Ponderings of a Mad Man

[Forte]

FRIENDSHIP

[Death Dark]

Hey, not looking to start a debate or anything, but I wanted to hear your thoughts on something. I'm horrible at debating.

 To me it seems there is a dilemma that is often over looked when you consider an omniscient and omnipotent God. God would have the power to stop or prevent anything that has a bad outcome, correct? However if He did there could be no such thing as free will, since any thoughts or actions that could hurt ourselves or others would be prevented. Therefore if God always intervenes we are mindless drones, but if He doesn't then He knows something bad is going to happen and doesn't prevent it even though He is perfectly capable. If we see a human not act to prevent something terrible that they are capable of stopping then they are being evil, but I propose that God not acting to prevent bad things is simply the only way to give us free will.

Of course the big difference here is that God also created the initial circumstances and would also be aware of the outcome when He did so. Now God faces the choice of: creating life with free will that will inevitably cause suffering, create life that will only do exactly what He wants 100% of the time or not create life at all. As I'm sure you've guessed I believe He chose the first option and that it was the best option, because it is better to be given choice than to be a complex turing machine or to have never existed at all.

 What are your thoughts?

I did think about this while I was a Christian. The way I took the thought was that it would be more evil to infringe upon free will than it would be to let the atrocities continue. Perhaps God views it as such an atrocity that he cannot conceive of doing such a thing.

 It should be noted, however, that this isn't so with the God described by the Bible, as God is described in the old testament to, for example, "harden the heart of Pharoh" to make him refuse to let the Israelites go, "forcing" God to perform miracles to convince him. (It may have not been pharoh, but there was something like that)

 There's a fundamental issue with God creating us knowing all of this would happen as it has. You see, most of humanity has failed God, and will be cast into the lake of the second death (lake of fire). Thus, God would have created us so that a few of us could be saved, knowing that the vast majority of humanity would be tortured. This is very petty, even for an immortal omnipotent being.

The final conclusion I was lead to was that our understanding of Omniscience and Omnipotence was wrong. Omniscience is knowing everything. However, if something cannot be known, an omniscient being would not know it. Much the same is true for omnipotence. Thus, I concluded that the future may not be able to be known (nondeterminism), and thereby God wouldn't have been able to know exactly what would've happened. Much the same, it may not be possible to eliminate evil entirely, which would be why God hasn't eliminated evil (i.e. the Problem of Evil is resolved).

 Of course, even though I don't believe in God at this point, these arguments still stand on their own, and they resolve many issues that could be had in theology. Many Christians, even at the time I proposed them, rejected the idea outright because I was infringing on their idea of a God, but these are a set of logical circumstances that can lead to the existence of a non-evil God.

 Because, frankly, God knowing all of this would come to pass would define God as a sadistic, cruel, and evil being that should be despised outright as a matter of principal.

To clarify, Robbie is physically disabled, and thus operates out of a wheelchair.  However, he's a smart guy, and a computer scientist (which is why he used the Turing machine example, since I'd get it).

Two points you may not know:


Non-Determinism:

I covered this in a definitions thread here.  Put simply, non-determinism is the property to where something isn't predetermined, or that the outcome cannot be predetermined.  The exact usage varies with philosophy and computational theory, but the fundamentals are the same.


Problem of Evil (Paraphrased):

If God knows everything, can do anything, and is all loving.  Yet evil exists.  All four of these cannot be true at once.  However, we know evil exists.  Thereby, God doesn't have one of the aforementioned properties.

[Hobro]

Except that denies the principle part of being human, having free will. Otherwise, why create man at all? He would have just had more angels, except on Earth.

God allows us to have free will, which is why "evil" things happen. People in wheelchairs, world hunger, Holocaust, etc. He has allowed man to choose to be evil, or rather to follow Satan. He allowed it to happen in the Garden of Eden, he the nation of Israel to be enslaved to Egypt, the list goes on.

God doesn't make the meth addict do meth, or the whore to pander her goods. They choose of their own volition. For "Satan is the ruler of this world," as the Scripture says.

However, the appeal of Him is that should own choose to accept what he has to offer, your past experiences are turned into a tool to help others. Thus the "all the things work together for good to those who love God."

