Total Posts:49|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Free Will Defence

Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2012 10:47:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Any problem of evil, suffering, cruelty etc by a human being will most commonly invoke the free will defense.

Lets take baby torture and rape, some one will probably respond, well God gaves us free will and leave it at that.

I don't think I am buying this as much I use to allow me to explain why...

First it assumes that God values free will to such an extent that God won't stop the torture of a baby due to it. This is never proven, its merely asserted.

Secondly, it just doesn't consider the will of the baby not to be tortured, if we agree the baby has a will not to be tortured, God apparently values the tortures will above the will of the baby ? Is this even tenable ?

Third, God clearly doesn't have a problem with us having restrictions, if you lose an eye or your arms it ain't growing back, God is fine with that, but when it comes to restricting baby rape God....well God won't restrict that.

So do you think about such things, or do you just know enough apologetics (read: excuse making) to invoke free will and then move on ?

If you do think about such things, then what is your view on this.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
LibertyCampbell
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2012 11:00:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/20/2012 10:47:53 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Any problem of evil, suffering, cruelty etc by a human being will most commonly invoke the free will defense.

Lets take baby torture and rape, some one will probably respond, well God gaves us free will and leave it at that.

I don't think I am buying this as much I use to allow me to explain why...

First it assumes that God values free will to such an extent that God won't stop the torture of a baby due to it. This is never proven, its merely asserted.

The logical problem of evil is an assertion. It's not our duty to prove the nature of God, but merely to prove that his nature can excuse evil.

Secondly, it just doesn't consider the will of the baby not to be tortured, if we agree the baby has a will not to be tortured, God apparently values the tortures will above the will of the baby ? Is this even tenable ?

This is worded strangely. He values free will, in all respects. Not just the will of evil-doers. But yeah, I suppose he would.

Third, God clearly doesn't have a problem with us having restrictions, if you lose an eye or your arms it ain't growing back, God is fine with that, but when it comes to restricting baby rape God....well God won't restrict that.

This is more a complaint than anything. Our principles are grounded in reality; things are what they are.

So do you think about such things, or do you just know enough apologetics (read: excuse making) to invoke free will and then move on ?

If you do think about such things, then what is your view on this.

My views:

There is morality and thus a perfect God.
There is evil.
They can coincide.
"[Society] has no vested interest in continuing to exist." -RP
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2012 11:13:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I have other objections to the problem of evil but as this is on the free-will defence I won't derail the thread.

In order for God to prevent evil he would necessarily have to prevent us from committing sin.

If God prevented us from sinning than we could only do good actions.

If the only path we can possibly choose is the morally good path, than the factor of it being a "good" action is greatly alleviated. There would be no significance in the act, as we would be required to do it, thus alleviating morally significant free-will. Morality would lose its worth.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2012 11:19:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/20/2012 11:00:10 PM, LibertyCampbell wrote:
At 5/20/2012 10:47:53 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Any problem of evil, suffering, cruelty etc by a human being will most commonly invoke the free will defense.

Lets take baby torture and rape, some one will probably respond, well God gaves us free will and leave it at that.

I don't think I am buying this as much I use to allow me to explain why...

First it assumes that God values free will to such an extent that God won't stop the torture of a baby due to it. This is never proven, its merely asserted.

The logical problem of evil is an assertion. It's not our duty to prove the nature of God, but merely to prove that his nature can excuse evil.

Well this isn't engaging with this point now is it. I take it you agree that in order for the free will defense to hold up it must be assumed that God values free will to such an extent that God will allow baby torture.


Secondly, it just doesn't consider the will of the baby not to be tortured, if we agree the baby has a will not to be tortured, God apparently values the tortures will above the will of the baby ? Is this even tenable ?


This is worded strangely. He values free will, in all respects. Not just the will of evil-doers. But yeah, I suppose he would.

Yep, so the question is, is that tenable ? is that reasonable to believe ?

