The source of evil.

[Pikachu]

Originally posted by Ayatollah So

I challenge the Panther (or Pikachu) to explain why exactly free will requires (the chance of) evil. I contend it doesn't.

Isn't that obvious? If my free will always had to do what God wanted, then it would not be a free will; it would be Gods will. If your will is limited to only do good and incapable to do evil, it is not really free. At least it is much less free than if it had both options. True freedom is the freedom to make bad decisions

I have probably misunderstood your question. Could you explain how a will could be free if it was limited to only do good things?

 

[Pikachu]

Originally posted by test_specimen

I doubt that anyone ever calculated that. Statistics is a science (though probably my least favourite subject), you can't just use it randomly to support your arguments. Even if something seems obviously very uncertain a closer calculation prooves/rejects this better than just an assumption.



Why do you argue with statistics, if you consider the science misleading?

Can't use it randomly? Statistics is the science of random! The calculation is valid. One divided by infinity is exactly zero by definition. Of course you could argue that there is an extremely large, but finite number of events that could have changed the world. Then this calculation would be invalid.

I do not consider science misleading, but there is a difference between reasoning and proving. Statistics do say a lot about probability, but can never be used as proof.

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by Pikachu
Of course I can not prove that God exists, but you can not prove your point of view either. If there was any real proof, the fear of God would be overwhelming, and nobody would dare to disobey him. Then there would be no real free will. Life would have been very boring that way.

I can, humans invented gods to explain the unexplainable.

In the modern age, we have yet to grow up as a race and ditch these stone-age ideas.

Even if such a being was proven real, I would still defy.

I am a creature of the Earth mother.

Originally posted by Pikachu
PS: I got the idea that you might knock the religious way of life because you did write that we should not waste our lives in a post that obviously attacked religion. I am glad you did not mean it that way.

You judged my unfairly, I am glad you see your mistake.

 

[Pikachu]

That is not proof! It is just wild speculations. I think you are wrong, but of course you have the right to believe what you want. It doesn't really matter; God loves you anyway. And I didn't judge you; I asked you a question

 

[CurtSibling]

I think the written history of humanity is ample proof, old chap.

But yes, believe what you want.
Only after meeting the reaper will we know the truth for sure.

Your god can love me if he wants, the feeling is not mutual.

I answered your question.

 

[Jorge]

Originally posted by Pikachu
A gift from whom?

The fact that we both are here to day is actually statistically impossible. An infinite number of events could have changed this. The probability for that these events did not occur is one to one infinity and equals exactly zero. Of course statistics can not prove anything.

Not infinite number of events. Finite number (although very very large). Otherwise you would be right and this conversation would be impossible (wich is obviously false).

 

[Pikachu]

Originally posted by CurtSibling

Your god can love me if he wants, the feeling is not mutual.

Actually, I think it might be mutual. The best way to love God is to love his creations, the world, life and especially people. You seem to be a nice fellow with a great respect for life, and you try to teach people like me the truth. That your truth actually is false doesn’t matter because the intention is good. You are probably a better Christian than me. Keep up the good work. For whoever is not against us is for us, Mark 9:40. (I think Bush misquoted that one once.)

 

[test_specimen]

Originally posted by Pikachu

Can't use it randomly? Statistics is the science of random! The calculation is valid. One divided by infinity is exactly zero by definition. Of course you could argue that there is an extremely large, but finite number of events that could have changed the world. Then this calculation would be invalid.

I do not consider science misleading, but there is a difference between reasoning and proving. Statistics do say a lot about probability, but can never be used as proof.

Statistics calculates random events, that are distributed according to certain rules. If you have a number of events and know the distribution according to which they occur, you can calculate the probablility of certain outcomes. That gives you the percentages (e.g. you can calculate the probability a number of people waiting at the petrol station has to wait until they get serviced).

What I meant with "you can not use it randomly" is that you can't use statistics as a proof for your point (i.e. that the probability of us existing is very small) and call the science inadequate in the next sentence.

Statistics is a science used successfully in so many parts of dayly life, that you can't just reject it. It is used for process calculation as well as quality controll, flight bookings, logistics,.... The methods of calculation are very refined. But it has to be possible to abstract actions to a degree, to explain our existence with statistics, which could not be done until today and still cannot be done.

So statistics IS a valid and good science, but it has not proven yet, that our existance depends on god.

 

[test_specimen]

Originally posted by smalltalk
I very much doubt, there is a free will. The macroscopic world - the world of cells and especially brain cells - is deterministic. There is no place on this level of reality where a free will could come from. Perhaps you have heard of this experiment: people are told to raise an arm at a random time. Their brain activity is monitored. There is a rise in activity about 0.5 seconds before the person acknowledges to have made the decision.

