Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Free will, perfection and limits on god
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 1 of 248 (184370)
02-10-2005 8:45 AM


This topic grows out of a reply from catholic Scientist to Ifen in Miscellaneous topics.
Ifen
No, I didn't...I think evolution provided God with a species that was able to appreciate love...thats why he 'created' us and 'injected' us with a soul...but this is a whole nother argument on why he didn't just create the perfect species in the first place instead of letting us evolve, which revolves around free will...
I would like to know what the problem is that prevented god from creating a perfect being with free will. If this is not possible then what does this say about gods' abilities? Also if a side note can be made to branch off into perhaps another topic just what do believers think free will is as pertains to humans?
I think this would do well in Miscellaneous Topics in C/E.
This message has been edited by sidelined, 10 February 2005 18:15 AM
{Tweeked title - Added space after the ",". - AM}
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-21-2005 10:08 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Brad McFall, posted 02-11-2005 8:10 PM sidelined has not replied
 Message 5 by Phat, posted 02-21-2005 10:32 AM sidelined has not replied
 Message 6 by 1.61803, posted 02-21-2005 11:04 AM sidelined has not replied
 Message 7 by jar, posted 02-21-2005 12:58 PM sidelined has replied
 Message 11 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-21-2005 5:23 PM sidelined has replied
 Message 72 by purpledawn, posted 03-12-2005 6:49 AM sidelined has replied
 Message 182 by QBert14000, posted 05-02-2005 3:20 PM sidelined has not replied
 Message 234 by Phat, posted 05-06-2005 7:13 PM sidelined has replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 248 (184546)
02-11-2005 10:11 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 3 of 248 (184652)
02-11-2005 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by sidelined
02-10-2005 8:45 AM


Kant Critique of Practical Reason
"These rules, however, contribute nothing to the theoretical use of the understanding in bringing the manifold of (senuous) intuitions under one consciousness a priori, but only to the a priori subjection of the manifold of desires to the unity of consciousness of a practical reason commanding in the moral law, i;e;, of a pure will.
These categories of freedom - for we wish to call them this in contrast to the theoretical concepts which are categories of nature - have a manifest advantage over the latter. The latter categories are only forms of thought, which through which, through universal concepts, designate in an indefinate manner objects in general for every intuition possible to us. The categories of freedom, on the contrary, are elementary practical concepts which determine the free faculty of choice; though no intuition perfectly corresponding to the latter can be given, it yet has as its foundation a pure practical law a priori, and this...immediately become cognitions,not needing to wait upon intuitions in order to acquire meaning. This occurrs for the noteworthy reason that they themselves produce the reality of that to which they refer ( the intention of the will) - an achievement which is in no way the business of theoretical concepts. One must carefully observe, however, that these categories concern only practical reason in general, and so they proceed in order from those which are as yet morally undetermined and senously conditioned to those which, being senously unconditioned, are determined merely by the moral law."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sidelined, posted 02-10-2005 8:45 AM sidelined has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 4 of 248 (187188)
02-21-2005 10:24 AM


Bump for further input

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Brad McFall, posted 02-21-2005 5:59 PM sidelined has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 5 of 248 (187189)
02-21-2005 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by sidelined
02-10-2005 8:45 AM


sidelined writes:
I would like to know what the problem is that prevented god from creating a perfect being with free will. If this is not possible then what does this say about gods' abilities?
God did create that being. The being has not arrived at perfection yet, however. The being is still evolving to that conclusion.
HINT: This being loves his kids.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sidelined, posted 02-10-2005 8:45 AM sidelined has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by QBert14000, posted 04-18-2005 10:01 PM Phat has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 6 of 248 (187198)
02-21-2005 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by sidelined
02-10-2005 8:45 AM