It's obvious why one could discredit the existence of God or a god, but it would seem that they merely fail to factor humanity's choices into the equation.

Just sayin'.

[Death Dark]

The only reason I posted the Problem of Evil and non-determinism descriptions was so you'd know what I was talking about in my response to Robbie (second quote block).  I wasn't asserting the Problem of Evil as an argument myself.

However, since you made the argument, you should already be aware you're prone to response, so here goes.


Point 1:
   My response to Robbie contains rational justification for how God could have created everyone and not been evil.  Your initial paragraph asks "Otherwise, why create man at all?"  The answer is simple:  to kill and torture all of them.  It could be a reason of a God that may exist, and if the God that exists knew beforehand how miserable life and afterlife would be for most people, he'd be evil to continue with making them.  (Evil here being intentionally causing harm to people)  Again, for the reasoning I came up with while I was a Christian, see my previous post.


Point 2:
   If free will exists, it isn't exclusively human.  We know that animals experience emotion and make choices, much as we do.
   Further, to claim free will is a vital part of humanity, or that it can demonstrate a God's presence, you must first show free will to exist.  As we observe the universe, we are faced with determinism.  Gravity works every time, without fail; the planets continue to rotate; scientific induction is actually applicable to the real world.  This demonstrates that there may not be an unpredictable (given all variables) variation to the world.  Until a non-deterministic effect is shown to exist, free will can't be said to exist, but instead a simulation of it, much as a computer would simulate free will.


Point 3:
   Could you clarify this statement?  It's ambiguous.

It's obvious why one could discredit the existence of God or a god, but it would seem that they merely fail to factor humanity's choices into the equation.

[c0mp1337]

can i ask you a question?

what supernatural beings you belive that exist?

sorry if the question could have been type much more better, my english is not perfect.

[Death Dark]

   As an atheist, the answer is:  None.  This is due to the mindset that I've come into that requires evidence or proof to believe in something.  Having no reliable evidence for the supernatural, it couldn't even be said that the supernatural exists.

   However, I can still address supernatural beings hypothetically and discuss the properties they may or may not have.  When I speak about a supernatural being as though they exist, it's just a slip of speech from when I was a Christian, since I did a lot of debating back then, too.

[c0mp1337]

Well, it's sometimes said that we can't label something as non-existent just because there is lack of proof (as in not enough)

Still, everyone's got an opinion on their beliefs. (or probably in your case, lack thereof)

[Death Dark]

   Actually you're completely right (no pun intended).  Labeling something as false due to lack of evidence is just as bad as labeling it true despite lack of evidence.  Both of these are fallacies, and can't be logically considered.

   However, I'm simply saying that I'll withhold my judgement until I find evidence on way or another.  I do not believe in any god or gods.

[Hobro]

Point 1:
   My response to Robbie contains rational justification for how God could have created everyone and not been evil.  Your initial paragraph asks "Otherwise, why create man at all?"  The answer is simple:  to kill and torture all of them.  It could be a reason of a God that may exist, and if the God that exists knew beforehand how miserable life and afterlife would be for most people, he'd be evil to continue with making them.  (Evil here being intentionally causing harm to people)  Again, for the reasoning I came up with while I was a Christian, see my previous post.

So, mere conjecture based on someone who was dealt a bad hand in life. As already stated, "Satan is the ruler of this world," assuming that he, or rather his rebellion, is the source of evil, thus causing disease, famine, war, etc.

Sounds like someone's just trying to find a scape goat, brah.

Point 2:
   If free will exists, it isn't exclusively human.  We know that animals experience emotion and make choices, much as we do.
   Further, to claim free will is a vital part of humanity, or that it can demonstrate a God's presence, you must first show free will to exist.  As we observe the universe, we are faced with determinism.  Gravity works every time, without fail; the planets continue to rotate; scientific induction is actually applicable to the real world.  This demonstrates that there may not be an unpredictable (given all variables) variation to the world.  Until a non-deterministic effect is shown to exist, free will can't be said to exist, but instead a simulation of it, much as a computer would simulate free will.

Things operating by laws of nature. Check. Without brains or neurons firing. Check. Abiding by their physical properties alone. Check. Animals lacking "rational thought" and only focusing on survival which has been honed by thousands of years survival. Check.