But the world is not deterministic. According to Heisenberg the place and speed of a particle cannot be measured at the same time, you can only measure either speed or position. This is not due to lack in machinery, but because it simply cannot be done according to his calculations.

What this means: If you had a giant camera, that could record the position and speed of every particle in the universe, you could predict the future, because you could calculate how those particles will move and to what reactions this will lead. But since Heisenberg proved this to be impossible (the measurement of both, position and speed) you cannot predict the future, therfore the world is not deterministic.

If you measured this brain activity, it is due to the above explanations.

This is no proof for free will, but it excludes your argument against free will.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Originally posted by smalltalk
I very much doubt, there is a free will. The macroscopic world - the world of cells and especially brain cells - is deterministic. There is no place on this level of reality where a free will could come from. Perhaps you have heard of this experiment: people are told to raise an arm at a random time. Their brain activity is monitored. There is a rise in activity about 0.5 seconds before the person acknowledges to have made the decision.

Schoppenhauer put it this way: 'You can do what you want, but you can not deliberately want what you want.'

Horrors! I'm doing what I want! How unfree can you get?

Actually, you can want what you want too, but sometimes it takes a lot of time and effort (e.g. to quit craving nicotine).

I agree that the macroscopic world is deterministic, but would like to point out that this has no implications for free will.

It is interesting that choice begins with unconscious brain activity. But this doesn't show that it's not a choice. It doesn't even show that the conscious part of choice is not crucial.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Originally posted by Pikachu
Isn't that obvious? If my free will always had to do what God wanted, then it would not be a free will; it would be Gods will.

Emphasis added to "had to". You have made a wrong assumption my friend when you said "had to" -- we were talking about the case where your free will always DID good. Doing good presumably is what god wants for you, but you could be doing because it's good rather than simply because god wills it.

Please try not to assume your conclusion.

If your will is limited to only do good and incapable to do evil, it is not really free. At least it is much less free than if it had both options. True freedom is the freedom to make bad decisions

I have probably misunderstood your question. Could you explain how a will could be free if it was limited to only do good things?

There you go again, assuming your conclusion. (Emphasis added, again.) Suppose I consistenly feel like doing good. How does that prove I am literally incapable of evil? Incapable in the sense of "it's beyond my abilities" -- not just in the sense that you can safely bet I won't do it.

 

[Mojotronica]

My interpretation -- we have free will. That was God's gift to us. God is powerful enough to take it away from us (infinitely powerful, in fact,) but then "we" would cease to exist in any meaningful way. We would be automatons -- extensions of God in the way a limb is an extension of our bodies. God is not bound by any restrictions based on our choices, but CHOOSES to let us retain the gift, and therefore our existence.

We are like a limb of God that has free will to obey or defy God's authority, but if we disobey there are consequences. And if God ever chose to dominate us again, doing so would be an infinitesimally simple task for God.

 

[nihilistic]

Originally posted by test_specimen
But the world is not deterministic. According to Heisenberg the place and speed of a particle cannot be measured at the same time, you can only measure either speed or position. This is not due to lack in machinery, but because it simply cannot be done according to his calculations.

What this means: If you had a giant camera, that could record the position and speed of every particle in the universe, you could predict the future, because you could calculate how those particles will move and to what reactions this will lead. But since Heisenberg proved this to be impossible (the measurement of both, position and speed) you cannot predict the future, therfore the world is not deterministic.

I cannot tell if the world is deterministic, but I must disagree on your claim that the Heisenberg Principle disproves determinism. Heisenberg showed that nature can never be measured precisely, not that nature itself is not precise. There is a fundamental difference between those two claims. Again, although I cannot tell whether the world is deterministic or not, neither could Heisenberg.

 

[nihilistic]

Originally posted by Pikachu
The calculation is valid. One divided by infinity is exactly zero by definition.

Uhh .. no. First of all, there is no number called infinity. Infinity means "arbitrarily large". Second, don't claim to know things you obviously do not know. Definition? The definition of division is that it is the opposite of multiplication, that a/b = c is only valid when a = c*b for one unique c.

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by Pikachu

Actually, I think it might be mutual. The best way to love God is to love his creations, the world, life and especially people. You seem to be a nice fellow with a great respect for life, and you try to teach people like me the truth. That your truth actually is false doesn’t matter because the intention is good. You are probably a better Christian than me. Keep up the good work. For whoever is not against us is for us, Mark 9:40. (I think Bush misquoted that one once.)

Humans are the gods of our world, we need no others.

I am a human being and so are you.
That is all the divinity we need to know. Get my meaning?
Why cloud the issue with religion?

Anyway, you amused me greatly, I wish you well, Pikachu!

Forge ever onwards!

 

[Ayatollah So]

Originally posted by Mojotronica
My interpretation -- we have free will. That was God's gift to us. God is powerful enough to take it away from us (infinitely powerful, in fact,) but then "we" would cease to exist in any meaningful way.

