God's judgement and Determinism

Whether or not it's theoretically "true" is a trivial point. The question is: Is it true in any practical sense? Judgement is practical.

---

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

Are you then essentially saying that murderers are born and manufactured without any of their own cognizance in the matter to map out their own destiny?We're just screwed, without any hope at all?I have no doubt that genes lead us to certain dispositions, such as personalities, proneness towards diseases and syndromes, etc. Coupling that "nature" with "nurture" will also prove to be pivotal in how a person develops and interacts with their peers.But I don't believe for a second that we are essentially doomed for failure because we have "bad" genes or a bad upbringing. These are exactly the same kinds of arguments that crazed eugenicists make towards the general notion of eradicating such ill-conceived behavior from a gene pool. Quite frankly, that's dangerous, grossly misinformed, and deluded.As for how God deals with us, the Bible is sure to mention that we are accountable for what we know. Since His word is written on the hearts of mankind (conscience), we are held accountable for what we know to be true, even if the compunction with it wants us to believe otherwise.Amazonian tribe members who has never received the Word are not accountable for what they don't know. Like every person, they are accountable for what they do know is morally righteous or unrighteous.

---

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

It's not so much that determinism is wrong. Rather, there is more to it than just determinism. Biblically speaking, a person is born a "slave to sin". That is to say, they have no free will in the area of morality ("free will" being a will that can have its desires satisfied by expressing itself unto action (via mind/body) in this, that or the other direction).Such a person, when faced with a "choice", will always tend towards evil - due to the fact that their nature is enslaved (or addicted) to sin. In other words, people are born with all the free will of a heroin junkie. That the reason for this 'determinism' is essentially spiritual rather than genetic/environmental is a side issue - what is important at this point is that the person has no free will.Next up we have conscience. Conscience can be considered as the influence of God upon sin-addicted man. Not an overwhelming influence it must be said - calls of conscience can be suppressed. But an influence nonetheless. That a man doesn't believe in God (or believe his conscience is from God) is neither here nor there. Conscience calls irrespective of what man thinks.Looking at things simplistically then. A sin-addicted man comes up against a moral choice. And Conscience calls - telling a man what man ought to do. Man's Addiction to Sin also calls - enticing man to sin. Man is not faced with a free willed choice here: man is being pulled in one direction by Gods will. And is being pulled in ther other direction by mans addiction. One of two things can happen.- the man doesn't sin. If he does not it is because the power of truth (revealed through conscience) held the man from sinning. Man was convinced by the truths action upon him.- the man does sin. In order to sin, man must first suppress Gods truth. He must shut off the light which tells him the truth and in the self-enabled darkness his addiction can be fed.Note: all that is required in order that man not sin is that his sin-addicted will not be expressed. If not expressed then the man remains exposed to and convinced of Gods truth and sin cannot occur. On the other hand we can see that an expression of mans will is required for sin to occur. In order for sin to occur man must will to suppress Gods truth revealed. By burying what he knows he ought to do, man wills himself handed over to the power of his addiction to sin. And his addiction will pull him into sin as sure as night follows day. Mans will has effected his sin - meaning that he can be justly punished for it (in the case where he remains unsaved).Edited by iano, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Then you and/or The Agnostic would have to distinguish between legal and moral in terms of God's judgement.

​

If you spend all your money on luxuries instead of on the poor, how is that not your responsibility?

---

Legal consequences are the result of moral judging behaviour. Is it fair for a god to apply legal consequences (hell/heaven) to a deterministic system where there is only one result (absence of moral)?

You continue to avoid the practical question: If you spend all your money on luxuries instead of on the poor, how is that not your responsibility?How is it "unfair" for God to reward/punish on the basis of one's responsible actions?A human judge knows that a young man brought up in poverty, surrounded by crime, with little parental guidance, is likely to appear before him. From experience, he can make a pretty good guess what the range of charges might be. Is the judge being "unfair" if he sentences the young man knowing that his background made a criminal life inevitable? Wouldn't the judge be more unfair to the victims of crime if he didn't?Similarly, wouldn't God be unfair to do nothing?

---

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

quote:

---

You continue to avoid the practical question: If you spend all your money on luxuries instead of on the poor, how is that not your responsibility?

---

Actually i answered the question indirectly but perhaps i should be more specific. Assuming to answer this in a deterministic situation, there is no moral responsibility since there is only one outcome of everything.Let's take an example where a person murders someone. This action is determined at the very beginning of our universe. It is the logical result of the laws of physics that influence the situation from the beginning. So it is long before the murderers grand-grand-grand-parents (and so on) determined that he/she commits the crime.It's not about whether you or me think such a person is legally responsible but if he/she is morally responsible at all, since there is no moral in a system where there is no free will.

quote:

---

How is it "unfair" for God to reward/punish on the basis of one's responsible actions?

​

Similarly, wouldn't God be unfair to do nothing?

---

As mentioned above it seems it would be unfair for a god to reward/punish one for actions that are not influenced by that person self but by the deterministic system.Edited by Arachide, : No reason given.

You're not addressing the issue at all. No, let's not. Let's take the example that I've been trying to get you to address:

quote:

---

If you spend all your money on luxuries instead of on the poor, how is that not your responsibility?

---

According to your molecular-level determinism, that poor person's fate has been carved in stone since the dawn of time. Your reaction to him has also been carved in stone since the dawn of time. But you don't know what his fate is. You don't know how your actions will effect his fate.If God "programmed" you to do your part in determining his fate, how is God's tweaking of the program "unfair"? For that matter, who is it unfair to?