Third, God clearly doesn't have a problem with us having restrictions, if you lose an eye or your arms it ain't growing back, God is fine with that, but when it comes to restricting baby rape God....well God won't restrict that.

This is more a complaint than anything. Our principles are grounded in reality; things are what they are.

It might be a complaint, but once again, is it reasonable that a God who restricts us in those ways exists but doesn't restrict baby torture ?


So do you think about such things, or do you just know enough apologetics (read: excuse making) to invoke free will and then move on ?

If you do think about such things, then what is your view on this.

My views:

There is morality and thus a perfect God.
There is evil.
They can coincide.

Sure, no matter what is pointed out, you can say, well that doesn't prove God does not exist. But that doesn't make it reasonable to believe such a God exists now does it.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
LibertyCampbell
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2012 11:27:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/20/2012 11:19:02 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/20/2012 11:00:10 PM, LibertyCampbell wrote:
At 5/20/2012 10:47:53 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Any problem of evil, suffering, cruelty etc by a human being will most commonly invoke the free will defense.

Lets take baby torture and rape, some one will probably respond, well God gaves us free will and leave it at that.

I don't think I am buying this as much I use to allow me to explain why...

First it assumes that God values free will to such an extent that God won't stop the torture of a baby due to it. This is never proven, its merely asserted.

The logical problem of evil is an assertion. It's not our duty to prove the nature of God, but merely to prove that his nature can excuse evil.

Well this isn't engaging with this point now is it. I take it you agree that in order for the free will defense to hold up it must be assumed that God values free will to such an extent that God will allow baby torture.

I believe we are perfectly free. As it says in Genesis, we are in the image of God and can see right and wrong. How would God even prevent baby torture without limiting our perspective of evil?

Secondly, it just doesn't consider the will of the baby not to be tortured, if we agree the baby has a will not to be tortured, God apparently values the tortures will above the will of the baby ? Is this even tenable ?


This is worded strangely. He values free will, in all respects. Not just the will of evil-doers. But yeah, I suppose he would.

Yep, so the question is, is that tenable ? is that reasonable to believe ?

Yes? How is it unreasonable? Their wills are equal; the torturer is just bigger than the baby.

Third, God clearly doesn't have a problem with us having restrictions, if you lose an eye or your arms it ain't growing back, God is fine with that, but when it comes to restricting baby rape God....well God won't restrict that.

This is more a complaint than anything. Our principles are grounded in reality; things are what they are.

It might be a complaint, but once again, is it reasonable that a God who restricts us in those ways exists but doesn't restrict baby torture ?

Like I said, this is different than moral restrictions. We don't grow limbs back because our bodies are part of reality. Thats not so much as a restriction as it simply is. From what I can tell, we have no moral restrictions aside from our moral compasses.


So do you think about such things, or do you just know enough apologetics (read: excuse making) to invoke free will and then move on ?

If you do think about such things, then what is your view on this.

My views:

There is morality and thus a perfect God.
There is evil.
They can coincide.

Sure, no matter what is pointed out, you can say, well that doesn't prove God does not exist. But that doesn't make it reasonable to believe such a God exists now does it.

If you find those things to be immoral, then it doesn't matter if you think the idea is tenable. Morality requires God, or dualism at the least.
"[Society] has no vested interest in continuing to exist." -RP
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2012 11:27:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/20/2012 11:13:45 PM, phantom wrote:
I have other objections to the problem of evil but as this is on the free-will defence I won't derail the thread.

In order for God to prevent evil he would necessarily have to prevent us from committing sin.

If God prevented us from sinning than we could only do good actions.

If the only path we can possibly choose is the morally good path, than the factor of it being a "good" action is greatly alleviated.

There would be no significance in the act, as we would be required to do it, thus alleviating morally significant free-will. Morality would lose its worth.

Once again, this assumes that God values free will to the point of even allowing baby torture. Allowing baby torture is not necessary for free will, also keep in mind the other restrictions I pointed out.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2012 11:34:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/20/2012 11:27:38 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/20/2012 11:13:45 PM, phantom wrote:
I have other objections to the problem of evil but as this is on the free-will defence I won't derail the thread.

