Total Posts:125|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Free Will in Theology

Chaosism
Posts: 2,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2016 7:49:10 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
I'm failing to grasp how free will is a tenable notion and seek to examine it more closely, hopefully with the aid of those who subscribe to it. Below, I'm essentially thinking out loud and presenting my thoughts on theological free will and why I find it lacking, for the purposes of drawing criticism. I ask that you please comment, especially if you disagree with any of it, and I can elaborate if any of it is unclear. Thank you.

Assume an intelligent creator of the universe and consider two individuals with free will. The first individual chose to steal while the second one chose not to. There is obviously *some* difference in these two individuals, or else they would have come to the exact same decision. Therefore, there are factors in play that are responsible for this difference.

In regard to free will, is their free will (or the degree to which their will is free) identical? If not, isn't this difference the direct result of God's creative will? If so, then the factor(s) responsible for difference in the individuals' decisions lie elsewhere.

Other factors that drive a person's decision making are personal values (which are instilled by environment/or intrinsic), willpower, desires, and cognitive capabilities (e.g. empathy, understanding of right and wrong). None of these factors are determined by the will of the individual; no one willfully chooses and controls how they were raised, how they feel, what they desire, and so on. A person who lacks empathy isn't so because he chose to be that way. Since nothing of the world exists without the creator, all that occurs within in is the result of God's direct action.

Regarding omniscience, free will is directly contradictory. Knowledge contradicts free will since free will represents an uncertainty; literally the opposite. If free will is an existent thing, then it cannot exist in uncertainty. For instance, one cannot create something that is just a "shade of red" without it being of some specific reddish color (e.g. maroon, burgundy) first. Likewise, if God created a rock, all of the molecules would have to be created in a specific configuration since they wouldn't exist otherwise. This would be true even if the creator is unaware of the color or configuration.

Given the above, free will ultimately stems from the creator's will, since it must have been deliberately created in it's entirety, unless it stems from a source apart from the creator's will. For example, if the creator created the world accidentally (I know, a silly example) or if the nature of free will is determined by an unknown, therefore random, source apart from the creator's will. In this case, the individual's actions are a result of a random factor, which still places ultimately responsibility of their decisions elsewhere. A person has no more control over his actions if they are determined by a random factor (like a dice roll), than if they were determined.

The conclusion here is that the actions and decisions of all individuals are a result of either God's will or randomness, neither of which makes an individual ultimately responsible for them. Please note that free will in a societal sense is different from that of a theological sense, so I'm not saying that this is a valid justification for committing evil acts.
Willows
Posts: 2,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 12:46:33 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 7:49:10 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I'm failing to grasp how free will is a tenable notion and seek to examine it more closely, hopefully with the aid of those who subscribe to it. Below, I'm essentially thinking out loud and presenting my thoughts on theological free will and why I find it lacking, for the purposes of drawing criticism. I ask that you please comment, especially if you disagree with any of it, and I can elaborate if any of it is unclear. Thank you.

Assume an intelligent creator of the universe and consider two individuals with free will. The first individual chose to steal while the second one chose not to. There is obviously *some* difference in these two individuals, or else they would have come to the exact same decision. Therefore, there are factors in play that are responsible for this difference.

In regard to free will, is their free will (or the degree to which their will is free) identical? If not, isn't this difference the direct result of God's creative will? If so, then the factor(s) responsible for difference in the individuals' decisions lie elsewhere.

Other factors that drive a person's decision making are personal values (which are instilled by environment/or intrinsic), willpower, desires, and cognitive capabilities (e.g. empathy, understanding of right and wrong). None of these factors are determined by the will of the individual; no one willfully chooses and controls how they were raised, how they feel, what they desire, and so on. A person who lacks empathy isn't so because he chose to be that way. Since nothing of the world exists without the creator, all that occurs within in is the result of God's direct action.

Regarding omniscience, free will is directly contradictory. Knowledge contradicts free will since free will represents an uncertainty; literally the opposite. If free will is an existent thing, then it cannot exist in uncertainty. For instance, one cannot create something that is just a "shade of red" without it being of some specific reddish color (e.g. maroon, burgundy) first. Likewise, if God created a rock, all of the molecules would have to be created in a specific configuration since they wouldn't exist otherwise. This would be true even if the creator is unaware of the color or configuration.

Given the above, free will ultimately stems from the creator's will, since it must have been deliberately created in it's entirety, unless it stems from a source apart from the creator's will. For example, if the creator created the world accidentally (I know, a silly example) or if the nature of free will is determined by an unknown, therefore random, source apart from the creator's will. In this case, the individual's actions are a result of a random factor, which still places ultimately responsibility of their decisions elsewhere. A person has no more control over his actions if they are determined by a random factor (like a dice roll), than if they were determined.

