Son Of GOD

Originally posted by inimalist
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.

We can do that, but if we're going to use arguments that mimick well known discussions that are known to be problematic just by changing their wording we're not really letting those inconsistences go.

Btw, I'm explaining my earlier reasoning, not implying you're relying in underlying contradictions to discuss here.

Any discussion of "God" in all "His" infinitude will generate paradoxes faster than a pop-up bomb will generate windows. Best to pick a specific metaphor, agree on its limits and allowances, and work from there, IMO.

Originally posted by dadudemon
...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 masturbation helps that...

Originally posted by Bentley
We can do that, but if we're going to use arguments that mimick well known discussions that are known to be problematic just by changing their wording we're not really letting those inconsistences go.

Btw, I'm explaining my earlier reasoning, not implying you're relying in underlying contradictions to discuss here.

I'm in total agreement, I do genuinely think most religious opinions on free will are specious at best, I was just trying to explain how evil could be eliminated while choice over ones actions could still exist

I think the bigger issue here is the definitions, either evil is just the absence of the most absolute good thing ever or the only reason we have free will is so that we might do evil. I think both of those are hugely problematic, and the latter I don't even consider to be consistent with Christian dogma. However, I must concede, if God gave us free will specifically so we could hurt each other, then we might be eliminating free will by preventing people from hurting one another (even though we would have choice over all of our other actions).

ugh, the latter part of that should have been addressed to ddm...

Originally posted by Mindship
Any discussion of "God" in all "His" infinitude will generate paradoxes faster than a pop-up bomb will generate windows. Best to pick a specific metaphor, agree on its limits and allowances, and work from there, IMO.

👆

although, even then it is almost impossible to get people to agree on the parameters.

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".

I thought I'd give a better response:

Like, I hear you, but I think you are, to quote Jack White, taking an effect and making it the cause.

Free Will deals with whether or not you have the choice over your actions. All actions. If you had control over choices of good and evil, but not over those that deal with mundane things, you would not have free will in any way that it is commonly discussed. Yes, God gave us free will, and God wants us to choose good over evil, but if that is the only definitional quality of what makes free will, you could still have free will if 99% of your actions were pre-determined, which no religious tradition that I know of would find as an acceptable interpretation of their doctrine of free will.

As a result of God giving us free will, we are able to choose between good and evil because good and evil are things that God endowed us to choose between. Similarly, he allowed us to choose between walking or running. Given our physiology and psychology, that God created, there is a population of actions that we are able to choose among.

I hear your point about free want, but I think you are missing my general point. Its not that "if we had free will we should be able to fly", its that, God designed us such that the action of flying is not among the population of things we are able to choose between. We still have free will even though we can't fly, because we are able to choose from a population of things that we can do.

From a theological perspective, sure, it would essentially undermine the moral imperatives surrounding free will for God to have moved evil actions into the population of things that we are physiologically unable to choose to do, and huge portions of Christian dogma that relate to the choice of going to heaven or hell would no longer be relevant, however, I think rather than the theological stance on free will being "it is related specifically to choosing good over evil, and if people can't choose evil they have no free will" might be better phrased as: "The choices between doing good or evil acts are of fundamental importance to this religion, and the dogma would make little sense if people couldn't choose to be evil".

Its more that as a consequence of free will and the ability to do evil, we are able to make choices that are relevant to God and sin. If God had designed us such that sin was in the population of things we couldn't choose between, but still allowed us to choose between the things we are able to do, free will would still exist however Christianity and its offshoots would be irrelevant.

Originally posted by dadudemon
[B]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.

The whole point of this thought experiment is that you have free will when you only have thoughts.
The whole point of this thought experiment is that you are still allowed to condemn yourself with thoughts.

I have explicitly said both of these things more than once.

Originally posted by dadudemon
[B]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.

Exactly, thus the automata still have free will. They can do evil and go to hell as a result, the only thing they can't do is harm others.

Originally posted by dadudemon
[B]your actions and your thoughts condemn you as I've explained.

I was of the impression that either can be enough.
Evil thoughts. Condemned.
Evil actions. Condemned.

