Son Of GOD

Originally posted by inimalist
how so? it would simply restrict the group of actions it is possible to do to a smaller number which we are free to choose among, exactly the same way that not being able to fly would.

you could still freely choose among the things it is possible to do. It would eliminate certain moral considerations about free will, but it certainly wouldn't eliminate free will specifically.

I disagree. In a way I agree with Omega Vision's view of evil in that it is simply the lack of good. As such, only the best action in any given circumstance is the purely good action as all the rest would have at least small traces of evil in them. Without any evil in the world we would be unable to choose these other actions and would always be restricted to choosing the best choice.

thats silly

because I give 200 dollars instead of 300 to a charity I have committed an evil act by donating money to charity?

lol

also, it is arbitrary to use the ability to do evil as a definitional quality of free will. I would have just as much justification to say the ability to fly is the specific quality required for someone to have free will.

Originally posted by inimalist
thats silly

because I give 200 dollars instead of 300 to a charity I have committed an evil act by donating money to charity?

lol]

Nope. And a strawman at that. Donating money is an inheritently good act. Sure in a case where it is not the best action their may be trace amounts of evil perhaps ego stroking or doind it for the sense of goodness yet it is still a good act.

also, it is arbitrary to use the ability to do evil as a definitional quality of free will. I would have just as much justification to say the ability to fly is the specific quality required for someone to have free will.

No you wouldn't. I may be unable to fly but I can still choose to walk or run to my next class. If their was no evil well then I would be restricted to the best way to get there.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But to me that's like asking: Why would a hufflup be able manipulate the elements like a fuppledup?

Sure, only if you're not aware of what those two "characters" represent. Since you are, your above point is invalid and does nothing to address what either of us have stated.

Your question is more like this:

"Why would a non-God, who has been cast out from God's presence, have the powers of God?"

The question seems to answer itself.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Representations of Lucifer and angels in my experience often have the power to command the elements.

I can't think of any, actually.

The closet I can come to are "Destroying angels". But those are symbolic...carry swords...and slay people the same way a human would. That's not commanding the elements.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You have to explain to me why it doesn't works that way.

I already did before you posted. You must explain to me why it would work that way.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It's your mythology. I can't think of a reason the Devil shouldn't be able to command the elements because I don't know the internal logic of your system of magic.

While I do appreciate your condescending words, I have already explained why.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Main point is, Jews and Christians don't believe in Allah. This is an Islamic deity.

I do. I believe it to be the same diety with possibly different attributes.

Any religion that believes in a supreme god/ultimate god, I equate to my God.

Originally posted by inimalist
God defined the limits of what humans are able to do by designing our physiology and psychology. In theory, preventing us from doing evil would be no more a violation of free will than would preventing us from tracking 25 moving objects at the same time.

That doesn't make sense to me. Not even a little.

If God designed us to not be able to do evil, how does that allow us free will? It does not. We would then be bound to do evil and nothing we could do, think, or feel would change that. That's the fundamental difference between having free will and not, from a theological perspective.

You're approaching this from "free will means choosing to eat pizza or choosing to eat quiznos". Free will means that but it also means "choosing to eat that food and not sharing with my children because I'm hungry, damnit!"

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm sure God could have figured out a way for us to if he wanted us to have absolute free will.

biologically speaking though, for sure, our bone and muscle structure would require wings of ridiculous size and the energy it would take would never be worth it.

I see, now. You're mixing up "Free want" with "free will".

Originally posted by inimalist
you could still freely choose among the things it is possible to do. It would eliminate certain moral considerations about free will, but it certainly wouldn't eliminate free will specifically.

You see, here is the problem. The entire point of being here is to have to choose between good and evil and then choosing good OVER evil. That is the primary definition of God's version of "free will".

Top inject with Mormon theology: Before the universe began, there was a council in heaven. Two plans of "salvation" were put forth. God and Jesus put forth the plan of salvation that we have now: Each of us go to earth and have a mortal experience, try to triumph over evil, learn as much as we can, form bonds, love each other, and Jesus' sacrifice would cover the gaps. However, there was a problem with this plan that many did not like: some would complete refuse God and never come back to Him: a very sad notion. Lucifer's plan (who may have been 3rd to 5th in command after God) was the answer to that: All would be forced to do good and none could do evil. Not a single soul would be lost to God. There's a problem with that plan, as well: there is no room for growth and development of the soul: the entire point of coming to this plane. Without growth, our eternal progress was dammed. God said he would go with Jesus' and His plan.