In order for God to prevent evil he would necessarily have to prevent us from committing sin.

If God prevented us from sinning than we could only do good actions.

If the only path we can possibly choose is the morally good path, than the factor of it being a "good" action is greatly alleviated.

There would be no significance in the act, as we would be required to do it, thus alleviating morally significant free-will. Morality would lose its worth.

Once again, this assumes that God values free will to the point of even allowing baby torture. Allowing baby torture is not necessary for free will, also keep in mind the other restrictions I pointed out.

Yes it is. If he makes exceptions to the free will rule, we lose free will.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2012 11:39:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/20/2012 11:34:26 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 5/20/2012 11:27:38 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/20/2012 11:13:45 PM, phantom wrote:
I have other objections to the problem of evil but as this is on the free-will defence I won't derail the thread.

In order for God to prevent evil he would necessarily have to prevent us from committing sin.

If God prevented us from sinning than we could only do good actions.

If the only path we can possibly choose is the morally good path, than the factor of it being a "good" action is greatly alleviated.

There would be no significance in the act, as we would be required to do it, thus alleviating morally significant free-will. Morality would lose its worth.

Once again, this assumes that God values free will to the point of even allowing baby torture. Allowing baby torture is not necessary for free will, also keep in mind the other restrictions I pointed out.

Yes it is. If he makes exceptions to the free will rule, we lose free will.

Wrong.

You don't have the free will option to destroy the universe (try it if you don't believe me), obviously this doesn't mean you have lost your free will.

So once again, God doesn't mind restricting the growth of limbs for say a child who was tortured, but God does mind restricting the torture who removes the limbs from that same child.

Seriously guys, really think about this. Don't just throw up the first thing that comes to mind so you can rationalize it.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
LibertyCampbell
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2012 11:43:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/20/2012 11:39:19 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/20/2012 11:34:26 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 5/20/2012 11:27:38 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/20/2012 11:13:45 PM, phantom wrote:
I have other objections to the problem of evil but as this is on the free-will defence I won't derail the thread.

In order for God to prevent evil he would necessarily have to prevent us from committing sin.

If God prevented us from sinning than we could only do good actions.

If the only path we can possibly choose is the morally good path, than the factor of it being a "good" action is greatly alleviated.

There would be no significance in the act, as we would be required to do it, thus alleviating morally significant free-will. Morality would lose its worth.

Once again, this assumes that God values free will to the point of even allowing baby torture. Allowing baby torture is not necessary for free will, also keep in mind the other restrictions I pointed out.

Yes it is. If he makes exceptions to the free will rule, we lose free will.

Wrong.

You don't have the free will option to destroy the universe (try it if you don't believe me), obviously this doesn't mean you have lost your free will.

So you are saying that we shouldn't have the power to torture babies? Given the nature of things, how would God even do that?

So once again, God doesn't mind restricting the growth of limbs for say a child who was tortured, but God does mind restricting the torture who removes the limbs from that same child.

Definitely not the same as moral restrictions.

Seriously guys, really think about this. Don't just throw up the first thing that comes to mind so you can rationalize it.

What exactly is it that you are hoping I will say? I never even heard the term 'omnibenevolent' before I came to this website, and my conception of God and evil are completely compatible. And I would prefer an ability to make a mistake when building a model ship than being free from error. It would really take away any satisfaction from building the ship.
"[Society] has no vested interest in continuing to exist." -RP
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2012 11:46:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/20/2012 11:27:38 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/20/2012 11:13:45 PM, phantom wrote:
I have other objections to the problem of evil but as this is on the free-will defence I won't derail the thread.

In order for God to prevent evil he would necessarily have to prevent us from committing sin.

If God prevented us from sinning than we could only do good actions.

If the only path we can possibly choose is the morally good path, than the factor of it being a "good" action is greatly alleviated.

There would be no significance in the act, as we would be required to do it, thus alleviating morally significant free-will. Morality would lose its worth.