The conclusion here is that the actions and decisions of all individuals are a result of either God's will or randomness, neither of which makes an individual ultimately responsible for them. Please note that free will in a societal sense is different from that of a theological sense, so I'm not saying that this is a valid justification for committing evil acts.

"Free will" is nothing more than an expression concocted by theists, similar to an escape clause in a legal contract.
If an action is conveniently deemed to be incompatible with God's will, it is deemed to be free will.
The old scape goat trick.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 2:21:20 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/5/2016 12:46:33 PM, Willows wrote:

"Free will" is nothing more than an expression concocted by theists, similar to an escape clause in a legal contract.
If an action is conveniently deemed to be incompatible with God's will, it is deemed to be free will.
The old scape goat trick.

I'm aware, but my goal is to create an amicable environment for discussion on the matter and to hear them out. Unfortunately, I fear that this'll be ignored much like my response thread to presuppositional apologetics (http://www.debate.org...). :(

Also keep in mind that this is not always forwarded with the intent to deceive. The human mind tends to create and seek out rationalizations that support or preserve existing beliefs, in general, regardless of the subject. So, it's not that one is necessarily being actively dishonest in succumbing to this tendency.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 6:40:53 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 7:49:10 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I'm failing to grasp how free will is a tenable notion and seek to examine it more closely, hopefully with the aid of those who subscribe to it. Below, I'm essentially thinking out loud and presenting my thoughts on theological free will and why I find it lacking, for the purposes of drawing criticism. I ask that you please comment, especially if you disagree with any of it, and I can elaborate if any of it is unclear. Thank you.

I'll do what I can... you're welcome.

Assume an intelligent creator of the universe and consider two individuals with free will. The first individual chose to steal while the second one chose not to. There is obviously *some* difference in these two individuals, or else they would have come to the exact same decision. Therefore, there are factors in play that are responsible for this difference.

You have already made one assumption against free will. You have presumed a certain degree of non-freedom of will. People are being treated like billiard balls on a table. You have assumed that all things being equal one input will inevitably result in one output. So you have essentially started off denying free will exists. Freedom implies the perfect ability to make different choices even under identical situations.

This is not to say variety and experience have no impact on reaction to a situation.

In regard to free will, is their free will (or the degree to which their will is free) identical? If not, isn't this difference the direct result of God's creative will? If so, then the factor(s) responsible for difference in the individuals' decisions lie elsewhere.

Yes their will are free. However, culpability may be different. I may do something that is wrong, but not realize it is wrong. God being infinitely knowledgeable and infinitely just will obviously take these mitigating circumstances into account.

Other factors that drive a person's decision making are personal values (which are instilled by environment/or intrinsic), willpower, desires, and cognitive capabilities (e.g. empathy, understanding of right and wrong). None of these factors are determined by the will of the individual; no one willfully chooses and controls how they were raised, how they feel, what they desire, and so on. A person who lacks empathy isn't so because he chose to be that way. Since nothing of the world exists without the creator, all that occurs within in is the result of God's direct action.

These shortcomings are the result of our fallen nature. Yet every person has a conscience. God has a built in rectifier in us. Now many of us choose to stifle our conscience in order to do what we will. However, our conscience is there for us. We either feed and nurture our conscience, or stifle and starve it through our actions.

Regarding omniscience, free will is directly contradictory. Knowledge contradicts free will since free will represents an uncertainty; literally the opposite. If free will is an existent thing, then it cannot exist in uncertainty. For instance, one cannot create something that is just a "shade of red" without it being of some specific reddish color (e.g. maroon, burgundy) first. Likewise, if God created a rock, all of the molecules would have to be created in a specific configuration since they wouldn't exist otherwise. This would be true even if the creator is unaware of the color or configuration.

The will is not a thing of matter, but a thing of spirit and thus operates under a different set of rules than the physical universe. That God is able to know how we will choose does not predestine us to do so, nor even that our choices were His desire for us.

Given the above, free will ultimately stems from the creator's will, since it must have been deliberately created in it's entirety, unless it stems from a source apart from the creator's will. For example, if the creator created the world accidentally (I know, a silly example) or if the nature of free will is determined by an unknown, therefore random, source apart from the creator's will. In this case, the individual's actions are a result of a random factor, which still places ultimately responsibility of their decisions elsewhere. A person has no more control over his actions if they are determined by a random factor (like a dice roll), than if they were determined.