That's the fundamental difference between "free will" and "not free will" from a theological perspective.

Allowing decisions between mundane choices is not free will. For me, and this is entirely philosophical opinion, once you drop below the threshold of an inability to "sin" against God, you no longer have classical free will.

You view it as a sliding scale of just how much is limited. I do, as well. But I see a certain point on that sliding scale a representing the annihilation of literal free will: what's left cannot be considered true free will.

The concept of heaven is like that, however. BUT...everyone is so good that they choose NOT to be bad. No one sins, everyone is happy, everyone chooses right. That's supposed to be "ideal".

Originally posted by inimalist
thats silly

because I give 200 dollars instead of 300 to a charity I have committed an evil act by donating money to charity?

lol

That's not what he said, at all.

More like, "Because I give $200 instead of $300 (when I could have afforded it without problem and I knew it was a good charity with families that needed help), I could have made a "gooder" choice.

Originally posted by inimalist
also, it is arbitrary to use the ability to do evil as a definitional quality of free will. I would have just as much justification to say the ability to fly is the specific quality required for someone to have free will.

I disagree. For me, that's the fundamental definition of free will. What is arbitrary to me is saying "let's move the sliding scale of limitations around and call it all free will". That's arbitrary.

Again, you're using an example of "Free want".

In order for your example to be free will, you must define it as: one can choose to fly or not to fly.

In that case, we have that option. 🙂 In other words, yes, we can have our cake and eat it too.

The sliding scale of free will extends infinitely when we can become gods of our own multiverse. However, the sliding scale does have a beginning: it's the moment we no longer have free will but are automatons.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Your question is more like this:

"Why would a non-God, who has been cast out from God's presence, have the powers of God?"

For the same reason Melkor was still a major threat after being cast out by Illuvitar rather than instantly losing all of his power. For the same reason that my character in Skyrim can command the elements despite not being YWHW.

Because its totally possible for a magic system to work that way.

You have to explain why it works the way it does in every respect. Nothing is "obvious" so it's impossible for me to assume anything.That Lucifer should lose power over the elements after being cast out is no more self evident to me than why he should not have the ability to command pasta.

I'm really not aware of the extreme specifics of how magic works in Christian myth, honest. Why do you seem to think I am?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I can't think of any, actually.

Do you not watch movies? Play video games? Watch television?

Command over fire is the most popular one. Occasionally ice.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I already did before you posted. You must explain to me why it would work that way.

Because he has magic powers so my starting point is "he can do anything he wants". It's your magic system, you have to explain to me why it has the limitations it does.

Is elemental magic specifically the domain of god or something? If so, why? Is God the power source for all angels? All spirits? Did he specifically revoke Lucifers powers over the elements? If so why not revoke all of them? Do angels have certain innate powers and certain divinely granted ones?

Are there citations in the Bible or Book of Mormon for why Lucifer wouldn't have any elemental powers?

Originally posted by dadudemon
While I do appreciate your condescending words, I have already explained why.

Except for that part where you never bothered to and decided to immediately begin by being condescending instead.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm sure God could have figured out a way for us to if he wanted us to have absolute free will.

biologically speaking though, for sure, our bone and muscle structure would require wings of ridiculous size and the energy it would take would never be worth it.

So the argument is that since God is omnipotent he could've done otherwise? By your argument God can also allow freewill because he would just "find a way".

Bleh.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
For the same reason Melkor was still a major threat after being cast out by Illuvitar rather than instantly losing all of his power. For the same reason that my character in Skyrim can command the elements despite not being YWHW.

In other words, you don't have a reason.

I agree: you don't.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You have to explain why it works the way it does in every respect. Nothing is "obvious" so it's impossible for me to assume anything.That Lucifer should lose power over the elements after being cast out is no more self evident to me than why he should not have the ability to command pasta.

I'm really not aware of the extreme specifics of how magic works in Christian myth, honest. Why do you seem to think I am?

So you want me to explain it again...which would be a third time.

Here, I'll make it easier:

Satan/Lucifer = not-God.

YHWH/Jesus = God.

God can control the elements/universe on a cosmic scale because he's God.

Satan cannot because he's just a spirit just like you and I are (underneath the corporeal realm).

We know that Lucifer has less power than we do because of the story of Adam and Eve: the snake can bruise our heal but we can crush it's head. Meaning, Satan is virtually powerless. His only powers are subtly influencing man on a level that I am not even sure exists.