Originally posted by dadudemon
[B]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.

Exactly.

Originally posted by dadudemon
[B]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.

The automata are not humans. They might well have a way to give the minds inside of them intense experiences if needed. Recall, they're designed by God to be perfect so its hard to place limits on them in this regard.

Originally posted by dadudemon
[B]How would you express them if there is no way to express them?

All the mind has to do is express itself. The automata will only prevent that if the act of expression would qualify as evil according to God.

Originally posted by dadudemon
[B]What's to learn if there is no opposition or hardship or even a way to know of such hardships?

Why would there be no hardship? If it is good to experience hardship then the automata, being perfect, must present it to the minds inside of them. One's body refusing to carry out evil actions is also a hardship for some people.

Originally posted by dadudemon
[B]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.

The automata simply are a device to prevent evil actions only. They do not isolate the riders in any way (unless God things interaction with others is evil for some reason).

Originally posted by dadudemon
[B]But what opposition is there for that entity to learn if there is not pain, death, suffering, or any of that?

Death would still exist, there's no particular reason to prevent it.
Pain and suffering can still be experienced, provided by the automata in any of various ways. They only cannot be caused by other people.

Originally posted by inimalist
I thought I'd give a better response:

Like, I hear you, but I think you are, to quote Jack White, taking an effect and making it the cause.

Free Will deals with whether or not you have the choice over your actions. All actions. If you had control over choices of good and evil, but not over those that deal with mundane things, you would not have free will in any way that it is commonly discussed. Yes, God gave us free will, and God wants us to choose good over evil, but if that is the only definitional quality of what makes free will, you could still have free will if 99% of your actions were pre-determined, which no religious tradition that I know of would find as an acceptable interpretation of their doctrine of free will.

As a result of God giving us free will, we are able to choose between good and evil because good and evil are things that God endowed us to choose between. Similarly, he allowed us to choose between walking or running. Given our physiology and psychology, that God created, there is a population of actions that we are able to choose among.

I hear your point about free want, but I think you are missing my general point. Its not that "if we had free will we should be able to fly", its that, God designed us such that the action of flying is not among the population of things we are able to choose between. We still have free will even though we can't fly, because we are able to choose from a population of things that we can do.

From a theological perspective, sure, it would essentially undermine the moral imperatives surrounding free will for God to have moved evil actions into the population of things that we are physiologically unable to choose to do, and huge portions of Christian dogma that relate to the choice of going to heaven or hell would no longer be relevant, however, I think rather than the theological stance on free will being "it is related specifically to choosing good over evil, and if people can't choose evil they have no free will" might be better phrased as: "The choices between doing good or evil acts are of fundamental importance to this religion, and the dogma would make little sense if people couldn't choose to be evil".

Its more that as a consequence of free will and the ability to do evil, we are able to make choices that are relevant to God and sin. If God had designed us such that sin was in the population of things we couldn't choose between, but still allowed us to choose between the things we are able to do, free will would still exist however Christianity and its offshoots would be irrelevant.

I don't actually read anything in here that contradicts what I've said. The only thing I can say is: I'm obviously using a theological definition which ALSO has a secular application. And that's my point: being able to do evil is a consequence of having free will. The entire point is to be able to choose between those two and choose "good". Everything falls between: from truly evil choices, mundane/neutral choices, to purely good choices. It's definitely on a sliding scale the extreme majority of the time as decisions are almost never binary between a good and evil choice: that's the stuff of video games.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The whole point of this thought experiment is that you have free will when you only have thoughts.
The whole point of this thought experiment is that you are still allowed to condemn yourself with thoughts.

I have explicitly said both of these things more than once.

Exactly, thus the automata still have free will. They can do evil and go to hell as a result, the only thing they can't do is harm others.

I was of the impression that either can be enough.
Evil thoughts. Condemned.
Evil actions. Condemned.

Exactly.

The automata are not humans. They might well have a way to give the minds inside of them intense experiences if needed. Recall, they're designed by God to be perfect so its hard to place limits on them in this regard.

All the mind has to do is express itself. The automata will only prevent that if the act of expression would qualify as evil according to God.

