Forgiven for what, eactly?

[I Ratant]

Where on Earth would we store 6 billion incredibly ugly paintings?

.
Get them in wallet size.
Computers can do anything today.

 

[AvalonXQ]

That's not a very good example, because you're still thinking on a human level. In this scenario the extent of your control was limited. You had no say over whether or not I would pull the trigger, or if I would turn and shoot at a tree, or if I would sneeze and miss due to that, or if I would hurl the gun at the target in a pathetic misunderstanding of how firing ranges work.

That's right; you could. And even if I know that, in fact, you will shoot at the target, I still claim that you are the one that chooses to do so.

Right, because you stopped controlling events before my choice was made. You influenced that choice, and then stepped back.

Which is what God does when he allows humans to excercise free will -- there is an aspect of the universe where multiple choices were possible, and only the intervention of the soul determines which choice actually occurs.

Let's say I make a set of marble tracks. Depending on where you drop the marble, it might follow any number of different routes. As an imperfect human if I just drop the marble there's a lot of factors I can't plan for but let's not overthink the analogy. Let's not worry about friction and imperfections in the marble track unless you can detail what that would correspond to outside of this example. So. I have NOT let go of the marble yet, but looking over the tracks I know which one leads where and so I know just where to drop the marble to cause it to end up at a particular place.
Knowing is only important because it allows me to do the next step: I pick a route, and put the marble there.
The action of putting that marble on the track was something I did of my own free will - and my will is now being exerted on the marble. But I didn't just choose where to let go of the marble - that was the action, but the CHOICE includes where the marble would end up. You can't act like the influence has stopped once I let go, because once I take the action of letting go the marble is still subject to the consequences of that action and still ends up where I chose. Every turn of the track was created by me. Every dip and loop was known before I let go of the marble - not just known but planned and chosen. Where is the marble's free will?

If the marble is placed on a forking track that forks at several points such that the marble itself chooses which track it will pursue, and if the marble has the agency to make that choice, such that that choice is not predetermined by the condition and nature of the marble but an actual free choice, then that's where the marble's free will lies -- in its capacity to freely choose one path over the other.
To give one example of a "soul" in this scenario, let's introduce a second human being as having a remote control to a set of track switches. The second human being's actions will determine which tracks the marble goes down.
Now lets say that you, as the maker of the track and dropper of the marble, also have access to a chart written out by the second human being, informing you of which button presses he's chosen. So, you know exactly where the marble will end up. Why does that negate the second human's choices?

 

[SOdhner]

If the marble is placed on a forking track that forks at several points such that the marble itself chooses which track it will pursue, and if the marble has the agency to make that choice, such that that choice is not predetermined by the condition and nature of the marble but an actual free choice, then that's where the marble's free will lies -- in its capacity to freely choose one path over the other.

So now we've changed the track and given the marble the power to control it's own movement. I think you have ruined the analogy, unless you can explain to me what in the actual universe the forking track would correspond to. Did god create the universe with multiple versions of events, such that I simultaneously take multiple contradictory actions?

The whole "and if the marble has free will" thing is even worse. I can't imagine what free will is an analogy for within the larger analogy analyzing whether or not free will can exist. It can't just be free will, because that amounts to you saying "free will can exist if free will exists" which doesn't make sense.

To give one example of a "soul" in this scenario, let's introduce a second human being as having a remote control to a set of track switches.

Wait, so there's two gods now? One created the universe, and the other one influences it after creation?

Why does that negate the second human's choices?

That scenario now has nothing in common with what I was saying.

...

I'm having trouble figuring out how to approach this. Trying to explain myself using logic causes you to reply to an argument I didn't make. Trying to explain myself with an analogy gets you to make up an all new set of conditions that aren't actually analogous to anything. This really seems like just a communication problem (and yes, I know that it might be on my end) which is far more frustrating than if I thought we were disagreeing on a logical basis.

...

1. I design an organism down to the smallest molecule including the brain.
a. I make sure to design that organism in such a way that it will react to specific stimuli in specific ways.
b. These reactions include all possible variations. I'm very thorough.
c. it is not just outward physical reactions that are planned, but the actual thoughts it will have.

2. I design an environment to put the organism in.
a. I control the light levels, temperature, etc.
b. These environmental factors are controlled precisely, with no potential for errors or fluctuations.
c. Nothing outside the environment can have any effect on it or the organism within it other than myself.

3. Prior to creating these things, I make deliberate informed choices about exactly how I will create them.
a. Because the organism and the environment will be so perfectly manufactured, I can plot out what will happen without actually making them.
b. I make a few lists of goals I would like to accomplish.
c. I make a few lists of ways to make the organism and environment and what each method would accomplish from start to finish.

4. I pick the item from the list (3c) that best accomplishes my goals (3b).
a. In this case the design will cause the organism to frolic about for an hour, feel mildly hungry, ponder the possible existence of god, and then try to eat a rock and choke to death.
b. I actually have it planned out it far more detail down to the movements of individual quarks, but that would be too long for this post.
c. I also have other plans in that same level of detail, but I discard them.

