of a God who is benevolent, omniscient and omnipotent. No one knows anything with certainty about God (or whatever created all that is).

[Immanuel Can]

But you are not God so you did not create me knowing what I would do ahead of time. Knowing what I will do ahead of time is logically inconsistent with having free will.

Actually, no. Because knowing and making-to-do are very different verbs. Parents "make" children; but they do not "make" those little free agents do everything that they choose to do. If they did, we could incarcerate a parent for crimes the child committed.

Now, if what God had been creating were robots, then yes, what you say would be exactly right: for being incapable of free choice, the robots could only have done what their creator programmed them to do. However, you and I are not robots, and not programmed. We're free agents. And free agents can do things God knows they're going to do, but that He doesn't want them to do, and isn't responsible for them having done it. The choice, ultimately, was theirs.

If the cost of having genuinely free agents in creation is that some of them are going to do the wrong thing, this is the price God is willing to pay for the surpassing good of also having genuinely free agents capable of the choice of loving and relating to Him.

Unless God is truly like a parent and doesn't know the future of their child with 100% certainty, and God doesn't have the ability to intervene for the good or the desire to intervene for the good of the child and the world, then you are making a false comparison.

No, if you think about it carefully, you'll realize what I'm telling you is logically right. My knowing about you replying doesn't even remotely imply I "made" you reply, even though, as it has turned out, my foreknowledge was 100% correct. You still have complete freedom of volition.

[Immanuel Can]

The bottom line is that ALL your speculations about God are speculations. They are not backed up by anything other than your desire to posit the existence of a God who is benevolent, omniscient and omnipotent.

Actually, my view of God is the Biblical one. So yes, I have something to "back it up," and no, it's not some "desire" of mine.

[promethean75]

"If you’re only moral because of the threat of hell, you’re not a moral agent. You’re just looking after your own neck. If you have to be threatened in order to be decent, you’re not a decent person.

So, if ‘the devil’ comes up with a bigger threat, you’ll switch sides in a heartbeat.

Is the Christian ‘God’ so stupid, so easily duped, that ‘He’ will happily grant eternal life to such self-serving manipulators — individuals who will abandon ‘Him’ for a better deal as soon as one becomes available? Or those who only love ‘Him’ because ‘He’ outbid ‘Satan’?" - Rosa 'The Red' Lichtenstein

But it gets worse. You couldn't trust what you were told was the moral thing to do by god anyway and certainly shouldn't want to after assessing the destruction that divine command theory has caused throughout history. You'd have to be a sadist for god sakes!

[Gary Childress]

Actually, no. Because knowing and making-to-do are very different verbs. Parents "make" children; but they do not "make" those little free agents do everything that they choose to do. If they did, we could incarcerate a parent for crimes the child committed.

Now, if what God had been creating were robots, then yes, what you say would be exactly right: for being incapable of free choice, the robots could only have done what their creator programmed them to do. However, you and I are not robots, and not programmed. We're free agents. And free agents can do things God knows they're going to do, but that He doesn't want them to do, and isn't responsible for them having done it. The choice, ultimately, was theirs.

If the cost of having genuinely free agents in creation is that some of them are going to do the wrong thing, this is the price God is willing to pay for the surpassing good of also having genuinely free agents capable of the choice of loving and relating to Him.

Unless God is truly like a parent and doesn't know the future of their child with 100% certainty, and God doesn't have the ability to intervene for the good or the desire to intervene for the good of the child and the world, then you are making a false comparison.

No, if you think about it carefully, you'll realize what I'm telling you is logically right. My knowing about you replying doesn't even remotely imply I "made" you reply, even though, as it has turned out, my foreknowledge was 100% correct. You still have complete freedom of volition.

But you didn't "know" it ahead, you guessed based on past experience and high probability. Presumably God's knowledge according to his believers cannot and will never be inaccurate. Again, it's a false comparison.

[Gary Childress]

The bottom line is that ALL your speculations about God are speculations. They are not backed up by anything other than your desire to posit the existence of a God who is benevolent, omniscient and omnipotent.

Actually, my view of God is the Biblical one. So yes, I have something to "back it up," and no, it's not some "desire" of mine.

Your source is little better than the Quran. Admit it. It's a matter of faith not knowledge. Case closed.

[promethean75]

That should go without saying, though. IC can only have faith (not knowledge) about these matters. But atheists are usually polite enough not to ask them to openly admit that. Instead, the Christian argues for good reasons to believe in what he has faith in, and the atheist argues back that those aren't good reasons, so on and so forth.