Dogma
Hello Sidelined.
Many view the concept of a omnipotent God as one who can do that which is impossible. ie: create a rock he can not lift, or make a square triangle, or create a being with freewill that makes perfect choices. Omnipotent "all powerful" means that, but it does not mean that God can do that which by doing it goes against the truth. Some believe that God is 'being' itself, that all that exist recieves it's being from God. Like waves in the ocean, each wave is different, each one manifested by the ocean itself. So we are the waves and God is the ocean. God did not have to create anything, he is a self exisitant undifferentiated uncreated reality that is manifested in the universe and yet more than the universe. It is thought that perhaps God although complete and perfect chose to do this big science project we call the universe.
And although he cares for his creations he himself being a diety of choice has allowed this to permiate our reality as well. Energy becoming concious through the natural laws of science. Who is to say why we are? All we can attempt to glean is how. And even asking how ; humans are still left with the problem of not being able to remove themselves from the equation. Just a little Dogma for you to rip apart. Peace be with you.

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sidelined, posted 02-10-2005 8:45 AM sidelined has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 7 of 248 (187214)
02-21-2005 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by sidelined
02-10-2005 8:45 AM


May I ask you a few dumb questions?
I would like to know what the problem is that prevented god from creating a perfect being with free will. If this is not possible then what does this say about gods' abilities?
Does that presuppose that GOD had a goal of creating a perfect being?
And does the issue of freewill apply to other animals as well as humans?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sidelined, posted 02-10-2005 8:45 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by sidelined, posted 02-21-2005 3:04 PM jar has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 8 of 248 (187239)
02-21-2005 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by jar
02-21-2005 12:58 PM


Re: May I ask you a few dumb questions?
jar
Why would punishment as the bible relates be enforced upon an imperfect being? Is the issue not that we have fallen from grace or perfection from sin? This is the point of banishment from Eden is it not?
I create a being capable of defying me by giving them freewill and I would punish such for doing so? I moan and bitch about how much they have disappointed me?
I am sorry you find these questions dumb jar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 02-21-2005 12:58 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by jar, posted 02-21-2005 3:28 PM sidelined has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 9 of 248 (187245)
02-21-2005 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by sidelined
02-21-2005 3:04 PM


Re: May I ask you a few dumb questions?
Why would punishment as the bible relates be enforced upon an imperfect being?
Great question. Do you think that a GOD that did something like that would be believable?
Is the issue not that we have fallen from grace or perfection from sin?
I don't think it is. But then many seem to disagree.
This is the point of banishment from Eden is it not?
I don't think it is. That's a nice simplistic story but I think it misses much of the story.
I create a being capable of defying me by giving them freewill and I would punish such for doing so?
That would be really silly wouldn't it?
I moan and bitch about how much they have disappointed me?
Hard to imagine anything much sillier isn't it?
AbE
I see I missed this one.
I am sorry you find these questions dumb jar.
Oh, it's not your questions. It's just that everyone else seems to be able to put long monologues together. I have trouble when I get over a dozen words or so. Sometimes I fear that my questions simply are not as profound as the subject demands.
Now how about those two dumb questions I asked you?
This message has been edited by jar, 02-21-2005 14:49 AM

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by sidelined, posted 02-21-2005 3:04 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by sidelined, posted 02-21-2005 4:52 PM jar has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 10 of 248 (187262)
02-21-2005 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by jar
02-21-2005 3:28 PM


Re: May I ask you a few dumb questions?
jar
Now how about those two dumb questions I asked you?
Does that presuppose that GOD had a goal of creating a perfect being?
I don't think the issue is put forth that I am aware of.Let us asssume the object was to create an imperfect being. If you create an imperfect being do you also give them free will? In doing so can you hold them responsible for commiting imperfect acts that you disapprove of while you are fully cognizant of the consequences of those acts while they are not?
And does the issue of freewill apply to other animals as well as humans?
I cannot say though since freewill is not given even in humans. Indeed there are studies that call such into question.
. Do you think that a GOD that did something like that would be believable?
LOL Since I am atheist as a matter of evidence the concept of god is not amenable to any kind of concensus that I know of so none if it is believable on the face of it.Consider this.We assume a god exists that can summon into existence beings such as ourselves with no means of determining just how such is accomplished.Indeed the vast majority of religious thought rails against the establishment of evidentiary bases for god.
We further grant powers that allow the creation of a universe with all the inherent interactions and levels of abstraction with subtlties that in some cases are irresolvable and yet we somehow equate this to a faith that is allowed to circumvent our scepticism and render magic as a real property of the world.
I do not find this compelling in the least, but then I am thickheaded eh?