5. I follow through on my plans, creating the organism and the environment.
a. The organism believes that it has free will, even though its every thought and action are following rules I created in response to stimuli that I also created and control.
b. It does exactly as it was designed to do, because there are simply no variables in my perfectly-controlled process.
c. I not only knew what it would do, but specifically acted in order to ensure that events would play out in a specific way of my choosing.

Without changing the above scenario, please answer the following: Did that organism have free will?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Wait, so there's two gods now? One created the universe, and the other one influences it after creation?

It's important to understand that, in my understanding of free will, I include supernatural entities called souls that cause free will choices to be made that are outside of the bounds of determinism. I brought in the second human because we're dealing with multiple superatural entities here -- God, who knows everything about the universe from outside the natural universe, and human souls, which control choices nondeterministically from outside the natural universe.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I'm having trouble figuring out how to approach this. Trying to explain myself using logic causes you to reply to an argument I didn't make. Trying to explain myself with an analogy gets you to make up an all new set of conditions that aren't actually analogous to anything. This really seems like just a communication problem (and yes, I know that it might be on my end) which is far more frustrating than if I thought we were disagreeing on a logical basis.

...

1. I design an organism down to the smallest molecule including the brain.
a. I make sure to design that organism in such a way that it will react to specific stimuli in specific ways.
b. These reactions include all possible variations. I'm very thorough.
c. it is not just outward physical reactions that are planned, but the actual thoughts it will have.

2. I design an environment to put the organism in.
a. I control the light levels, temperature, etc.
b. These environmental factors are controlled precisely, with no potential for errors or fluctuations.
c. Nothing outside the environment can have any effect on it or the organism within it other than myself.

3. Prior to creating these things, I make deliberate informed choices about exactly how I will create them.
a. Because the organism and the environment will be so perfectly manufactured, I can plot out what will happen without actually making them.
b. I make a few lists of goals I would like to accomplish.
c. I make a few lists of ways to make the organism and environment and what each method would accomplish from start to finish.

4. I pick the item from the list (3c) that best accomplishes my goals (3b).
a. In this case the design will cause the organism to frolic about for an hour, feel mildly hungry, ponder the possible existence of god, and then try to eat a rock and choke to death.
b. I actually have it planned out it far more detail down to the movements of individual quarks, but that would be too long for this post.
c. I also have other plans in that same level of detail, but I discard them.

5. I follow through on my plans, creating the organism and the environment.
a. The organism believes that it has free will, even though its every thought and action are following rules I created in response to stimuli that I also created and control.
b. It does exactly as it was designed to do, because there are simply no variables in my perfectly-controlled process.
c. I not only knew what it would do, but specifically acted in order to ensure that events would play out in a specific way of my choosing.

Without changing the above scenario, please answer the following: Did that organism have free will?

The answer is No. The difference between this scenario and what I understand to be true in our universe is 1(a) and 2(c).

 

[SOdhner]

It's important to understand that, in my understanding of free will, I include supernatural entities called souls that cause free will choices to be made that are outside of the bounds of determinism.

I don't see how that changes anything, because god still created those souls in the same way that he created everything else. So that has zero impact on the discussion at hand - souls are just another part of "everything" even though they are not, strictly speaking, a part of the physical universe.

 

[laca]

This is all nice, but it has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that an omnipotent and omniscient god has absolutely no right to make us fully accountable for our actions when it knew before exactly how the creation would turn out. End of story.

 

[SOdhner]

The answer is No. The difference between this scenario and what I understand to be true in our universe is 1(a) and 2(c).

Thank you, and thanks also for specifying where the point we differ is at even though I forgot to ask you to do so.

1a. I make sure to design that organism in such a way that it will react to specific stimuli in specific ways.

If our reactions to things are not based on any actual rules or processes, are they just chaos? Isn't it true that we make choices for reasons? If we DON'T make choices for reasons, isn't that actually worse because it implies we are just acting randomly?

These rules and processes are incredibly complicated, and so even with an excellent understanding of psychology a human being would never be able to predict how another person would act in a given situation with 100% accuracy. This is not just about psychology but also due to all those little things like what they had for breakfast, what temperature it is, etc. But no matter how many things factor in, and no matter how complicated the process is, we still react to things in a way that an omniscient being could predict.

Because I used the word 'omniscient' I want to reiterate that I don't think the act of knowing invalidates free will.

2c. Nothing outside the environment can have any effect on it or the organism within it other than myself.

What is outside of god's creation other than god? I suspect you are going to say 'souls' here, but those were alose created by god and are part of the creation even though they aren't physical things.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Most importantly, the choices of souls aren't subject to physical laws or predictable with any sort of determinism. They are neither deterministic nor random.

 

[AvalonXQ]

This is all nice, but it has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that an omnipotent and omniscient god has absolutely no right to make us fully accountable for our actions when it knew before exactly how the creation would turn out.