However, none of that is even necessary to explain because of this: Satan is not God. He cannot control the universe like God...because he's not God. That's fairly simple.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Do you not watch movies? Play video games? Watch television?

Command over fire is the most popular one. Occasionally ice.

Cool, so you were never actually trying to have an adult conversation. Got it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because he has magic powers so my starting point is "he can do anything he wants". It's your magic system, you have to explain to me why it has the limitations it does.

Well, since I've already done that and you're choosing to ignore it...

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Is elemental magic specifically the domain of god or something? If so, why? Is God the power source for all angels? All spirits? Did he specifically revoke Lucifers powers over the elements? If so why not revoke all of them? Do angels have certain innate powers and certain divinely granted ones?

Are there citations in the Bible or Book of Mormon for why Lucifer wouldn't have any elemental powers?

You have it all wrong. YOU explain to ME why Satan has God-level powers. You're taking that position. I am taking the position: Satan is not God. Satan does not have God's powers. Satan is an outcast from heaven and at the very best, an Angel once upon a time.

You bring ME evidence for why he has God-level powers. My position is fairly simple: Satan is not God.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Except for that part where you never bothered to and decided to immediately begin by being condescending instead.

You mean the part where I did bother to and asked you to clarify a question that did not make sense in the context of the conversation.

Again, where is your evidence (canon, not movies, not metaphorical books from JRR Tolkien, and certainly not video games) that Satan can control the elements on God's level?

Free Want vs Free Will

A thought experiment occurs to me.

Say Alice kidnaps Bob and locks him in a room to prevent him from going to class. Does he still have free will? Yes, I'd say he does. He can walk around the room, yell, bash the door.
If she chains him to a wall? Yes. He can struggle and scream.
Removes his limbs? Yes, he can scream.
Completely paralyzes his body? Maybe but I think I'd say yes. He can still think the thoughts he wants.

So if we were automatons that physically could only do perfect actions but could still think whatever we wanted would we have free will?

I'd say we've only restricted Free Want. Humans can only do things that humans can do. The automata are limited in exactly the same way. If you ask a man why he can't fly its not because he lacks free will, its because his body is limited. If you ask an automata why it can't do evil its not because he lacks free will, its because his body is limited.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Again, where is your evidence (canon, not movies, not metaphorical books from JRR Tolkien, and certainly not video games) that Satan can control the elements on God's level?

So the argument is simply that Lucifer is never shown in canon using elemental powers thus he probably doesn't have them? Fair enough. You could have started with that rather than jumping immediately into sputtering rage.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So the argument is simply that Lucifer is never shown in canon using elemental powers thus he probably doesn't have them?

Why is that new to you in this very same thread?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Apparently, Satan could not do anything against Job due to his righteousness. Satan is virtually powerless. So he needed God's help (God can control nature, Satan cannot...being a spirit).

My thing is: why in the world would God agree to such a thing? Is that not "tempting God"? The Mormons believe the conversation between God and Satan is slightly different: Satan was given no power over nature, it was God's doing, only. The Job account says God gave Satan the power to do so: an impossibility especially if you consider Lucifer to be a fallen angel. God would not give out his power/authority to evil, ever, at any point. That's about as unrighteous of a depiction of God as we can get. We would have a "gray God" rather than a "white God", if that makes sense (think Jedi).

Originally posted by dadudemon
Possessing someone and wielding powers over the elements are two different things.

Lucifer, a spirit and fallen angel, does not have the ability to manipulate the elements like God does.

Originally posted by dadudemon
...why would Lucifer, a spirit and fallen angel, have the ability to manipulate the elements like God does?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I can't think of any, actually.

The closet I can come to are "Destroying angels". But those are symbolic...carry swords...and slay people the same way a human would. That's not commanding the elements.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Fair enough. You could have started with that rather than jumping immediately into sputtering rage.

T-t-that's my line, not yours. 😬

Also, I did start out with it and you even responded to it. I brought it up again. I even stated that at no point are Angels seen using elemental powers and the closest we get are Destroying Angels who basically wield swords...and they are suspect.

So, I will just have to say "no you stop going into a sputtering rages".

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Free Want vs Free Will

A thought experiment occurs to me.

Say Alice kidnaps Bob and locks him in a room to prevent him from going to class. Does he still have free will? Yes, I'd say he does. He can walk around the room, yell, bash the door.
If she chains him to a wall? Yes. He can struggle and scream.
Removes his limbs? Yes, he can scream.
Completely paralyzes his body? Maybe but I think I'd say yes. He can still think the thoughts he wants.