Why would there be no hardship? If it is good to experience hardship then the automata, being perfect, must present it to the minds inside of them. One's body refusing to carry out evil actions is also a hardship for some people.

The automata simply are a device to prevent evil actions only. They do not isolate the riders in any way (unless God things interaction with others is evil for some reason).

Death would still exist, there's no particular reason to prevent it.
Pain and suffering can still be experienced, provided by the automata in any of various ways. They only cannot be caused by other people.

So, like I said, you are essentially recreating our existence inside of their minds (you're creating a "matrix" inside of their minds). So there is not point to the thought experiment as a means of differentiating it from how it is now. I noticed you cut out the most important portion of my post: the importance of life.

""God" and "the Son of God" are figments of an ignorant mind's imagination."

- FotNs

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
""God" and "the Son of God" are figments of an ignorant mind's imagination."

- FotNs

The statement would be more impressive if one was a figment of imagination and the other was real, from an atheist point of view it would seem utterly redundant and clumsy.

Again, since it's a citation, it would be tacky to change it even if it was a rather poor statement to begin with.

(I'm just messing with ya 😛 )

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't actually read anything in here that contradicts what I've said. The only thing I can say is: I'm obviously using a theological definition which ALSO has a secular application. And that's my point: being able to do evil is a consequence of having free will. The entire point is to be able to choose between those two and choose "good". Everything falls between: from truly evil choices, mundane/neutral choices, to purely good choices. It's definitely on a sliding scale the extreme majority of the time as decisions are almost never binary between a good and evil choice: that's the stuff of video games

then you agree that free will can exist in a world without evil?

Originally posted by inimalist
then you agree that free will can exist in a world without evil?

In our world? No.

However, I did state this already:

"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 dadudemon
In our world? No.

However, I did state this already:

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

but then I think we do disagree (though, yes, I agree, we wont see it in this world 😛)

my point is that the theological positions isn't so much that free will couldn't exist without evil, but that religion couldn't. I don't see how free will is uniquely defined by the ability to do evil.

Originally posted by inimalist
but then I think we do disagree (though, yes, I agree, we wont see it in this world 😛)

Well, I'll requote each section of your post and show you that we do agree:

You said:
"Free Will deals with whether or not you have the choice over your actions. All actions. If you had control over choices of good and evil, but not over those that deal with mundane things, you would not have free will in any way that it is commonly discussed. Yes, God gave us free will, and God wants us to choose good over evil, but if that is the only definitional quality of what makes free will, you could still have free will if 99% of your actions were pre-determined, which no religious tradition that I know of would find as an acceptable interpretation of their doctrine of free will."

We agree, here. Here's what I said about that:

"The entire point is to be able to choose between those two and choose "good". Everything falls between: from truly evil choices, mundane/neutral choices, to purely good choices. It's definitely on a sliding scale the extreme majority of the time as decisions are almost never binary between a good and evil choice: that's the stuff of video games."

God is not directly concerned with whether or not you choose Charmin over Cottonelle toilet paper. There are many things we cannot choose for our selves, as well. Maybe even a majority. Where we are born, to which parents we are born, the land we are born in, the genetics we get, our money at birth, our physical appearance (bare with me, here), and even part of how we act due to a combination of our genetics and environment. So, no, I don't think religions would be upset at all if 99% of our actions were predetermined because it would appear that that is the way it is (maybe not 99%...but can you REALLY blame a person for being born gay? What about having manic depression? What about having anger issues that are hereditary?) So, yes, we agree here but, no, Religions won't be upset about not getting to choose some of our actions (some sects of Jews believe that God designed every single action that occurs in the universe before he even created it and God does not take a direct role in any action since the creation: earthquakes, floods, etc. I also believe this: shit will happen and God already designed it. Will there be a drought? Sure...and God will tell you when He's planned it.)

You said:
"As a result of God giving us free will, we are able to choose between good and evil because good and evil are things that God endowed us to choose between. Similarly, he allowed us to choose between walking or running. Given our physiology and psychology, that God created, there is a population of actions that we are able to choose among."