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by jar, posted 02-21-2005 3:28 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 02-21-2005 7:15 PM sidelined has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 248 (187270)
02-21-2005 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by sidelined
02-10-2005 8:45 AM


I would like to know what the problem is that prevented god from creating a perfect being with free will.
I think god wanted to make a being that could appreciate his love and love him back.
Now, he could have made a perfect being that always loved him, but it kinda would have been like a robot, and not really love. If we love god by default then the value of that love is compromised. God wanted a being that could love him but did not have to love him. Not having to love him and then choosing to love him makes it kick-ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sidelined, posted 02-10-2005 8:45 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by sidelined, posted 02-21-2005 7:37 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 56 by DominionSeraph, posted 03-10-2005 2:28 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 12 of 248 (187283)
02-21-2005 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by sidelined
02-21-2005 10:24 AM


consciousness side note
We are conscious and have a sort of group consciousness but how should we be able to KNOW what GOD could or could not do?
Kant also wrote, "The claims to freedom of will made even by common reason are founded on the consciousness and the admitted suposition that reason is independent on merely subjectively determined causes which together consitute what belongs to sensation only, and which consequently come under the general designation of sensibility. Man considering himself in this way as an intelligence, places himself thereby in a different order of things and in a relation to determining grounds of a wholly different kind when on the one hand he thinks of himself as an intelligence endowed with a will, and consequently with causality, and when on the other he percieves himself as a phenomenon in the world of sense(as he really is also), and affirms that his causality is subject to external determination according to the laws of nature. Now he soon becomes aware that both can hold good, nay, must hold good at the same time..."
but from both of this to think we can say what would be perfect for god we cant or at least I cant besides I am still perplexed why it is that Gould thought it important to point out that Creationists couldnt explain why bad things happening to animals and disfigurations in form were to be explained. I for one cant see why the strange morphologies or mutations are not SEEN as perfect or at least part of algorithms that might approach some ideal of perfection in man's willing sense.
The quote it from FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF THE METAPHYSIC OF MORALS by I.KANT translated by T.K. Abbot. I dont think it insignificant that you were asking about what we we knew GOD could or couldnt do where/when the translator at the sentence before I broke of the quote said in a footnote "The puncutation of the original gives the following sense: "Submits his causality, as regards its external determination, to laws of nature."..."
So sure just change you thread head from submission to affirmation and then I think the side note makes the kind. I think Kant simply meant submission as in the profession of the scientist but I might be wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by sidelined, posted 02-21-2005 10:24 AM sidelined has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 13 of 248 (187303)
02-21-2005 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by sidelined
02-21-2005 4:52 PM


A little more patience needed.
I hate to do this to you but may I get a few more answers.
Is it possible that GOD never planned on creating boings, perfect or imperfect but instead planned on creating a near perfect system?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by sidelined, posted 02-21-2005 4:52 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by sidelined, posted 02-21-2005 7:42 PM jar has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 14 of 248 (187307)
02-21-2005 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by New Cat's Eye
02-21-2005 5:23 PM


Catholic Scientist
God wanted a being that could love him but did not have to love him.
So why does he punish those who do not love him?{according to the bible}
Heck why does he punish those who do? {Job,Moses}
Now, he could have made a perfect being that always loved him
Is it necessary for a perfect being to always love?

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-21-2005 5:23 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-21-2005 8:21 PM sidelined has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 15 of 248 (187312)
02-21-2005 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by jar
02-21-2005 7:15 PM


Re: A little more patience needed.
jar
Given the existence of a god with magic {or the equivalent there of} a near perfect system could,of course,be just as plausible as a perfect system.The question then becomes why a near perfect and not a perfect system choice?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 02-21-2005 7:15 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 02-21-2005 7:47 PM sidelined has replied
 Message 86 by QBert14000, posted 04-19-2005 5:55 PM sidelined has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024