Once again, this assumes that God values free will to the point of even allowing baby torture. Allowing baby torture is not necessary for free will, also keep in mind the other restrictions I pointed out.

It's not just the value God puts on free-will but also our own well-being. Think about our existence without any moral significany. We would lose our purpose. So yes, maybe God does view free-will as more significant than preventing evil.

I do also believe making such speculations on Gods character is somewhat falacious.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2012 11:50:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Here's how I see it.

It's like the Batman and Superman comparison.

Superman, is pretty much invincible. He has ever power, and is essentially unstoppable.

Batman, has no powers, and only has his gadgets, fighting skills, and his brain.

Most of us a drawn to Batman stories over Superman stories, because their more exciting.

Why?

Because its as blatantly obvious whose gonna win. Superman can just blow through the building at the speed of light, knock everyone out, and win.

Batman actually has to think his was through and such.

Another example is, would you prefer to play a video game where you can die, or one where your invincible, without the ability to actually lose, even temporarily?

I think the answer is obvious.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2012 11:56:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/20/2012 11:53:33 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Just what do you have against baby rape and torture?

Only you freedo would response like that only you :)

I think its this whole sympathy/empathy/anti suffering/well being of conscious creatures. If that's a sin, I'll take it.

Maybe you can relate freedo.......maybe you can't........
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
LibertyCampbell
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 12:10:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Objections require rebuttals, or the thread is going to die and/or become redundant.
"[Society] has no vested interest in continuing to exist." -RP
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 12:22:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 12:10:19 AM, LibertyCampbell wrote:
Objections require rebuttals, or the thread is going to die and/or become redundant.

There is no rebuttal to some one who is willinging to grant the assumption that God values free will of the child torturer to hack the child limbs while also restricting the child from regrowing limbs.

If their not willing to question their own assumptions, and even grant those assumptions as true as a priori what can you do ? all you can do is point it out, and hope maybe one day they will take a long hard look.

Till then, we all live in the matrix..........and you can't prove me wrong :)
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
LibertyCampbell
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 12:27:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 12:22:05 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/21/2012 12:10:19 AM, LibertyCampbell wrote:
Objections require rebuttals, or the thread is going to die and/or become redundant.

There is no rebuttal to some one who is willinging to grant the assumption that God values free will of the child torturer to hack the child limbs while also restricting the child from regrowing limbs.

If their not willing to question their own assumptions, and even grant those assumptions as true as a priori what can you do ? all you can do is point it out, and hope maybe one day they will take a long hard look.

Till then, we all live in the matrix..........and you can't prove me wrong :)

You are starting from a position in which you assume the existence of God. The purpose of the PoE is trying to work your way back toward him not existing, and it is only sound if the only road to take leads to his non-existence. If you start with a base assumption, then you are obviously going to take the route that leaves that assumption in tact, if their is one. (The free will defense)

Plus, I don't believe in the matrix, because I have no need to. I believe in God to provide for my worldview.
"[Society] has no vested interest in continuing to exist." -RP
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 12:34:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 12:27:46 AM, LibertyCampbell wrote:
At 5/21/2012 12:22:05 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/21/2012 12:10:19 AM, LibertyCampbell wrote:
Objections require rebuttals, or the thread is going to die and/or become redundant.

There is no rebuttal to some one who is willinging to grant the assumption that God values free will of the child torturer to hack the child limbs while also restricting the child from regrowing limbs.

If their not willing to question their own assumptions, and even grant those assumptions as true as a priori what can you do ? all you can do is point it out, and hope maybe one day they will take a long hard look.

Till then, we all live in the matrix..........and you can't prove me wrong :)

You are starting from a position in which you assume the existence of God. The purpose of the PoE is trying to work your way back toward him not existing, and it is only sound if the only road to take leads to his non-existence. If you start with a base assumption, then you are obviously going to take the route that leaves that assumption in tact, if their is one. (The free will defense)

Plus, I don't believe in the matrix, because I have no need to. I believe in God to provide for my worldview.

