Conquer Club

Just thought you might want to know.

Wow man..

You're really deep.

Do you suggest that there be no free will? There can't be true love without free will and yet free will has led to rebellion and abuse and pain and suffering and death perhaps. You might have a valid argument against free will, but it might be better to not exist at all than to exist without loving and being loved. Also, consider a section called Isaiah 45:7?

I didn't know it was a game to win. =S

InkL0sed wrote:

Just thought you might want to know.

As Lionz mentions, this completely removes the concept of free will from the equation. Free will is obviously a very important concept and any statement that removes it from the equation is necessarily faulty.

Free will is a flawed concept , only a tiny percentage of mankind has ever had the resources or knowledge to act or think in anything other than a strictly limited fashion.

Woodruff wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:

Just thought you might want to know.

As Lionz mentions, this completely removes the concept of free will from the equation. Free will is obviously a very important concept and any statement that removes it from the equation is necessarily faulty.

Please define "free will", I can tell you, it is not an easy task. Your claim that any statement that removes it from the equation must be faulty is... well, faulty. First you need to demonstrate that free will, however you have defined it, exists, and even if you were to manage that it is entirely possible that it will have no bearing whatsoever on the argument.

my imaginary best friend is better than yours

MeDeFe wrote:Please define "free will", I can tell you, it is not an easy task. Your claim that any statement that removes it from the equation must be faulty is... well, faulty. First you need to demonstrate that free will, however you have defined it, exists, and even if you were to manage that it is entirely possible that it will have no bearing whatsoever on the argument.

No, all we need to show is that evil is the result of free will. A creator can be all-powerful and still allow evil if that evil is the result of also allowing free will.

To take a very minor example, every parent wants to protect their children. At some point, though, we realize that the only way to really do that would be to lock them up in a self-contained, nuclear/etc impermeable vault. Set aside that we cannot do that (God, of course could), what would that do? That child would never really and truly be human. We would irrevocably destroy that which we were trying to "protect".

God, in his wisdom must have known all the evil that would persist within earth and humanity. Yet, he also knew and sees the options. Options that many people wish to ignore. The reality is that without harm and evil we would not be able to grow. We would not be truly human.

So, God allowed us the choice, knowing we would pain him and pain ourselves. Then he gave us his son as the greatest gift, in order to provide those of us who wish it a route "out", a route to relative safety. (but definitely not absolute safety here on earth).

Suppose you see lawnmower is slowly coming towards an incapacitated person: can't walk yet, lost ability to walk, doesn't really matter. The details don't really matter but the situation is that a person is about to die. You could stop it easily, turn it off, slightly turn it away and the life is saved. If you just walk past and let the person die you will rightly be seen as a monster. So I can safely assume we both agree on this.

So why is it if a person does this and so causes a death, a death he or she could've saved without any risk to himself, without any real interruption to his life, one clearly within his power to save, we can both agree and condemn him but if it's your god you have to try and make excuses for him?

Let's say the lawnmower in question is being driven by let's say an infant so there's no risk to the person walking past if he tries to stop him. Would him not stopping the lawnmower now be morally excusable as there's the free will of the driver to consider? no he still lets a murder happen and one that he could've stopped. However because he's your god you have to try and make excuses about 'mysterious ways' and so on.

Iliad wrote:Suppose you see lawnmower is slowly coming towards an incapacitated person: can't walk yet, lost ability to walk, doesn't really matter. The details don't really matter but the situation is that a person is about to die. You could stop it easily, turn it off, slightly turn it away and the life is saved. If you just walk past and let the person die you will rightly be seen as a monster. So I can safely assume we both agree on this.

So why is it if a person does this and so causes a death, a death he or she could've saved without any risk to himself, without any real interruption to his life, one clearly within his power to save, we can both agree and condemn him but if it's your god you have to try and make excuses for him?

Let's say the lawnmower in question is being driven by let's say an infant so there's no risk to the person walking past if he tries to stop him. Would him not stopping the lawnmower now be morally excusable as there's the free will of the driver to consider? no he still lets a murder happen and one that he could've stopped. However because he's your god you have to try and make excuses about 'mysterious ways' and so on.