This is exactly my point. Those actions are very limited compared to the options God has but our options are there to allow us to grow as eternal beings.

You said:
"I hear your point about free want, but I think you are missing my general point. Its not that "if we had free will we should be able to fly", its that, God designed us such that the action of flying is not among the population of things we are able to choose between. We still have free will even though we can't fly, because we are able to choose from a population of things that we can do."

I disagree. Being able to fly is among our options to choose from. We have possessed that capacity for about 40-60 thousands years, now. We just did not develop the means until recently. If you're referring to a biological structure that allows flight, I say that is an argument of arbitrary semantics. We could say "create universes" but we may have already done that, as well, we just aren't aware of having done so. I think the argument you are making does not apply to the conversation because there are a near infinite reasons your wrong for every single reason you present for it. In addition, I think your argument is more about "free want" rather than free will, despite your protestations otherwise. I am not missing your point since I directly addressed the way you are intending it. I also addressed it the way you did not intend but created that meaning accidentally. All bases covered.

You said:
"From a theological perspective, sure, it would essentially undermine the moral imperatives surrounding free will for God to have moved evil actions into the population of things that we are physiologically unable to choose to do, and huge portions of Christian dogma that relate to the choice of going to heaven or hell would no longer be relevant, however, I think rather than the theological stance on free will being "it is related specifically to choosing good over evil, and if people can't choose evil they have no free will" might be better phrased as: "The choices between doing good or evil acts are of fundamental importance to this religion, and the dogma would make little sense if people couldn't choose to be evil"."

If God removed it, it would cross that not-so-arbitrary barrier I described for "free will". Removing our ability to choose evil is removing genuine free will. This is my definition. And you're correct: if God removed our ability to choose evil, we would still be in His presence, unable to sin. And free will, as I have defined it, is not limited to just good and evil choices. Part of free will, as I previously stated, are an almost infinite number of choices between. To that last part: I think the ability to choose evil applies to almost every single religion and most especially Eastern religions.

"Its more that as a consequence of free will and the ability to do evil, we are able to make choices that are relevant to God and sin. If God had designed us such that sin was in the population of things we couldn't choose between, but still allowed us to choose between the things we are able to do, free will would still exist however Christianity and its offshoots would be irrelevant."

We agree: the consequence of having genuine free will is the ability to do evil. Without it, we could not commit evil because we would be perfectly innocent. To that last part, no we do not agree. It would not be free will, at that point, if we were not allowed to do evil be removing the ability to do so. You choose to define it as a more limited form of free will than what we have now, I choose to define it as "false free will".

Overall, we agree on almost everything with you supposing, incorrectly, the Christianity applies to my definition of free will when even secular definitions still apply to my "meter stick" of what constitutes free will.

Originally posted by inimalist
my point is that the theological positions isn't so much that free will couldn't exist without evil, but that religion couldn't. I don't see how free will is uniquely defined by the ability to do evil.

Free will is not uniquely defined by the ability to do evil. It is the most important piece of the free will puzzle, however, and the entire system can no longer be called genuine free will with the removal of that piece, by my personal definition.

You want to call it free will (to remove evil), I don't. I don't suppose an objective morality, either, in the supposition. There are evils of relativity. The ability to choose those, even if relative, are still evil. But aren't those definitions anthropic, as well?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Free will is not uniquely defined by the ability to do evil. It is the most important piece of the free will puzzle, however, and the entire system can no longer be called genuine free will with the removal of that piece, by my personal definition.

I suppose we do agree

to be fair, I probably just confused part of your position with that of ares', as it was a reply to his stance that you quoted in the first place.

His position was very much that the lack of evil eliminated free will because apparently any inefficiency is evil and if we didn't have free will we would be the most efficient things possible... or donating money is kind of evil if you aren't donating all of it... ugh...