Knowing how a person will choose does not erase the person's ability to choose, and the fact that someone else knows what you will choose does not erase your own accountability for your own free choices.
I understand that you don't really believe that human beings have free choices, which is why you don't believe it's fair for us to be punished for what we're "forced" to do.

 

[laca]

Most importantly, the choices of souls aren't subject to physical laws or predictable with any sort of determinism. They are neither deterministic nor random.

I agree. Just as the choices of werewolves, vampires, bigfoot (bigfeet? ) and especially those of invisible pink unicorns aren't.

 

[laca]

Knowing how a person will choose does not erase the person's ability to choose, and the fact that someone else knows what you will choose does not erase your own accountability for your own free choices.

Yes, of course we have accountability. The god that supposedly created you in full and certain knowledge of every little thing you'll ever do has at least as much responsibility.

I understand that you don't really believe that human beings have free choices, which is why you don't believe it's fair for us to be punished for what we're "forced" to do.

What? Of course I believe human beings have free choice. The god thingie is the part I'm having trouble with...

ETA: Clarification: I think that free will and full responsibility are incompatible with an omniscient and omnipotent creator god.

 

[Sun Countess]

I understand that you don't really believe that human beings have free choices, which is why you don't believe it's fair for us to be punished for what we're "forced" to do.

It's not fair to be punished for living a decent and normal human life.

 

[AvalonXQ]

It's not fair to be punished for living a decent and normal human life.

Should choosing to do evil result in separation from perfect good or connection to perfect good?

 

[laca]

Should choosing to do evil result in separation from perfect good or connection to perfect good?

Perfect good lives next door to moral absolutes. In fairyland.

 

[Sun Countess]

That's assuming that people are choosing to do evil. I believe that most people just try to do the best they can. Yet everything that a human chooses to do is somehow declared "evil" and all "sins" are equal.

I haven't done anything in my life that requires somebody else's death to atone for my sins. A bit of gossip, maybe driving too quickly on occasion, some curtness to telemarketers, and pre-marital sex. Why does anybody need to die for me? I can atone for my own "sins" in this life. I also don't put all my choices into the "sin" category. I mean, how am I supposed to control my body bleeding every month?

On the other hand, you have the Jeffrey Dahmers and Ted Bundys of the world, committing all sorts of atrocities - the types of behaviors that I would also classify as "evil" - and that same death is enough for them. Why should anybody else die so that Dahmer and Bundy can have eternal life?

As far as being separated from "perfect good," if you're talking about Yahweh, then it's my fondest wish to be separated from that evil character. Why in the world would anybody want to be around that guy, his spoiled little son, or his stand-in rapist, the holy ghost? (Tell me, are they really all the same guy, or are they spiritually conjoined triplets?)

 

[iknownothing]

This is all nice, but it has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that an omnipotent and omniscient god has absolutely no right to make us fully accountable for our actions when it knew before exactly how the creation would turn out. End of story.

Bingo!

If our reactions to things are not based on any actual rules or processes, are they just chaos? Isn't it true that we make choices for reasons? If we DON'T make choices for reasons, isn't that actually worse because it implies we are just acting randomly?

I think it's apparent that, at the very least, a person's choices are influenced to some degree by things outside their control: your experiences, mental predispositions and mental health, intelligence, cultural beliefs, your values, hopes & fears.

I understand that you don't really believe that human beings have free choices, which is why you don't believe it's fair for us to be punished for what we're "forced" to do.

Personally, I don't know how much choice we really have over our lives. I do think we are unaware of many of the factors that influence our decisions.

But the issue here is the Christian worldview. If you believe God created everything and set every single event of our lives in motion, it makes it hard to accept the idea that we should be punished for things that were outside of our control.

And still harder to understand why Christians think that humans should take all the blame, and God -- the one character in this scenario with undeniable control -- gets none.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

Most importantly, the choices of souls aren't subject to physical laws or predictable with any sort of determinism. They are neither deterministic nor random.

This is a point I took exception to way earlier in the thread. You seem to be arguing that humans are essentially perfect free will agents, and this is where I disagree. There are forces at work in human decision making -- SOdhner touched on this -- that undermine the degrees of freedom exercised by people. Many of those forces (biological, psychological, historical, cultural) involve aspects of Creation and history beyond individual human control.

In fact, many of these aspects are God's doing (the frailties and thresholds of human psychology, for example). So again, we're being asked to apologize, in effect, for how God created us. To a very large degree.

ETA: Cross posted with iknownothing who just said pretty much the same thing, darn you!

 

[AvalonXQ]

But the issue here is the Christian worldview. If you believe God created everything and set every single event of our lives in motion, it makes it hard to accept the idea that we should be punished for things that were outside of our control.

The point is that we only suffer the consequences for what was within our control, not what was outside of it.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I also don't put all my choices into the "sin" category. I mean, how am I supposed to control my body bleeding every month?

... this line confused me. Do you believe there's something sinful about that?