That's all fine and dandy, but how does it relate to the topic "the source of evil"? Are you one of these people who think free will has to be inherently random, or uncertain? And therefore that there is no way even for a Deity to know whether a free person will do evil?

If so, why?

 

[test_specimen]

Originally posted by nihilistic


I cannot tell if the world is deterministic, but I must disagree on your claim that the Heisenberg Principle disproves determinism. Heisenberg showed that nature can never be measured precisely, not that nature itself is not precise. There is a fundamental difference between those two claims. Again, although I cannot tell whether the world is deterministic or not, neither could Heisenberg.

A deterministic world was introduced by Laplace. But the problem is, that a deterministic world would also reduce the influence a god could have on it, since cause and consequence would have to be obvious. But other scientists later proved that the world cannot be deterministic, or cannot be viewed deterministically by ourselves. Only a higher being could have a deterministic picture of the universe, if it could watch it, without at the same time influencing it. So if the world was deterministic for him, god could only watch (not influence), but if it was not deterministic, god could influence the world, but would not be allmighty (which is the definition of god).

So basically you're right, but this implies, that god does not exist.

 

[Mojotronica]

Originally posted by Ayatollah So


That's all fine and dandy, but how does it relate to the topic "the source of evil"? Are you one of these people who think free will has to be inherently random, or uncertain? And therefore that there is no way even for a Deity to know whether a free person will do evil?

If so, why?

I believe that we have free will because I perceive that I make decisions about the way I live my life every day, and some of those decisions work out well and some don't work out so well. Some are consistent with my ideals and some -- hopefully less and less as I get older and wiser -- are inconsistent w/ my ideals. I am tempted to do things that are apparently in my short-term interest but risky or selfish or self-destructive in the long run, and sometimes I give into my temptations.

When I do so, I feel bad (on some lvl) even when I get away w/ it. My opinion is that "death," in the spiritual sense, is the death of the soul. My goal is to attain the wisdom to understand what actions result in the slow hemorrhaging of my self-respect, and stanch the flow. In the process, I believe that I will become a better person, a person who gives more to society as a whole, and takes less.

Spiritual death is the evil, or the consequence of the evil, that this thread was created to explore.

From a scientific standpoint I feel that the deterministic anti-free will viewpoint has been refuted by quantum mechanics. It's not completely random, but it's random enough that we can't justify the order of the Universe as a deterministic clock-work in which we are mere cogs.

But ultimately science and spirituality are different constructs, designed to answer different questions. Science defines what we can and cannot control or know in the physical sense. But spirituality is the one thing that we always have control over -- our own choices. When we choose well, we are spiritually fulfilled. We inch closer to heaven or Nirvana. When we choose poorly, we undermine our own well-being, and often impact others. That drags us closer to hell.

I'm not a moralist in the stereotypical Christian sense. I am not homophobic or opposed to sex before marriage or pro-life or anti-Theory of Evolution or pro-family values. I think that often people should do what works for them as long as it doesn't hurt others. But I think there is a place for religion in people's lives. I reject the idea that religion is necessarily wrong-minded. I think that just is as narrow-minded as homophobia.

There certainly are some valid Universal moral principles that defy the idea of moral relativism -- but not very many. Non-violence and mutual respect for rights, common assets and private property pretty much sums it up. Everything else is a matter of personal taste.

God is the entire Universe, and the Godliest of decisions would be akin to making a perfect pool shot where one sinks every ball, eight ball last and calls the hole where the eight-ball will end up before taking the shot. AND not in a competition -- as an exhibition. God is absolutely good, omniscient and all-powerful. Because God is absolutely good, any Godly decision is all-good, in harmony w/ the Universe -- win-win.

God is the master of win-win decisions.

Since God is all-powerful, God COULD force humanity, each being, to make all good decisions. But then humans would cease to be distinct f/ God. Apparently God wants us, for whatever reason, to make our own decisions even though many of them will be far from perfect. In choosing, we determine* our own fate.

*Because God is all-powerful God COULD choose our fate for us as well, but because God is all-good God I believe that God honors the Covenant outlined above. God is not beholden to man, but will serve humans who demonstrate virtue and character out of love.

 

[alamo]

To speak to the situation where the friend spurns God because of evil:

Ultimately faith is an emotional committment, not a rational one. Everyone needs some form of faith for emotional security, but it can be done without a standard christian religious framework. Budism is an example, and there are other alternatives.

As for the rational side, there is no final solution that explains the universe, or a complete and self-consistent theology.

 

[nihilistic]

Originally posted by CurtSibling
You know Bill Gates?
If you do, you will know he cannot be destroyed by any man born of woman.

Hmm ... so the quest for better operating systems relies on the on the search for Macduff! This is indeed great news.