Human beings capable of rational thought. Check. Main motive(s) are/is often self serving and "rarely" altruistic. Check. Things respond independently by their own firing of neurons in response to the independent neuron transmissions another individual has . Check.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm fairly certain not knowing how a person will respond will you them "x" is not the same a larger mass acting on a smaller one.

Point 3:
   Could you clarify this statement?  It's ambiguous.

It's obvious why one could discredit the existence of God or a god, but it would seem that they merely fail to factor humanity's choices into the equation.

Maybe you should reread it. Seems pretty straightforward to me. Man would dismiss the existence of a "benevolent" higher power because of the horrors they see in the world, and instead of saying, "Hey, someone consciously made the decision to do that," they say, "That higher power is out to melt our faces and I should blame him for all of my problems ever."

[Death Dark]

Point 1:
   My response to Robbie contains rational justification for how God could have created everyone and not been evil.  Your initial paragraph asks "Otherwise, why create man at all?"  The answer is simple:  to kill and torture all of them.  It could be a reason of a God that may exist, and if the God that exists knew beforehand how miserable life and afterlife would be for most people, he'd be evil to continue with making them.  (Evil here being intentionally causing harm to people)  Again, for the reasoning I came up with while I was a Christian, see my previous post.

So, mere conjecture based on someone who was dealt a bad hand in life. As already stated, "Satan is the ruler of this world," assuming that he, or rather his rebellion, is the source of evil, thus causing disease, famine, war, etc.

Sounds like someone's just trying to find a scape goat, brah.

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." -- Isaiah 45:7

Even when Evil is taken as "disaster" or "ill fortune," it still means you're wrong.

Point 2:
   If free will exists, it isn't exclusively human.  We know that animals experience emotion and make choices, much as we do.
   Further, to claim free will is a vital part of humanity, or that it can demonstrate a God's presence, you must first show free will to exist.  As we observe the universe, we are faced with determinism.  Gravity works every time, without fail; the planets continue to rotate; scientific induction is actually applicable to the real world.  This demonstrates that there may not be an unpredictable (given all variables) variation to the world.  Until a non-deterministic effect is shown to exist, free will can't be said to exist, but instead a simulation of it, much as a computer would simulate free will.

Things operating by laws of nature. Check. Without brains or neurons firing. Check. Abiding by their physical properties alone. Check. Animals lacking "rational thought" and only focusing on survival which has been honed by thousands of years survival. Check.

Human beings capable of rational thought. Check. Main motive(s) are/is often self serving and "rarely" altruistic. Check. Things respond independently by their own firing of neurons in response to the independent neuron transmissions another individual has . Check.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm fairly certain not knowing how a person will respond will you them "x" is not the same a larger mass acting on a smaller one.

Chimps and Dolphins are capable of rational thought to the point where they can solve puzzles.  All species are self-serving by nature, as it is ingrained within them to keep from dying.

When a human receives information, it passes through their sensory system in a predictable fashion, and enters their brain, where it's analyzed in a predictable fashion that's influence by their previous experience.  They will then make decisions and act in manners that are largely predictable.  Even emotions are chemical reactions in the brain altering the way the signals move about.  This doesn't show any trace of free will, but of a machine reacting to the way it's been trained, much as an artificial neural network would.  But we know the ANN isn't actually making a decision, but is simulating decision making.  And there's no way to tell the difference between what it does and what we do.

Point 3:
   Could you clarify this statement?  It's ambiguous.

It's obvious why one could discredit the existence of God or a god, but it would seem that they merely fail to factor humanity's choices into the equation.

Maybe you should reread it. Seems pretty straightforward to me. Man would dismiss the existence of a "benevolent" higher power because of the horrors they see in the world, and instead of saying, "Hey, someone consciously made the decision to do that," they say, "That higher power is out to melt our faces and I should blame him for all of my problems ever."

No, it wasn't straightforward.  Just claiming something is obvious ("why one could", where you explain it as "why one would") doesn't make it so.

You're also making a straw-man argument.  You're taking the opposing viewpoint, portraying it as something silly, and then attacking the silly thing you described instead of your actual opponent.