You don't get it, your not understanding the hidden assumption you need to be true in order to rationalize a God who allows baby torture and restricts other things.

And until your willing to question that assumption that holds it all together..........well, there is an alien mother ship hovering above earth and you can't see it cause it has a cloaking device.

Hey you can't prove me wrong.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
LibertyCampbell
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 12:37:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 12:34:11 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/21/2012 12:27:46 AM, LibertyCampbell wrote:
At 5/21/2012 12:22:05 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/21/2012 12:10:19 AM, LibertyCampbell wrote:
Objections require rebuttals, or the thread is going to die and/or become redundant.

There is no rebuttal to some one who is willinging to grant the assumption that God values free will of the child torturer to hack the child limbs while also restricting the child from regrowing limbs.

If their not willing to question their own assumptions, and even grant those assumptions as true as a priori what can you do ? all you can do is point it out, and hope maybe one day they will take a long hard look.

Till then, we all live in the matrix..........and you can't prove me wrong :)

You are starting from a position in which you assume the existence of God. The purpose of the PoE is trying to work your way back toward him not existing, and it is only sound if the only road to take leads to his non-existence. If you start with a base assumption, then you are obviously going to take the route that leaves that assumption in tact, if their is one. (The free will defense)

Plus, I don't believe in the matrix, because I have no need to. I believe in God to provide for my worldview.

You don't get it, your not understanding the hidden assumption you need to be true in order to rationalize a God who allows baby torture and restricts other things.

And until your willing to question that assumption that holds it all together..........well, there is an alien mother ship hovering above earth and you can't see it cause it has a cloaking device.

Hey you can't prove me wrong.

A God that allows baby torture is better than baby torture being a totally legitimate enterprise, objectively speaking.
"[Society] has no vested interest in continuing to exist." -RP
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 12:40:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/20/2012 11:56:54 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/20/2012 11:53:33 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Just what do you have against baby rape and torture?

Only you freedo would response like that only you :)

I think its this whole sympathy/empathy/anti suffering/well being of conscious creatures. If that's a sin, I'll take it.

Maybe you can relate freedo.......maybe you can't........

I just think your being intolerant of some peoples beliefs.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 12:40:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/20/2012 10:47:53 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Any problem of evil, suffering, cruelty etc by a human being will most commonly invoke the free will defense.

Lets take baby torture and rape, some one will probably respond, well God gaves us free will and leave it at that.

I don't think I am buying this as much I use to allow me to explain why...

First it assumes that God values free will to such an extent that God won't stop the torture of a baby due to it. This is never proven, its merely asserted.

Secondly, it just doesn't consider the will of the baby not to be tortured, if we agree the baby has a will not to be tortured, God apparently values the tortures will above the will of the baby ? Is this even tenable ?

Third, God clearly doesn't have a problem with us having restrictions, if you lose an eye or your arms it ain't growing back, God is fine with that, but when it comes to restricting baby rape God....well God won't restrict that.

So do you think about such things, or do you just know enough apologetics (read: excuse making) to invoke free will and then move on ?

If you do think about such things, then what is your view on this.

First it assumes that God values free will to such an extent that God won't stop the torture of a baby due to it. This is never proven, its merely asserted.

How can God stop the baby being tortured without interfering with freewill. What about the man torturing the baby, doesn't he have freewill to or not to torture a baby? God can stop it but He wont because the man doing the evil act must have the chioce to do it and then after punishment can be asserted. We cant arrest people before they commit crimes.

Secondly, it just doesn't consider the will of the baby not to be tortured, if we agree the baby has a will not to be tortured, God apparently values the tortures will above the will of the baby ? Is this even tenable ?

Technically The baby dies and goes to heaven what has the baby really lost? This life?

Third, God clearly doesn't have a problem with us having restrictions, if you lose an eye or your arms it ain't growing back, God is fine with that, but when it comes to restricting baby rape God....well God won't restrict that.