Your example is far, far too narrow. Add in that perhaps there is a raging fire, about to consume all and if the bystander stops to rescue the other, both will surely die and you might get closer. OR, perhaps add in that this person just ran out of a daycare center behind where he just finished torturing and murdering 12 children and 2 adults. Add in that this person is just sane enough to know they did something horrible and will repeat it if allowed. Add in that they actually prayed "God, take me now".

THEN you begin to get closer (but only a tiny bit closer) to the kind of decisions God must make. We can understand but shadows of God's understanding and choices.

joecoolfrog wrote:Free will is a flawed concept , only a tiny percentage of mankind has ever had the resources or knowledge to act or think in anything other than a strictly limited fashion.

Not true at all. A more accurate statement would be that only a tiny percentage of mankind has ever had the WILL to act or think in anything other than a strictly limited fashion.

InkL0sed wrote:

Just thought you might want to know.

But the argument mostly depends on what you believe in.If you believe in "Fate" or "Gods Plan" then your belief of free will is wrong as it is nonexesistent in God's Plan.

However if you believe in Free Will then you believe that God has allowed and almost encourages evil and evil actions.

How does free will explain babies dying?

Maybe they are suicidal babies.

Ah, the human mind struggles to understand that which is un-understandable, whilst simultaneously speaking as if they have it all figured out.

This thread made my day

Snorri1234 wrote:How does free will explain babies dying?

Assuming you believe in free will then you probably believe in "Chance" or the random nature of the world

why do atheists think that since God does not seem to magically micromanage every single aspect of said atheist's life, therefore there can not be a god and they know this.....

Phatscotty wrote:why do atheists think that since God does not seem to magically micromanage every single aspect of said atheist's life, therefore there can not be a god and they know this.....

why don't theist seem to be able to understand arguments?

Snorri1234 wrote:How does free will explain babies dying?

That depends on the nature of how each baby dies.

Are babies dying necessarily evil? I would argue that they are not.

MeDeFe,

The ability to make decisions for oneself might be a decent definition for free will. We might be greatly influenced by environments, but do we not make decisions?

Naxus,

Can destiny and free will not exist simultaneously if there is a time travelling intelligent being who can step in at various points in time and alter things?

Iliad,

There might not be a human on earth who will not physically die. What difference does it make if you die within an hour from now or not? Did He not essentially come and step in front of a lawnmower for us in a metaphorical sense if He died for trangressions of us in order for us to be able to live eternally?

Lionz wrote:Can destiny and free will not exist simultaneously if there is a time travelling intelligent being who can step in at various points in time and alter things?

If said being exists and is able to time travel then thats not free will for the rest of us as the being will know the outcome of choices presented to us and plan accordingly to what he knows we'll do.Which means that all of our choices were already made, just without us knowing of it.

Snorri1234 wrote:How does free will explain babies dying?

naxus wrote:But the argument mostly depends on what you believe in.If you believe in "Fate" or "Gods Plan" then your belief of free will is wrong as it is nonexesistent in God's Plan.

However if you believe in Free Will then you believe that God has allowed and almost encourages evil and evil actions.

The answer to both of this is the same. God's will is not necessarily individual will, it is an overall will for humanity.

If you believe in an overall will, then its not that God wants an individual baby to die. He doesn't. Its that he knows that the steps that would be necessary to prevent all baby deaths would be worse than letting the processes take hold. Sometimes, he does intervene, for reasons we cannot really know or understand.

Phatscotty wrote:Ah, the human mind struggles to understand that which is un-understandable, whilst simultaneously speaking as if they have it all figured out.

This thread made my day

Phatscotty wrote:why do atheists think that since God does not seem to magically micromanage every single aspect of said atheist's life, therefore there can not be a god and they know this.....

I think Phat hit the nail on the head here.

Besides, if this was a real proof against God, no rational person would believe in God. Atheists incorporate the words "logic", "reason", etc. into their rhetoric as often as possible to give this impression, but it's not true.