So basically your argument is that God cannot create something with an independent will?

The conclusion here is that the actions and decisions of all individuals are a result of either God's will or randomness, neither of which makes an individual ultimately responsible for them. Please note that free will in a societal sense is different from that of a theological sense, so I'm not saying that this is a valid justification for committing evil acts.

What you didn't consider is that God creates with an "infinite" variety. Each soul has a unique relationship with God and was created for a special purpose with particular strengths and weaknesses. Ultimately that soul can only fulfill that purpose in a loving relationship with God.

Please define "evil acts" without God being our creator.
12_13
Posts: 1,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 7:28:51 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 7:49:10 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Regarding omniscience, free will is directly contradictory. Knowledge contradicts free will since free will represents an uncertainty; literally the opposite.

I disagree with that. Free will means that I can freely want whatever I want. If someone knows me well, he can know what I will choose, if I can. Knowing what I want, doesn"t limit my freedom to want that. Or what do you think, if I know what you want to say to this, have I determined what you want?
Chaosism
Posts: 2,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 9:24:07 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/5/2016 6:40:53 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 10/4/2016 7:49:10 PM, Chaosism wrote:

Assume an intelligent creator of the universe and consider two individuals with free will. The first individual chose to steal while the second one chose not to. There is obviously *some* difference in these two individuals, or else they would have come to the exact same decision. Therefore, there are factors in play that are responsible for this difference.

You have already made one assumption against free will. You have presumed a certain degree of non-freedom of will. People are being treated like billiard balls on a table. You have assumed that all things being equal one input will inevitably result in one output. So you have essentially started off denying free will exists. Freedom implies the perfect ability to make different choices even under identical situations.

I don't think I have assumed that. Consider these two hypothetical, identical people. If faced with the same exact scenario, why would one person choose X and the other choose Y? If all things were absolutely identical, why would they have arrived at different choices? Can you explain how aside from just stating "because free will"? If you cannot, then since the origin of these decisions in unknown and undeterminable, then it's considered random; not a matter of will.

Also, how can one possibly demonstrate that an individual could have *actually* acted otherwise, rather than just conceived if it? The notion of free will that you're espousing (via the definition of freedom") is unfalsifiable.

This is not to say variety and experience have no impact on reaction to a situation.

Since no human is without these, then there exists restrictions and influence upon their decision-making abilities, which compromises their "perfect ability to make different choices even under identical situations". For instance, a man lacking the capacity for empathy cannot choose to care about another person. It's literally impossible.

In regard to free will, is their free will (or the degree to which their will is free) identical? If not, isn't this difference the direct result of God's creative will? If so, then the factor(s) responsible for difference in the individuals' decisions lie elsewhere.

Yes their will are free. However, culpability may be different. I may do something that is wrong, but not realize it is wrong. God being infinitely knowledgeable and infinitely just will obviously take these mitigating circumstances into account.

I don't see the relevance of this response to the original questions, and seems like more of a tangent.

Other factors that drive a person's decision making are personal values (which are instilled by environment/or intrinsic), willpower, desires, and cognitive capabilities (e.g. empathy, understanding of right and wrong). None of these factors are determined by the will of the individual; no one willfully chooses and controls how they were raised, how they feel, what they desire, and so on. A person who lacks empathy isn't so because he chose to be that way. Since nothing of the world exists without the creator, all that occurs within in is the result of God's direct action.

These shortcomings are the result of our fallen nature. Yet every person has a conscience. God has a built in rectifier in us. Now many of us choose to stifle our conscience in order to do what we will. However, our conscience is there for us. We either feed and nurture our conscience, or stifle and starve it through our actions.

Regardless, the individual has no control over them. It doesn't affect the point. And no, not every person has a conscience, or a conscience in the same sense. But in any case, a conscience is a direct influence upon an individual's decision-making, which also compromises the "freedom" as defined, above.

Regarding omniscience, free will is directly contradictory. Knowledge contradicts free will since free will represents an uncertainty; literally the opposite. If free will is an existent thing, then it cannot exist in uncertainty. For instance, one cannot create something that is just a "shade of red" without it being of some specific reddish color (e.g. maroon, burgundy) first. Likewise, if God created a rock, all of the molecules would have to be created in a specific configuration since they wouldn't exist otherwise. This would be true even if the creator is unaware of the color or configuration.

The will is not a thing of matter, but a thing of spirit and thus operates under a different set of rules than the physical universe. That God is able to know how we will choose does not predestine us to do so, nor even that our choices were His desire for us.