God gives commandments to His people to live by. We must have restrcitions. But directly stopping the sin from being chose by the sinner takes away freewill.

So do you think about such things, or do you just know enough apologetics (read: excuse making) to invoke free will and then move on ?

I think about this alot. But it is not God's chioce for any sin or death to occur. It was man's choice. The devil gave the temptation.
TheAsylum
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 12:41:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 12:37:58 AM, LibertyCampbell wrote:
At 5/21/2012 12:34:11 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/21/2012 12:27:46 AM, LibertyCampbell wrote:
At 5/21/2012 12:22:05 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/21/2012 12:10:19 AM, LibertyCampbell wrote:
Objections require rebuttals, or the thread is going to die and/or become redundant.

There is no rebuttal to some one who is willinging to grant the assumption that God values free will of the child torturer to hack the child limbs while also restricting the child from regrowing limbs.

If their not willing to question their own assumptions, and even grant those assumptions as true as a priori what can you do ? all you can do is point it out, and hope maybe one day they will take a long hard look.

Till then, we all live in the matrix..........and you can't prove me wrong :)

You are starting from a position in which you assume the existence of God. The purpose of the PoE is trying to work your way back toward him not existing, and it is only sound if the only road to take leads to his non-existence. If you start with a base assumption, then you are obviously going to take the route that leaves that assumption in tact, if their is one. (The free will defense)

Plus, I don't believe in the matrix, because I have no need to. I believe in God to provide for my worldview.

You don't get it, your not understanding the hidden assumption you need to be true in order to rationalize a God who allows baby torture and restricts other things.

And until your willing to question that assumption that holds it all together..........well, there is an alien mother ship hovering above earth and you can't see it cause it has a cloaking device.

Hey you can't prove me wrong.

A God that allows baby torture is better than baby torture being a totally legitimate enterprise, objectively speaking.

Praise the Lord !!!............................
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
LibertyCampbell
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 12:44:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 12:41:46 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/21/2012 12:37:58 AM, LibertyCampbell wrote:
At 5/21/2012 12:34:11 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/21/2012 12:27:46 AM, LibertyCampbell wrote:
At 5/21/2012 12:22:05 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/21/2012 12:10:19 AM, LibertyCampbell wrote:
Objections require rebuttals, or the thread is going to die and/or become redundant.

There is no rebuttal to some one who is willinging to grant the assumption that God values free will of the child torturer to hack the child limbs while also restricting the child from regrowing limbs.

If their not willing to question their own assumptions, and even grant those assumptions as true as a priori what can you do ? all you can do is point it out, and hope maybe one day they will take a long hard look.

Till then, we all live in the matrix..........and you can't prove me wrong :)

You are starting from a position in which you assume the existence of God. The purpose of the PoE is trying to work your way back toward him not existing, and it is only sound if the only road to take leads to his non-existence. If you start with a base assumption, then you are obviously going to take the route that leaves that assumption in tact, if their is one. (The free will defense)

Plus, I don't believe in the matrix, because I have no need to. I believe in God to provide for my worldview.

You don't get it, your not understanding the hidden assumption you need to be true in order to rationalize a God who allows baby torture and restricts other things.

And until your willing to question that assumption that holds it all together..........well, there is an alien mother ship hovering above earth and you can't see it cause it has a cloaking device.

Hey you can't prove me wrong.

A God that allows baby torture is better than baby torture being a totally legitimate enterprise, objectively speaking.

Praise the Lord !!!............................

A point has not been made.
"[Society] has no vested interest in continuing to exist." -RP
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 12:49:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 12:44:25 AM, LibertyCampbell wrote:
At 5/21/2012 12:41:46 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/21/2012 12:37:58 AM, LibertyCampbell wrote:
At 5/21/2012 12:34:11 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/21/2012 12:27:46 AM, LibertyCampbell wrote:
At 5/21/2012 12:22:05 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/21/2012 12:10:19 AM, LibertyCampbell wrote:
Objections require rebuttals, or the thread is going to die and/or become redundant.