---

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

quote:

---

You're not addressing the issue at all.

---

You: If you spend all your money on luxuries instead of on the poor, how is that not your responsibility?Me: Assuming to answer this in a deterministic situation, there is no moral responsibility since there is only one outcome of everything.You: You're not addressing the issue at all.

quote:

---

If God "programmed" you to do your part in determining his fate, how is God's tweaking of the program "unfair"? For that matter, who is it unfair to?

---

You can ask yourself if it is unfair for us to be judged by a god who created a system where there is no moral.

You're not addressing the issue. Maybe it's just that your assumption doesn't work, but the fact is that there is more than one possible outcome.Suppose you're sitting in your big, warm house, stuffing your face with caviar and watching the homeless people starve in the snow. On the judgement day, you tell God, "I couldn't feed them. Physics wouldn't let me."Set aside the marbles for a moment and think about the problem: how does your notion of determinism negate the obligation to make real-world decisions? First, what do you mean by "a system where there is no moral"? Do you mean "morality" or something like that?Second, regardless of the properties of the system God created, how is it "unfair" of Him to judge how well the system performs?

---

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

quote:

---

You're not addressing the issue. Maybe it's just that your assumption doesn't work, but the fact is that there is more than one possible outcome.

---

I state a situation as an assumption and you say the contrary is a FACT? Even if it is a fact you should know the answer. IF there is more than one possible outcome - with a free will - we have a moral responsibility for our actions. IF there is one possible outcome (determinism) - without free will - we don't have a moral responsibility for our actions.

quote:

---

Suppose you're sitting in your big, warm house, stuffing your face with caviar and watching the homeless people starve in the snow. On the judgement day, you tell God, "I couldn't feed them. Physics wouldn't let me."

​

Set aside the marbles for a moment and think about the problem: how does your notion of determinism negate the obligation to make real-world decisions?

---

There are no real-world decisions in a deterministic system since there is no free will. There is no free will because our behaviour is a result of the laws of physics from the beginning.

quote:

---

First, what do you mean by "a system where there is no moral"? Do you mean "morality" or something like that?

---

A deterministic system as explained above. How can there be moral responsibility in such a system?
With absence of moral responsibility i mean the situation where one cannot be held responsible for certain behaviour because he/she did not act self by free will.

quote:

---

Second, regardless of the properties of the system God created, how is it "unfair" of Him to judge how well the system performs?

---

It's not unfair of him to judge how well a system performs. But the question is if it's unfair of him to judge how well the people in a deterministic system perform.

And we know there are real world decisions (feed the poor or don't feed the poor), so you seem to be arguing against determinism. Again, how is "physics wouldn't let me" a defense? You don't know exactly what physics does allow so you have, at the very least, a pseudo-free will.Feed the poor or don't feed the poor. How are you not responsible for that decision? It's the same question. System performance depends on the performance of the components. One component fails and another starves to death in the snow. How is it "unfair" to call the failed component a failure?

---

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

quote:

---

And we know there are real world decisions (feed the poor or don't feed the poor), so you seem to be arguing against determinism.

​

Again, how is "physics wouldn't let me" a defense? You don't know exactly what physics does allow so you have, at the very least, a pseudo-free will.

​

Feed the poor or don't feed the poor. How are you not responsible for that decision?

---

No, no. "Feed the poor or don't feed the poor", that's the illusion of free will. These two options are comparable with the places we see where the marble could end. Just because you see two options "Feed the poor or don't feed the poor" doesn't mean there is a free choice between those two.Regardless if you understand this above or not: do you agree that one cannot be responsible for behaviour he/she absolutely has no influence on?

quote:

---

It's the same question. System performance depends on the performance of the components. One component fails and another starves to death in the snow. How is it "unfair" to call the failed component a failure?

---

If you agree my question above (which i doubt one can disagree unless it's misinterpret because it's a logical argument) it would be unfair to judge a component on that.

We're not claiming that determinism frees you from a subjective sense of responsibility. When I see people starving, I'll go over and share my food with them.
However, whether or not you will behave responsibly, THAT is predetermined.Therefore, God's judgement cannot be based on our behaviour, since we don't have any real control over it. There is only a subjective, personal sense of morality. Based on this subjective morality, we call people like Hitler "bad" and people like Gandhi "good". Based on this subjective morality, we convict murderers and child molesters and we praise our wartime heroes.However, this sense of morality cannot be used for God's judgement, because of the problem of determinism.I wouldn't accept the "physics wouldn't let me" defense in court, but I would accept it on Judgement Day.

I disagree that you have no control over your behaviour. Come down from the ivory tower, forget the marble-drop physics, let go of the schoolboy "logic" and look at the real-world question.You have a hundred-dollar bill in your pocket. Do you buy new shoes for your kid? Do you donate it to the homeless shelter? Do you go out anf get drunk?Never mind your claims that you have no control over that decision. You've said that. We're all bored with that claim. Say something new.How are we not responsible for our behaviour?

---

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

The subjective sense of responsibility is all we're talking about. The subjective sense of responsibility is all you will/can be judged on.By the way, what's with the "we"? What's with the TweedleAgnostic and TweedleArachide act? Judgement Day isn't up to you. What is up to you is to tell us what you think the difference is between court and Judgement Day.

---

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.