I would like to see some evidence that "spirit" exists and what it is, exactly. Regardless, if it's possible for God to know what will be the case, then the case must be determined, or else knowledge would be impossible. To illustrate:

Person A must choose between X and Y. One must ultimately be chosen and God knows which, so assume that God knows A will choose X. Now, is it possible for A to choose Y and prove God wrong? If so, then God didn't really know. If not, then A didn't really have a choice in actuality; just the illusion of choice.

Given the above, free will ultimately stems from the creator's will, since it must have been deliberately created in it's entirety, unless it stems from a source apart from the creator's will. For example, if the creator created the world accidentally (I know, a silly example) or if the nature of free will is determined by an unknown, therefore random, source apart from the creator's will. In this case, the individual's actions are a result of a random factor, which still places ultimately responsibility of their decisions elsewhere. A person has no more control over his actions if they are determined by a random factor (like a dice roll), than if they were determined.

So basically your argument is that God cannot create something with an independent will?

Well, it can be independent, but it only exists because God created it exactly the way that it exists, even if God created it blindly.

The conclusion here is that the actions and decisions of all individuals are a result of either God's will or randomness, neither of which makes an individual ultimately responsible for them. Please note that free will in a societal sense is different from that of a theological sense, so I'm not saying that this is a valid justification for committing evil acts.

What you didn't consider is that God creates with an "infinite" variety. Each soul has a unique relationship with God and was created for a special purpose with particular strengths and weaknesses. Ultimately that soul can only fulfill that purpose in a loving relationship with God.

How exactly would souls differ from one another, have different strengths and weaknesses, and still maintain perfect freedom of choice (and therefore, action)? If God is literally created souls differently for different purposes, then He's clearly creating them to make different decisions.

Please define "evil acts" without God being our creator.

Though I think it's irrelevant to this topic, "evil" is subjectively determined based on what's perceived as significantly negative or harmful (i.e. suffering) according to the general human disposition.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 9:25:46 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/5/2016 7:28:51 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 10/4/2016 7:49:10 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Regarding omniscience, free will is directly contradictory. Knowledge contradicts free will since free will represents an uncertainty; literally the opposite.

I disagree with that.

Thanks for the response, here. I know we've discussed this before, so let me take this from another angle.

Free will means that I can freely want whatever I want.

This appears to be a tautological statement, which holds no real meaning. Can you clarify/re-word this, please?

If someone knows me well, he can know what I will choose, if I can.

OK, so, in order for someone to know you, which implies a level of predictability, then there would have to be some consistency to you, right?

Knowing what I want, doesn"t limit my freedom to want that. Or what do you think, if I know what you want to say to this, have I determined what you want?

I'm not certain I follow you, here. If someone *knows* that you want something, then it would have to be the case that you want that something, because if you didn't want that something, then that someone didn't actually know in the first place. It's not about that someone actively or directly restricting or determining what you want.
12_13
Posts: 1,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2016 7:52:04 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/5/2016 9:25:46 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Free will means that I can freely want whatever I want.

This appears to be a tautological statement, which holds no real meaning. Can you clarify/re-word this, please?

Will means that person has idea of something that he wants. If person has free will, it means he can freely choose what he wants.

If someone knows me well, he can know what I will choose, if I can.

OK, so, in order for someone to know you, which implies a level of predictability, then there would have to be some consistency to you, right?

Yes.

Knowing what I want, doesn"t limit my freedom to want that. Or what do you think, if I know what you want to say to this, have I determined what you want?

I'm not certain I follow you, here. If someone *knows* that you want something, then it would have to be the case that you want that something, because if you didn't want that something, then that someone didn't actually know in the first place. It's not about that someone actively or directly restricting or determining what you want.

And that is why omniscient God doesn"t mean that people don"t have free will.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2016 1:38:17 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/6/2016 7:52:04 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 10/5/2016 9:25:46 PM, Chaosism wrote:
Free will means that I can freely want whatever I want.

This appears to be a tautological statement, which holds no real meaning. Can you clarify/re-word this, please?

Will means that person has idea of something that he wants. If person has free will, it means he can freely choose what he wants.

What makes you want a particular something?

If someone knows me well, he can know what I will choose, if I can.

OK, so, in order for someone to know you, which implies a level of predictability, then there would have to be some consistency to you, right?

Yes.

What is responsible for that consistency?

Knowing what I want, doesn"t limit my freedom to want that. Or what do you think, if I know what you want to say to this, have I determined what you want?