There is no rebuttal to some one who is willinging to grant the assumption that God values free will of the child torturer to hack the child limbs while also restricting the child from regrowing limbs.

If their not willing to question their own assumptions, and even grant those assumptions as true as a priori what can you do ? all you can do is point it out, and hope maybe one day they will take a long hard look.

Till then, we all live in the matrix..........and you can't prove me wrong :)

You are starting from a position in which you assume the existence of God. The purpose of the PoE is trying to work your way back toward him not existing, and it is only sound if the only road to take leads to his non-existence. If you start with a base assumption, then you are obviously going to take the route that leaves that assumption in tact, if their is one. (The free will defense)

Plus, I don't believe in the matrix, because I have no need to. I believe in God to provide for my worldview.

You don't get it, your not understanding the hidden assumption you need to be true in order to rationalize a God who allows baby torture and restricts other things.

And until your willing to question that assumption that holds it all together..........well, there is an alien mother ship hovering above earth and you can't see it cause it has a cloaking device.

Hey you can't prove me wrong.

A God that allows baby torture is better than baby torture being a totally legitimate enterprise, objectively speaking.

Praise the Lord !!!............................

A point has not been made.

Not only do you assume that God values the free will of the child torturer beyond the childs well being while also restricting limb growth among other things, you also assume I didn't make a point.

Your just full of surprises arn't ya.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 7:18:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 12:22:05 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/21/2012 12:10:19 AM, LibertyCampbell wrote:
Objections require rebuttals, or the thread is going to die and/or become redundant.

There is no rebuttal to some one who is willinging to grant the assumption that God values free will of the child torturer to hack the child limbs while also restricting the child from regrowing limbs.

If their not willing to question their own assumptions, and even grant those assumptions as true as a priori what can you do ? all you can do is point it out, and hope maybe one day they will take a long hard look.

Till then, we all live in the matrix..........and you can't prove me wrong :)

Then perhaps respond to my post?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 9:45:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Free will is an illusion, it is the lie satan sold to Adam & Eve; that they would be free to do whatever they wanted, when in fact they were selling themselves into the slavery of his will.

There is only Gods will and the enemies will, which is only to contradict Gods will.

Gods will is that ALL be saved, none should perish, that all live in an eternity of joy, peace and praise, that we should KNOW Him and BE known by Him.

John 1:29
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!


John 10:10
The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.
The Cross.. the Cross.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 10:46:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ya the free will objection assumes that someone like Hitler having free will is more important than saving the lives of 6 million people if possible. I don't see why evil people having free will is a good thing, so no it's not a good rebuttal to the problem of evil.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 8:26:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 12:40:54 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 5/20/2012 10:47:53 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Any problem of evil, suffering, cruelty etc by a human being will most commonly invoke the free will defense.

Lets take baby torture and rape, some one will probably respond, well God gaves us free will and leave it at that.

I don't think I am buying this as much I use to allow me to explain why...

First it assumes that God values free will to such an extent that God won't stop the torture of a baby due to it. This is never proven, its merely asserted.

Secondly, it just doesn't consider the will of the baby not to be tortured, if we agree the baby has a will not to be tortured, God apparently values the tortures will above the will of the baby ? Is this even tenable ?

Third, God clearly doesn't have a problem with us having restrictions, if you lose an eye or your arms it ain't growing back, God is fine with that, but when it comes to restricting baby rape God....well God won't restrict that.

So do you think about such things, or do you just know enough apologetics (read: excuse making) to invoke free will and then move on ?

If you do think about such things, then what is your view on this.

First it assumes that God values free will to such an extent that God won't stop the torture of a baby due to it. This is never proven, its merely asserted.

How can God stop the baby being tortured without interfering with freewill. What about the man torturing the baby, doesn't he have freewill to or not to torture a baby? God can stop it but He wont because the man doing the evil act must have the chioce to do it and then after punishment can be asserted. We cant arrest people before they commit crimes.

