Forgiven for what, eactly?

[AvalonXQ]

I'm still not getting it, Avalon.

Let's say I am able to create a robot (with or without free will, doesn't really matter), and even before I've designed it, I know it will inevitably kill somebody.

Will it make a free will choice to kill somebody (in which case, it's not inevitable)?

 

[SOdhner]

Will it make a free will choice to kill somebody (in which case, it's not inevitable)?

You're still saying "you have free will if you have free will". This isn't helpful.

If I am underwater, with no special suit or, heck, clothing at all and the water is touching my skin, am I wet? The answer "not if you're dry" isn't useful, because you have not suggested any possible mechanism for me to be dry under those conditions.

Likewise, people have pointed out why this is a case where there is no possible vector for free will and you keep syaing "ah, but you have free will."

Where? Where, in any of these situations, is the free will?

 

[H'ethetheth]

Will it make a free will choice to kill somebody (in which case, it's not inevitable)?

I don't know how it does it. All I'm telling you is that it will kill my son, and I know it will before I design it, even though I'm specifically against my son being killed.
If you like, you can answer my questions both for the free and unfree will cases. They will both be informative to me.


Also, note that, for the sake of argument, I'm temporarily ignoring the fact that I do not see a logically sound way to be certain of the outcome of an event with more than one possible outcome.

 

[AvalonXQ]

You're still saying "you have free will if you have free will". This isn't helpful.

But it's true -- and if "free will" means what I claim it means, then the conclusion follows.

If I am underwater, with no special suit or, heck, clothing at all and the water is touching my skin, am I wet? The answer "not if you're dry" isn't useful, because you have not suggested any possible mechanism for me to be dry under those conditions.

And yet people keep saying the equivalent of, "Okay, what if a person is underwater but still dry? Then they're actually wet, aren't they?"
And the only reasonable answer is, "Not if they're dry."

 

[bruto]

But it's true -- and if "free will" means what I claim it means, then the conclusion follows.



And yet people keep saying the equivalent of, "Okay, what if a person is underwater but still dry? Then they're actually wet, aren't they?"
And the only reasonable answer is, "Not if they're dry."

It seems that your argument, in the context of this example, is that we're free to stay as dry as we like, but because we're born under water we're guilty of wetness.

 

[I Ratant]

It seems that your argument, in the context of this example, is that we're free to stay as dry as we like, but because we're born under water we're guilty of wetness.

.
Dry?
Ewww!
Only the smiten and forsaken are dry!
Wet is ordained by god, and by god, wet we'll stay!

 

[godless dave]

Will it make a free will choice to kill somebody (in which case, it's not inevitable)?

If it's not inevitable for the robot, then why is it inevitable for humans?

 

[SOdhner]

But it's true -- and if "free will" means what I claim it means, then the conclusion follows.

Can you be clear on what it is that "free will" means to you? Because the traditional definitions have already been addressed and I honestly don't know how you are defining it at this point.

And yet people keep saying the equivalent of, "Okay, what if a person is underwater but still dry? Then they're actually wet, aren't they?"

You are bad at analogies. I can't imagine what you are referring to, and you also seem to have missed what I was saying.

What I am trying to say is that when we show why there is NO logical possibility of free will you do not show any flaw or gap in the logic and instead say "but, free will!" which is nonsense. If you instead said "free will can still exist BECAUSE..." and provided a reason that would be awesome.

 

[tsig]

The biggest sin in this thread is how so many people have spent so much wasted good quality time arguing with the severely deluded Avalon XQ. This person is hopelessly devoted to ancient iron age scribblings written by the equally deluded, and has developed the art of using circular arguments to perfection. However, at least the Iron Age scribes had an excuse, they were totally ignorant of knowledge of the world and how it really all worked.

Exactly, whenever he's cornered he appeals to miracles. It's impossible to have a rational discussion with someone who cites magic as an answer.

 

[AvalonXQ]

It seems that your argument, in the context of this example, is that we're free to stay as dry as we like, but because we're born under water we're guilty of wetness.

How many times do I need to say that I don't believe in Original Sin before you'll modify your understanding of my explanations to account for that fact?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Exactly, whenever he's cornered he appeals to miracles. It's impossible to have a rational discussion with someone who cites magic as an answer.

Then don't participate in a thread that assumes magic as part of the commonly agreed upon premises -- such as a thread talking about the necessity of asking God for forgiveness for sin in Christianity.