I'm not certain I follow you, here. If someone *knows* that you want something, then it would have to be the case that you want that something, because if you didn't want that something, then that someone didn't actually know in the first place. It's not about that someone actively or directly restricting or determining what you want.

And that is why omniscient God doesn"t mean that people don"t have free will.

I have no idea how you reached that conclusion based on what I said. Is you're idea of feel just the ability to make a decision without direct coercion?
Fatihah
Posts: 7,742
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2016 4:31:51 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/4/2016 7:49:10 PM, Chaosism wrote:
I'm failing to grasp how free will is a tenable notion and seek to examine it more closely, hopefully with the aid of those who subscribe to it. Below, I'm essentially thinking out loud and presenting my thoughts on theological free will and why I find it lacking, for the purposes of drawing criticism. I ask that you please comment, especially if you disagree with any of it, and I can elaborate if any of it is unclear. Thank you.

Assume an intelligent creator of the universe and consider two individuals with free will. The first individual chose to steal while the second one chose not to. There is obviously *some* difference in these two individuals, or else they would have come to the exact same decision. Therefore, there are factors in play that are responsible for this difference.

In regard to free will, is their free will (or the degree to which their will is free) identical? If not, isn't this difference the direct result of God's creative will? If so, then the factor(s) responsible for difference in the individuals' decisions lie elsewhere.

Other factors that drive a person's decision making are personal values (which are instilled by environment/or intrinsic), willpower, desires, and cognitive capabilities (e.g. empathy, understanding of right and wrong). None of these factors are determined by the will of the individual; no one willfully chooses and controls how they were raised, how they feel, what they desire, and so on. A person who lacks empathy isn't so because he chose to be that way. Since nothing of the world exists without the creator, all that occurs within in is the result of God's direct action.

Regarding omniscience, free will is directly contradictory. Knowledge contradicts free will since free will represents an uncertainty; literally the opposite. If free will is an existent thing, then it cannot exist in uncertainty. For instance, one cannot create something that is just a "shade of red" without it being of some specific reddish color (e.g. maroon, burgundy) first. Likewise, if God created a rock, all of the molecules would have to be created in a specific configuration since they wouldn't exist otherwise. This would be true even if the creator is unaware of the color or configuration.

Given the above, free will ultimately stems from the creator's will, since it must have been deliberately created in it's entirety, unless it stems from a source apart from the creator's will. For example, if the creator created the world accidentally (I know, a silly example) or if the nature of free will is determined by an unknown, therefore random, source apart from the creator's will. In this case, the individual's actions are a result of a random factor, which still places ultimately responsibility of their decisions elsewhere. A person has no more control over his actions if they are determined by a random factor (like a dice roll), than if they were determined.

The conclusion here is that the actions and decisions of all individuals are a result of either God's will or randomness, neither of which makes an individual ultimately responsible for them. Please note that free will in a societal sense is different from that of a theological sense, so I'm not saying that this is a valid justification for committing evil acts.

Response: So what exactly is your contention? Yes, the ability to have and use free will originated from God. So what is your contention?
Chaosism
Posts: 2,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2016 6:04:52 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/7/2016 4:31:51 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 10/4/2016 7:49:10 PM, Chaosism wrote:
The conclusion here is that the actions and decisions of all individuals are a result of either God's will or randomness, neither of which makes an individual ultimately responsible for them. Please note that free will in a societal sense is different from that of a theological sense, so I'm not saying that this is a valid justification for committing evil acts.

Response: So what exactly is your contention? Yes, the ability to have and use free will originated from God. So what is your contention?

Basically, following the conclusion described in the OP (quoted above), since individuals aren't ultimately responsible for their actions and decisions, then the notion of judgement (e.g. heaven and hell) based on those actions is absolutely unjust; just as punishing a man for merely being a man would be. Such a judge (i.e. God) cannot be said to be upholding justice or to be acting justly towards mankind.
PrizeBeatz1
Posts: 48
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2016 6:43:10 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
I think the ultimate conclusion from free will is we will sow what we reap. Let's also be cognizant of the fact that much of what we think we do out of free will is actually determined by the collective identity of what is good/bad, right/wrong. We are governed, to an extent by unconscious forces of peer pressure and the instinct for survival which are difficult to even be aware of. In my opinion since the individual personality is derived from the collective personality we are actually influenced by previous generations. Take the Roman coliseum for instance. We derive our football stadiums from them. We also inherit the roles of the personality. We identify with the young child or the parent and we think those are who we are. We are neither. But how glued are we to identification with the personality? It is this glue, this attachment, this dependence that often determines the way we act. So much of what we think is free will is actually not free IMO.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,742
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2016 7:39:35 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/7/2016 6:04:52 PM, Chaosism wrote:

Basically, following the conclusion described in the OP (quoted above), since individuals aren't ultimately responsible for their actions and decisions, then the notion of judgement (e.g. heaven and hell) based on those actions is absolutely unjust; just as punishing a man for merely being a man would be. Such a judge (i.e. God) cannot be said to be upholding justice or to be acting justly towards mankind.