All you have done is assumed that God values the free will of the baby torturer above the baby not being tortured. Also remember I bought up the restriction that God places on that baby unable to regrow limbs.

Secondly, it just doesn't consider the will of the baby not to be tortured, if we agree the baby has a will not to be tortured, God apparently values the tortures will above the will of the baby ? Is this even tenable ?

Technically The baby dies and goes to heaven what has the baby really lost? This life?

Wow Scott, just wow. Religion has sure done a number on you hasn't it ? its F&cked you up so much that you that you see no problem with that response. Some one can bring up baby torturer and this is what goes through your mind ?


Third, God clearly doesn't have a problem with us having restrictions, if you lose an eye or your arms it ain't growing back, God is fine with that, but when it comes to restricting baby rape God....well God won't restrict that.

God gives commandments to His people to live by. We must have restrcitions. But directly stopping the sin from being chose by the sinner takes away freewill.

You dodged my point here. And the fact you had to dodge it should give you something to think about.

So do you think about such things, or do you just know enough apologetics (read: excuse making) to invoke free will and then move on ?

I think about this alot. But it is not God's chioce for any sin or death to occur. It was man's choice. The devil gave the temptation.

No you haven't thought about the things I have bought up, you know just enough to invoke free will and move on.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 8:38:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 10:46:05 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Ya the free will objection assumes that someone like Hitler having free will is more important than saving the lives of 6 million people if possible. I don't see why evil people having free will is a good thing, so no it's not a good rebuttal to the problem of evil.

Continually refusing the decisions men make. Blaming it on God because he created you. And because he created He some how owes you. Dont you owe yourself. Because a sick person decides to do evil acts for whatever reason, is the fault God's that created him? No it is not. These arguements comes down to the plead of: Its his fault not mine, Seeking to blame others for our own deeds.
TheAsylum
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 8:39:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/20/2012 11:46:00 PM, phantom wrote:
At 5/20/2012 11:27:38 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 5/20/2012 11:13:45 PM, phantom wrote:
I have other objections to the problem of evil but as this is on the free-will defence I won't derail the thread.

In order for God to prevent evil he would necessarily have to prevent us from committing sin.

If God prevented us from sinning than we could only do good actions.

If the only path we can possibly choose is the morally good path, than the factor of it being a "good" action is greatly alleviated.

There would be no significance in the act, as we would be required to do it, thus alleviating morally significant free-will. Morality would lose its worth.

Once again, this assumes that God values free will to the point of even allowing baby torture. Allowing baby torture is not necessary for free will, also keep in mind the other restrictions I pointed out.

It's not just the value God puts on free-will but also our own well-being. Think about our existence without any moral significany. We would lose our purpose. So yes, maybe God does view free-will as more significant than preventing evil.

I do also believe making such speculations on Gods character is somewhat falacious.

Since you asked for a response.

1) I am talking about something very specific. Baby torturer, hacking of the limbs plus the inability or Gods choosing not regrowing those limbs. That's why I don't think the general claim about God allowing free will is an adequate response here.

God see's fit to not restrict baby torture but does see fit to restrict that same baby regrowing limbs. Well..........what won't you believe ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 8:47:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 8:38:56 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 5/21/2012 10:46:05 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Ya the free will objection assumes that someone like Hitler having free will is more important than saving the lives of 6 million people if possible. I don't see why evil people having free will is a good thing, so no it's not a good rebuttal to the problem of evil.

Continually refusing the decisions men make. Blaming it on God because he created you. And because he created He some how owes you. Dont you owe yourself. Because a sick person decides to do evil acts for whatever reason, is the fault God's that created him? No it is not. These arguements comes down to the plead of: Its his fault not mine, Seeking to blame others for our own deeds.

Utterly missed the point. How about you put the christian indoctrination to one side for a moment. The whole free will concept, like hitler/nazis or the baby torturer, assumes that God values this free will to kill jews or torture a baby beyond the well being of say 6 million jews or a baby.

This assumption, an UNPROVEN assumption is in dispute here.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12