Originally posted by dadudemon
You want to call it free will (to remove evil), I don't. I don't suppose an objective morality, either, in the supposition. There are evils of relativity. The ability to choose those, even if relative, are still evil. But aren't those definitions anthropic, as well?

sure, however, in the case of morality I don't see the issue with calling it anthropic unless you are trying to take an absolutist stance

I personally believe in anthropic objective morality

Originally posted by inimalist
I personally believe in anthropic objective morality

But isn't that anthropically arbitrary making it not objective, at all? 313

Our technology will allow us to eventually become immortal...even if that means merging our minds into one super-god AI. At that point, do you think an truly objective morality will be defined? I actually do not know, myself.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But isn't that anthropically arbitrary making it not objective, at all? 313

Our technology will allow us to eventually become immortal...even if that means merging our minds into one super-god AI. At that point, do you think an truly objective morality will be defined? I actually do not know, myself.

no

people seem to confuse the meaning of the word "objective" with "absolute"

objective means it is demonstrable and measurable. The colour blue is both anthropic and objective. What we call an elephant is both anthropic and objective. Science as a whole is both anthropic and objective. I simply apply the same ideas to morality.

and no, in terms of the technology thing, I don't think that would produce an absolute morality, because I think the question of what is good and evil is inherently one that refers to anthropic concepts. There is no morality if there are no sentient creatures which can be moral, it doesn't go beyond us. Though, an objective morality would almost seem tautological in that situation

Originally posted by inimalist
no

people seem to confuse the meaning of the word "objective" with "absolute"

You might as well rephrase that as "you seem..."

Additionally, objective is simply impartial. You seem to be giving some sort of arbitrary credence to human actions as far as objectivity goes.

Basically, "anthropic objective morality" is arbitrary and even a misnomer. It would be more correct to call it "arbitrary objective morality" or even "moral relativism".

Originally posted by inimalist
objective means it is demonstrable and measurable. The colour blue is both anthropic and objective. What we call an elephant is both anthropic and objective. Science as a whole is both anthropic and objective. I simply apply the same ideas to morality.

I disagree, obviously, with your definitions. Calling an elephant and elephant is specifically not objective. Saying that English speakers generally call elephants "elephants" WOULD, however, be objective. It is an impartial observation.

Morality becomes much more nebulous, at this point. It is ALL anthropic, however.

Originally posted by inimalist
and no, in terms of the technology thing, I don't think that would produce an absolute morality, because I think the question of what is good and evil is inherently one that refers to anthropic concepts. There is no morality if there are no sentient creatures which can be moral, it doesn't go beyond us. Though, an objective morality would almost seem tautological in that situation

That's true: all of it would be anthropic from a secular sense. Assuming we actually create a true god-like AI, it would transcend anthropic definitions as a necessity. I was hoping it could come up with universal truths/objective morality.

I'm not going to argue about what the word objective means, you are free to look it up

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm not going to argue about what the word objective means, you are free to look it up

That's cool.

So far, I see my definition as being the most correct in the context of our conversation: "Additionally, objective is simply impartial."

What we call things is not objective because it is not impartial. However, labeling how many or a certain type of people as "the callers of that thing" WOULD be objective.

To expand, 99.43845% of Americans call creature X "elephant." That's the idea that you were trying to convey. Saying that creature X is "an elephant", however, is not objective but it definitely is anthropic. I may agree if you said "some people", however.

I just think "anthropic objective morality" is a sneaky way of avoiding calling yourself a moral-relativist.

You could argue that anthropic is arbitrary, but isn't entirely arbitrary, it responds to a very real and physical set of rules compared with actual invention.

Unless I'm misreading some of the arguments you posted (I admit being relatively bad at the definition game)

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's cool.

So far, I see my definition as being the most correct in the context of our conversation: "Additionally, objective is simply impartial."

What we call things is not objective because it is not impartial. However, labeling how many or a certain type of people as "the callers of that thing" WOULD be objective.

To expand, 99.43845% of Americans call creature X "elephant." That's the idea that you were trying to convey. Saying that creature X is "an elephant", however, is not objective but it definitely is anthropic. I may agree if you said "some people", however.

I just think "anthropic objective morality" is a sneaky way of avoiding calling yourself a moral-relativist.

except that this is not the way I'm using the term at all

objective is similar to the term demonstrable, as in, this is an elephant because we call it an elephant AND it has these features that are associated with the things we call an elephant.

I'm certainly not a moral relativist in any way