Proving the non-existence of God wouldn't be because someone blames God for something, it'd happen because THE FUCKER DIDN'T EXIST!  It's like me insisting that Santa doesn't exist, but he doesn't bring me any good presents.  No, it's believing in religion that causes people to blame a higher power for shit ("Satan is the ruler of this world"), and it's rational viewpoints like atheism that say "shit happens, and people do shit to people".

[Hobro]

So, everything is literal, and the Bible is not open to interpretation of metaphors such as "faith to move mountains," etc.

And the Bible definitely has records of God "creating evil." He's killed his own people, as when Israel wandered the desert. But, oh wait, those were people sewing dissent in the camps and destroying their fellow man.

You're also disregarding the passage as whole, which is all about the grandeur of God and his limitless. So, assuming he created the angels which rebelled by *cough*free will*cough*, he did create evil.


Why wouldn't we process information on a predictable pattern? If our biological functions didn't happen on a consistent and predictable basis, life would be pretty difficult. And where is proof that we aren't able to manipulate the chemical messengers in brain that cause emotions and reactions? People can "tell" themselves to quit being depressed, angry, etc. by training themselves to do. Seems pretty free to me.


And I don't understand why you think I'm making a straw-man out of the opposing argument. If anything I was giving it credence, just without any supporting details. None of your previous posts described human choice and free will, so I felt that it needed to be brought into the forefront. It honestly is starting to look more and more like Münchausen syndrome from you, in my opinion at least.

But whatever, brah.

[Death Dark]

The thing is, the passage has no metaphorical version.  He rather straightforward says he creates those things.

But, why do you say God created man?  Why did he create man knowing that most men would lead horrible, suffering lives?  Why would he put a tree in the garden that Adam and Eve can't eat?  Didn't he know that they'd eventually eat it?  Why didn't he just not put it there?  Did he want them to fail?  Why did he give snakes the ability to speak (yes, it's supposed to actually be a snake, it's only under presumptions that it can be seen as "Satan") ?  Why does he punish the children for the sins of their parents?  Why doesn't God just forgive everyone?  Why doesn't he prove himself to people so that they can believe?  Doesn't he know his inaction will lead to our eternal demise?

There are quite a number of problems with the God of the Bible.  If you think you can actually resolve all of them, have at.


If the chemical balance in someone's brain is altered (i.e. anti-depressants), their mood changes.  The cause seems to be the chemicals, not the mood.


Free will doesn't count in towards whether God is evil or not.
I told you how you poorly portrayed the viewpoint of someone who believes God doesn't exist.

Lastly, stay away from slinging insults, however weak, in this thread.  If your arguments can't stand up, it's not because you haven't called the other person stupid enough.

[Hobro]

That's a nice either-or-fallacy you've got there. That's debatable, sir.

But just to give a good whack at it, children inheriting the sins of their parents is easily seen as metaphorical, as if Adam and Eve are the original humans, thus their "parents," and if the "nature of man is to rebel against God," or sin, then thus they inherit the aforementioned sins.


I didn't say anything about drugs. I mentioned people telling themselves to quit "x," which has been shown by numerous psychological studies to be effective to a degree with things such as smoking or other bad habits.


Except that if man has free will and perpetuates evil themselves of their own volition, that would imply that God is not causing it.

And you can call it what you want, but it would seem that you have made a pattern out of an almost paranoid state where everyone is just "out to get you." I am genuinely trying to avoid being inflammatory, but also help you to recognize possible faults within yourself.

[Death Dark]

Asserting one way makes it easy to assert the other.

Why did God make man where their nature is to rebel against him?


You're saying that emotions and decisions affect chemical balances in the brain.  I'm showing you that the emotions are the result, not the cause.


Man's free will doesn't affect what God did or knew before making them.


If you were trying to keep from being inflammatory, you could've avoided making my stance seem like I'm just finding someone to blame ("Sounds like someone's just trying to find a scape goat, brah.") and also avoided, "Man would dismiss the existence of a 'benevolent' higher power because ... they say, 'That higher power is out to melt our faces and I should blame him for all of my problems ever,'" which reads (at least to me) as though you're claiming that this is the reason why people would, "discredit the existence of God or a god."  I found it offensive as a misportrayal of my stance and the stance of others like me.