So if we were automatons that physically could only do perfect actions but could still think whatever we wanted would we have free will?

I'd say we've only restricted Free Want. Humans can only do things that humans can do. The automata are limited in exactly the same way. If you ask a man why he can't fly its not because he lacks free will, its because his body is limited. If you ask an automata why it can't do evil its not because he lacks free will, its because his body is limited.

This incorrectly presumes that the only types of sin are sins of physical action: not so.

Jesus brought the "new law" that clearly outlines that thoughts condemn us.

In order for it to be a perfect automaton, they'd have to have, literally, no free will. They would ONLY be able to think the way God considered "right" and by extension, only do things that were right. Obviously, neuroscience is showing us that we do what we think.

I am not a believer in pure libertarian free will. Any person that knows a little about biology and how the brain works would have to conclude that we do not have libertarian free will. But I do believe we have free will.

To a God who's consciousness is vastly superior to our own, we could appear as not having free will. Our choices would seem insignificantly limited to such a Being. So I think you and others should approach the subject from that angle: it actually makes sense. Is it truly free will if the "Creator" already knows all possible outcomes? What's the point of anything if God already knows all possible outcomes and choices? There's no point to free will at that point, is there? We are virtually automatons to the Creator, at that point.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This incorrectly presumes that the only types of sin are sins of physical action: not so.

Jesus brought the "new law" that clearly outlines that thoughts condemn us.

In order for it to be a perfect automaton, they'd have to have, literally, no free will. They would ONLY be able to think the way God considered "right" and by extension, only do things that were right. Obviously, neuroscience is showing us that we do what we think.

I am not a believer in pure libertarian free will. Any person that knows a little about biology and how the brain works would have to conclude that we do not have libertarian free will. But I do believe we have free will.

To a God who's consciousness is vastly superior to our own, we could appear as not having free will. Our choices would seem insignificantly limited to such a Being. So I think you and others should approach the subject from that angle: it actually makes sense. Is it truly free will if the "Creator" already knows all possible outcomes? What's the point of anything if God already knows all possible outcomes and choices? There's no point to free will at that point, is there? We are virtually automatons to the Creator, at that point.

Originally posted by King Kandy
That seems to just make it worse. If thoughts condemn you, then why not disallow the actual physical versions? Then, one's sin would only hurt themselves. Seems an obvious improvement.

How are others supposed to learn from your mistakes if those mistakes can remain hidden? How can you know your actions/thoughts hurt others if they have no way to know them? God could give us telepathy and allow us to interact that way...through some sort of virtual interface. But isn't that just an meaningless distinction at that point? What would be the logical difference between a physical interaction and a mental one when they are the same?

But, actually, it is your thoughts (contents of your heart) in addition to your actions that you are judged on (in Christianity). So it is both, not just one or the other. That makes more sense because a person may have a thought that they do not want to act on: wow, she's sexy, I want to bone her. That's a bit primal and not something we have absolute control over. I hear meditation helps that...

You also presume that this corporeal form isn't just some sort of simulation. No matter how you approach, this is just a very complex simulation. I'm sure you hear Muslims and Christians spout, "This life is a test." Itz teh matrix!

Originally posted by dadudemon
This incorrectly presumes that the only types of sin are sins of physical action: not so.

Jesus brought the "new law" that clearly outlines that thoughts condemn us.

In order for it to be a perfect automaton, they'd have to have, literally, no free will. They would ONLY be able to think the way God considered "right" and by extension, only do things that were right. Obviously, neuroscience is showing us that we do what we think.

You're highighting the same problem I am.

The key question is: Do you have free will if you can only think and experience?

If you do then a world a perfect actions and free thoughts is superior to a world of free actions and free thoughts. If you believe we need to do evil in order to grow we ca start with a world where murder is physically impossible. I could still condemn myself but I can't kill anyone because my body (only) is unable.

The point is that if thoughts are what matters then a world of automatic action should be fine. There's no reason that our thoughts wouldn't be known. If growth is good then the automata would have to reveal our important thoughts to other so that they can learn from them.

Free will is not violated.
Growth is not prevented.
More people are saved.
Fewer people are harmed.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So I think you and others should approach the subject from that angle: it actually makes sense. Is it truly free will if the "Creator" already knows all possible outcomes? What's the point of anything if God already knows all possible outcomes and choices? There's no point to free will at that point, is there? We are virtually automatons to the Creator, at that point.