Response: Your point is valid only against those who accept that their human existence was not their own choice. This is not the case in Islam. In Islam, it is said that we were all in another spiritual form and were asked first, whether we wanted to earn the reward of paradise by becoming human and tested in this world. We said "yes". Therefore, you and everyone else were born humans and placed in this world to be tested by out own free will or choice to do so. The memory of this agreement is washed away and now the test begins once you are born and you will be judged in the Hereafter based on your deeds in this life.

Simply put, heaven and hell is just because we chose of our own free will to become humans and be tested in this world.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2016 8:02:22 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/7/2016 7:39:35 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 10/7/2016 6:04:52 PM, Chaosism wrote:

Basically, following the conclusion described in the OP (quoted above), since individuals aren't ultimately responsible for their actions and decisions, then the notion of judgement (e.g. heaven and hell) based on those actions is absolutely unjust; just as punishing a man for merely being a man would be. Such a judge (i.e. God) cannot be said to be upholding justice or to be acting justly towards mankind.

Response: Your point is valid only against those who accept that their human existence was not their own choice. This is not the case in Islam. In Islam, it is said that we were all in another spiritual form and were asked first, whether we wanted to earn the reward of paradise by becoming human and tested in this world. We said "yes". Therefore, you and everyone else were born humans and placed in this world to be tested by out own free will or choice to do so. The memory of this agreement is washed away and now the test begins once you are born and you will be judged in the Hereafter based on your deeds in this life.

Simply put, heaven and hell is just because we chose of our own free will to become humans and be tested in this world.

The principle is still fully applicable, just dialed back one step. Consider your spiritual form: did you exist in this form without God's having created you? What makes you different from others? In this spiritual form, what exactly made you want to attain the reward of paradise rather than not wanting it? What exactly made you decide the risk of failure was worth taking? Your mere existence prompts this issue, not your biological life.
12_13
Posts: 1,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2016 8:28:22 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/7/2016 1:38:17 PM, Chaosism wrote:
What makes you want a particular something?

I want things that I like.

Is you're idea of feel just the ability to make a decision without direct coercion?

Yes.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,742
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2016 1:28:25 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/7/2016 8:02:22 PM, Chaosism wrote:

The principle is still fully applicable, just dialed back one step. Consider your spiritual form: did you exist in this form without God's having created you? What makes you different from others? In this spiritual form, what exactly made you want to attain the reward of paradise rather than not wanting it? What exactly made you decide the risk of failure was worth taking? Your mere existence prompts this issue, not your biological life.

Response: My existence as a human in this life was my choice. Therefore it is not applicable at all.
lotsoffun
Posts: 1,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2016 1:32:50 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/8/2016 1:28:25 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 10/7/2016 8:02:22 PM, Chaosism wrote:

The principle is still fully applicable, just dialed back one step. Consider your spiritual form: did you exist in this form without God's having created you? What makes you different from others? In this spiritual form, what exactly made you want to attain the reward of paradise rather than not wanting it? What exactly made you decide the risk of failure was worth taking? Your mere existence prompts this issue, not your biological life.

Response: My existence as a human in this life was my choice. Therefore it is not applicable at all.

Your first sentence is the only true statement you have ever made on this forum.
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2016 7:40:54 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/7/2016 7:39:35 PM, Fatihah wrote:
Simply put, heaven and hell is just because we chose of our own free will to become humans and be tested in this world.

When did you (allegedly) choose to become a human?
mrsatan
Posts: 428
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2016 2:28:14 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/7/2016 8:28:22 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 10/7/2016 1:38:17 PM, Chaosism wrote:
What makes you want a particular something?

I want things that I like.

But why do you like those things?

Is you're idea of feel just the ability to make a decision without direct coercion?

Yes.
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2016 5:57:47 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/8/2016 1:28:25 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 10/7/2016 8:02:22 PM, Chaosism wrote:

The principle is still fully applicable, just dialed back one step. Consider your spiritual form: did you exist in this form without God's having created you? What makes you different from others? In this spiritual form, what exactly made you want to attain the reward of paradise rather than not wanting it? What exactly made you decide the risk of failure was worth taking? Your mere existence prompts this issue, not your biological life.