That is another, perhaps more serious, issue in Christian theology.

Originally posted by ares834
Nope. And a strawman at that. Donating money is an inheritently good act. Sure in a case where it is not the best action their may be trace amounts of evil perhaps ego stroking or doind it for the sense of goodness yet it is still a good act.

yes, hence why I said it was silly

Originally posted by ares834
No you wouldn't. I may be unable to fly but I can still choose to walk or run to my next class. If their was no evil well then I would be restricted to the best way to get there.

?

how is the most optimal route to anything a moral consideration?

Originally posted by dadudemon
You see, here is the problem. The entire point of being here is to have to choose between good and evil and then choosing good OVER evil. That is the primary definition of God's version of "free will".

fine, I just 100% disagree with your ontology

Originally posted by Bentley
So the argument is that since God is omnipotent he could've done otherwise? By your argument God can also allow freewill because he would just "find a way".

Bleh.

what other possible interpretation of "omnipotent" could there be?

Originally posted by inimalist
what other possible interpretation of "omnipotent" could there be?

It is more of a reflection of the kind that omnipotence is already impossible to argue in consistent logic, so in makes a poor argument to begin with.

Originally posted by Bentley
It is more of a reflection of the kind that omnipotence is already impossible to argue in consistent logic, so in makes a poor argument to begin with.

sure, but that could be said of most arguments involving God anyways. I was assuming we were ignoring the inconsistencies to talk about free will in that context.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You're highighting the same problem I am.

Your next question shows that we are not on the same page.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The key question is: Do you have free will if you can only think and experience?

You're still fixed on "action" being the only form of morality. Even your thoughts condemn you.

You can be only a thinking entity and still have free will. You can think stuff. However, what you can think is highly dammed if you cannot interact, learn, and make choices about action.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If you do then a world a perfect actions and free thoughts is superior to a world of free actions and free thoughts.

That's kind of what heaven is supposed to be like: where everyone has free will but chooses "good" for themselves and everyone.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If you believe we need to do evil in order to grow we ca start with a world where murder is physically impossible. I could still condemn myself but I can't kill anyone because my body (only) is unable.

No, just being aware that something is evil and having to make the choice to do good is enough.

Apparently, we were aware of evil and bad choices before coming here (I'm using Mormon theology, at this point). Because we were in God's presence the entire time and we were purely innocent, we could not choose to do good for goodness sake (virtue ethics). Apparently, being in God's presence in our innocent form makes it impossible to sin because of his overwhelming presence (he's supposed to be a god of unimaginable power...or something). The plan was to send us here, away from God's presence, to think, grow, feel, and choose the right with our own free will. This is part of "eternal progression".

So back to your idea: yes, if you're just a thinking entity but are unable to kill someone, God being all-knowing, would know that you would have tried to kill the person if you had the physical ability to do so. This is why we are directed not to judge others but to forgive: we are supposed to take solace in the fact that God has a perfect knowledge so perfect justice can be meted.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The point is that if thoughts are what matters then a world of automatic action should be fine.

Nah, not at all. It's both.

Both your actions and your thoughts condemn you as I've explained.

If you had a perfectly righteous mind but were unable to control your actions, then you'd be innocent. If you had evil thoughts but were unable to do any bad because of it, your thoughts would condemn you...assuming you had free will and choose to dwell on those bad thoughts.

In this world, it's both: our thoughts lead to actions. Both condemn you. Your actions are secondary to your thoughts which allows for "internal processing" before you commit to those actions. It's kind of like a back up. Have you ever wanted to just punch someone in the face and you were about to but at the very last moment, decided to hold it back (your probably haven't but it's just an example...I'm sure you can think of one like it)? It's like that.

But what's the point of being here if we only think? We were already thinking individuals before we came here. We must take action with our thoughts in order to truly grow. For instance, you can read about roller-coasters or be told stories of roller-coasters all you want. It is hardly comparable to actually experiencing it. If we were only thinking entities, we would not be able to learn or experience things...we'd just be thinking entities in isolation from God.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There's no reason that our thoughts wouldn't be known.

How would you express them if there is no way to express them? How would you experience other people if there's no way to experience them? You'd essentially be an isolated entity...alone...to your own thoughts...for the 50-100 years you get to "be away from God". Surely you see why it is better to have the ability to interact with a corporeal world for experience?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If growth is good then the automata would have to reveal our important thoughts to other so that they can learn from them.

What's to learn if there is no opposition or hardship or even a way to know of such hardships? What's to learn if you literally do not have the ability to communicate? I believe you're assuming that a thinking entity that has no way to interact, physically, with the world around it would be doomed to isolation. If you want to make it interact with the world around it, then it is not just a thinking entity incapable of taking actions.

But what opposition is there for that entity to learn if there is not pain, death, suffering, or any of that? Be an outcast to others? How so? You can still "hear" their thoughts and they yours. How could anyone ever truly be an outcast? What would be overcome? Basically, in order to do anything...you'd eventually get back to the system we are in now, even if you didn't intend to create it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Free will is not violated.

Actually, it is: you may maintain your free will but what's the point of coming here for growth and development when you can't exercise your free will to do so?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Growth is not prevented.

Growth would be extremely limited. The only growth we could achieve is learning how to cope with isolation and being away from God's presence.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
More people are saved.

Saved from what?nBased on your scenario, no one can grow so they are still innocent. They don't need to be saved.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Fewer people are harmed.

As a fact, no one could be harmed because they have no way to act on others. Again, I assume they cannot communicate with each other.

Assume we are these spirit entites you are designing into this scenario. Assume they have no way of interacting with one another. The scenario does nothing to help us grow and learn besides teaching us how to cope with isolation and being out of God's presence. But how does that teach us how to be our own godly beings with godly traits? It doesn't. The learning is virtually useless since we could not sin to begin with and will always end right back in God's presence.

So let's assume they can interact. How so? Telepathy. Okay, so you must put a limit on telepathy so that people can learn and grow through bonds. Why? Well, if everyone has perfect telepathy, then no one can ever be an outcast so no social structures could truly form: everyone could think the thoughts of everyone through mutual telepathy.

So scratch that.

Let's go with limited telepathy. Meaning, it only projects so far out from you. This is better because you can be an outcast...sort of. How do become an outcast if you do not have the ability to move? Would you not end up in the same scenario as the first one: you could pop into existence where no one was around you...ruining the whole point of coming here. Your experience with the limited group you MAY end up with could be so limited as to not teach you much. You have no way of communicating with other groups besides the one you can communicate with. So you may be doomed to limited growth as would the rest of humanity.

And this leads us back to the best possible scenario, using your setup: make us locally telepathic with the ability to "float" around to where we want to go. Give people the ability to block out other's ability to think to them (you would project your thoughts into other heads in "real" telepathy..that's how you would communicate in s "senseless" world). But haven't you created just a limited version of what we already have, at that point? The amount of "sins" you can commit are limited to a lesser set. You will not be able to gain as much wisdom and experience due to the ability to not have as many choices. Especially if you approach it as I do (from the Mormon side) we are at a certain level of spiritual progression and we do not have enough experience to be under a near infinite amount of temptations or good choices. We need a limitation on what we can endure to make the best choices due to our limited intelligence.

So, I would say that your scenario (modified to what I have above) does work. But it is limited. We could get more experience and knowledge in what little time we do have in a more complex system.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That is another, perhaps more serious, issue in Christian theology.

Indeed and it's one of the problems I have with a truly Omniscient God.

My only theory on this:

God is still omniscient. He just does not know which path we will choose out of the near infinite possibilities. Meaning, he still is aware of every potential variable in each of his children's existence but he does not know which of those near infinite choices each child will choose due to their Godly Trait of "Free Will". Yes, I created another "have your cake and eat it, too" scenario.

Originally posted by King Kandy
That seems to just make it worse. If thoughts condemn you, then why not disallow the actual physical versions? Then, one's sin would only hurt themselves. Seems an obvious improvement.

I answered this, above. But, to be more specific to your post: the entire point of existence is each other and loving each other. Who's to say that we did not exist first as a thinking entity...isolated from everything (that's just about how we believe it in Mormonism: we existed as intelligences, for eternity, before God organized our intelligence into our spirits.)

The ability to sin in a way that could cause others to sin or harm each other is a far better teaching tool. "But that's just a horrible and cruel existence". If you think about it as limited as possible, sure. If this was it and there was nothing before or after this, that would be a horrible existence. Since we existed before and after this time on Earth, it's just a infinitely small blip in the eternities that imparts an almost infinite amount of wisdom to us. Learning how to purely love those around you is the point of being here.

What's the point of life? To love. That answers the other thread in the philosophy section, as well.