Response: My existence as a human in this life was my choice. Therefore it is not applicable at all.

Fatihah, you flat out ignored the content of the post that you were responding to. Consider your spiritual form:

- Did you exist in this form without God's having created you?

- What makes you different from others?

- In this spiritual form, what exactly made you want to attain the reward of paradise rather than not wanting it?

- What exactly made you decide the risk of failure was worth taking?

Your mere existence (spiritual or otherwise) prompts this issue, not your biological life. Please address the above questions.
12_13
Posts: 1,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2016 8:01:34 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/8/2016 2:28:14 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 10/7/2016 8:28:22 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 10/7/2016 1:38:17 PM, Chaosism wrote:
What makes you want a particular something?

I want things that I like.

But why do you like those things?

Because I see something nice in them.
mrsatan
Posts: 428
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2016 10:13:06 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/9/2016 8:01:34 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 10/8/2016 2:28:14 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 10/7/2016 8:28:22 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 10/7/2016 1:38:17 PM, Chaosism wrote:
What makes you want a particular something?

I want things that I like.

But why do you like those things?

Because I see something nice in them.

I know you do. That's pretty much the definition of "like" in this context. It doesn't answer the question, though.
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,742
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 3:29:32 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/9/2016 5:57:47 PM, Chaosism wrote:

Fatihah, you flat out ignored the content of the post that you were responding to. Consider your spiritual form:

- Did you exist in this form without God's having created you?

- What makes you different from others?

- In this spiritual form, what exactly made you want to attain the reward of paradise rather than not wanting it?

- What exactly made you decide the risk of failure was worth taking?

Your mere existence (spiritual or otherwise) prompts this issue, not your biological life. Please address the above questions.

Response: I have already addressed your contention and stated that the existence of myself and all humans in this life is my choice because I wanted the reward of paradise. So there is no issue as it was our choice, including you.
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 4:05:49 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 3:29:32 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 10/9/2016 5:57:47 PM, Chaosism wrote:

Fatihah, you flat out ignored the content of the post that you were responding to. Consider your spiritual form:

- Did you exist in this form without God's having created you?

- What makes you different from others?

- In this spiritual form, what exactly made you want to attain the reward of paradise rather than not wanting it?

- What exactly made you decide the risk of failure was worth taking?

Your mere existence (spiritual or otherwise) prompts this issue, not your biological life. Please address the above questions.

Response: I have already addressed your contention and stated that the existence of myself and all humans in this life is my choice because I wanted the reward of paradise. So there is no issue as it was our choice, including you.

Unless some one else told you about this supposed Paradise, you wouldn't have known about that assertion!

I want nothing to do with your hearsay claims of a future paradise, but I remain human regardless!

Your ideology is founded upon lies!
Chaosism
Posts: 2,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 12:09:46 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 3:29:32 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 10/9/2016 5:57:47 PM, Chaosism wrote:

Fatihah, you flat out ignored the content of the post that you were responding to. Consider your spiritual form:

- Did you exist in this form without God's having created you?

- What makes you different from others?

- In this spiritual form, what exactly made you want to attain the reward of paradise rather than not wanting it?

- What exactly made you decide the risk of failure was worth taking?

Your mere existence (spiritual or otherwise) prompts this issue, not your biological life. Please address the above questions.

Response: I have already addressed your contention and stated that the existence of myself and all humans in this life is my choice because I wanted the reward of paradise. So there is no issue as it was our choice, including you.

Twice now, I have very clearly stated that I'm not talking about human existence or this life. Please read it again. Why are you avoiding these questions?
Fatihah
Posts: 7,742
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 1:20:33 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 12:09:46 PM, Chaosism wrote:

Twice now, I have very clearly stated that I'm not talking about human existence or this life. Please read it again. Why are you avoiding these questions?

Response: And twice now, I have shown you that if that is the case, then your argument and contention makes no sense. Why are you avoiding this fact?
Chaosism
Posts: 2,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 1:35:51 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 1:20:33 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 10/10/2016 12:09:46 PM, Chaosism wrote:

Twice now, I have very clearly stated that I'm not talking about human existence or this life. Please read it again. Why are you avoiding these questions?

Response: And twice now, I have shown you that if that is the case, then your argument and contention makes no sense. Why are you avoiding this fact?

This is demonstrably false. You've continued to refer only to human existence; I'm not talking about that. Please answer the questions at the bottom of this post if you can, but I suspect that you cannot.

At 10/8/2016 1:28:25 AM, Fatihah wrote:
Response: My existence as a human in this life was my choice. Therefore it is not applicable at all.

At 10/10/2016 3:29:32 AM, Fatihah wrote:
Response: I have already addressed your contention and stated that the existence of myself and all humans in this life is my choice because I wanted the reward of paradise. So there is no issue as it was our choice, including you.

Consider your spiritual, pre-human form of existence prior to making a choice about human life:

- Did you exist in this form without God's having created you?

- What makes you different from others?

- What exactly made you want to attain the reward of paradise rather than not wanting it?

- What exactly made you decide the risk of failure was worth taking?
Fatihah
Posts: 7,742
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 4:34:36 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 1:35:51 PM, Chaosism wrote:

This is demonstrably false. You've continued to refer only to human existence; I'm not talking about that. Please answer the questions at the bottom of this post if you can, but I suspect that you cannot.

At 10/8/2016 1:28:25 AM, Fatihah wrote:
Response: My existence as a human in this life was my choice. Therefore it is not applicable at all.

At 10/10/2016 3:29:32 AM, Fatihah wrote:
Response: I have already addressed your contention and stated that the existence of myself and all humans in this life is my choice because I wanted the reward of paradise. So there is no issue as it was our choice, including you.

Consider your spiritual, pre-human form of existence prior to making a choice about human life:

- Did you exist in this form without God's having created you?

- What makes you different from others?

- What exactly made you want to attain the reward of paradise rather than not wanting it?

- What exactly made you decide the risk of failure was worth taking?

Response: Whether you are talking about human existence or not does not change the fact that your question was answered. You originally said heaven and hell is unjust and I have shown that the the only reason heaven and hell exist is because we agreed to be humans. So you cannot claim heaven and hell as unjust and not discuss human existence because they coincide.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 5:05:14 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 4:34:36 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 10/10/2016 1:35:51 PM, Chaosism wrote:

This is demonstrably false. You've continued to refer only to human existence; I'm not talking about that. Please answer the questions at the bottom of this post if you can, but I suspect that you cannot.

At 10/8/2016 1:28:25 AM, Fatihah wrote:
Response: My existence as a human in this life was my choice. Therefore it is not applicable at all.

At 10/10/2016 3:29:32 AM, Fatihah wrote:
Response: I have already addressed your contention and stated that the existence of myself and all humans in this life is my choice because I wanted the reward of paradise. So there is no issue as it was our choice, including you.

Consider your spiritual, pre-human form of existence prior to making a choice about human life:

- Did you exist in this form without God's having created you?

- What makes you different from others?

- What exactly made you want to attain the reward of paradise rather than not wanting it?

- What exactly made you decide the risk of failure was worth taking?

Response: Whether you are talking about human existence or not does not change the fact that your question was answered. You originally said heaven and hell is unjust and I have shown that the the only reason heaven and hell exist is because we agreed to be humans. So you cannot claim heaven and hell as unjust and not discuss human existence because they coincide.

You are blatantly ignoring the part of the equation that YOU introduced. Let's examine:

One's eternal fate (i.e. heaven or hell) is dependent on one's human existence. However, your human existence is also dependent on your pre-human (spiritual) existence. Therefore, logically, your eternal fate is ultimately dependent on your pre-human (spiritual) existence.

Analogously, the way bowling pins are scattered is dependent on how the bowling ball is thrown, which is then dependent on whether the bowler decides to throw the ball or not. The bowlers first choice directly affects the ultimate outcome, akin to the situation we're discussing.

So, if you insist that your pre-human (spiritual) existence should not be considered, please present your reasoning in a cogent matter. Thank you in advance.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,742
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 6:06:01 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 5:05:14 PM, Chaosism wrote:

You are blatantly ignoring the part of the equation that YOU introduced. Let's examine:

One's eternal fate (i.e. heaven or hell) is dependent on one's human existence. However, your human existence is also dependent on your pre-human (spiritual) existence. Therefore, logically, your eternal fate is ultimately dependent on your pre-human (spiritual) existence.

Analogously, the way bowling pins are scattered is dependent on how the bowling ball is thrown, which is then dependent on whether the bowler decides to throw the ball or not. The bowlers first choice directly affects the ultimate outcome, akin to the situation we're discussing.

So, if you insist that your pre-human (spiritual) existence should not be considered, please present your reasoning in a cogent matter. Thank you in advance.

Response: You stated heaven and Hell is unjust. Heaven and Hell is based on HUMAN existence. Not pre-Human, and human existence was chosen. So your contention is invalid.