 

[SOdhner]

Then don't participate in a thread that assumes magic as part of the commonly agreed upon premises -- such as a thread talking about the necessity of asking God for forgiveness for sin in Christianity.

But here's the thing - relying on magic for something like adding energy from nowhere or smiting a city or whatever is one thing. While others may still find that crazy they can at least understand it. That's still "traditional" magic.

But you didn't just invoke magic to get around physical laws, you want to use it to avoid logic itself. You're saying that it's okay for your position to be impossible from a basic logical level because of magic.

The problem with that is that the entire question of the thread is "How can we be held responsible?" You saying, "By magic!" acknowledges that it is unreasonable for god to hold us responsible for anything and illogical for anyone to agree with you.

Think about that. When your argument requires a magical circumvention of logic, it is by definition illogical for anyone to agree with you.

 

[bruto]

How many times do I need to say that I don't believe in Original Sin before you'll modify your understanding of my explanations to account for that fact?

I understand that you don't believe in original sin but when it comes to consequences it seems indistinguishable. Sticking with the water analogy, it hardly matters whether you're born wet or dry if the first step you take is guaranteed to dunk you.

 

[Brainache]

But here's the thing - relying on magic for something like adding energy from nowhere or smiting a city or whatever is one thing. While others may still find that crazy they can at least understand it. That's still "traditional" magic.

But you didn't just invoke magic to get around physical laws, you want to use it to avoid logic itself. You're saying that it's okay for your position to be impossible from a basic logical level because of magic.

The problem with that is that the entire question of the thread is "How can we be held responsible?" You saying, "By magic!" acknowledges that it is unreasonable for god to hold us responsible for anything and illogical for anyone to agree with you.

Think about that. When your argument requires a magical circumvention of logic, it is by definition illogical for anyone to agree with you.

Also, people who don't accept this illogical conclusion, need to beg forgiveness from a loving God for not being illogical enough to accept the impossible, or they will suffer eternal torture...

 

[tsig]

Then don't participate in a thread that assumes magic as part of the commonly agreed upon premises -- such as a thread talking about the necessity of asking God for forgiveness for sin in Christianity.

Here's the OP

On another thread (Mohammed now the most popular boy's name in England), DOC responded to a comment by Hokulele that it was too bad God hadn't learned to turn the other cheek, with the following:

If you ask for forgiveness and are sincere he will.

So, here's what I'd like to know: For what , exactly, are we supposed to be asking forgiveness? Original sin (that we didn't commit)? Not being perfect, when we are supposedly made the way we are by the God who has to forgive us for being what we are?

Or are we all guilty of grievous sins and acts of utter depravity that we are too dishonest to admit?

I see nothing there about magic, that seems to be your own contribution.


Why are you trying to reason with people when you've already embraced magic?

 

[Halfcentaur]

I wonder what drives an other wise reasonable person to embrace magic, especially if they value reason. There would have to be a void that exists for this person to seek to fill I would think. But why embrace reason in everything but this void? If I valued reason, and had personal anecdotal experiences which transcended what I value reasonably, I would question my fallible senses.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Which makes me wonder if Avalon still believes, in light of personal experiences alone, why he doesn't consider his senses and experiences subject to being faulty. What else but for some kind of benefit? Even if he has seen and known things otherwise, why not be suspicious of his senses and experiences? I think it's a matter of weighing the cost and benefit.

 

[tsig]

Which makes me wonder if Avalon still believes, in light of personal experiences alone, why he doesn't consider his senses and experiences subject to being faulty. What else but for some kind of benefit? Even if he has seen and known things otherwise, why not be suspicious of his senses and experiences? I think it's a matter of weighing the cost and benefit.

I think it's the essence of a true believer to believe that their personal experiences trump reality.

 

[godless dave]

If I created robots with the ability to make choices, but every single one of them ended up making the choice to do something "sinful", I could only conclude that I had made a mistake when designing the decision-making part of the robots. It would hardly be fair to blame it on the robots.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Then don't participate in a thread that assumes magic as part of the commonly agreed upon premises -- such as a thread talking about the necessity of asking God for forgiveness for sin in Christianity.

The problem is that you're begging the question. You need to invent an entirely new mechanism to explain a problem with your faith. God only works the way you think assuming that you decide to make up this new mechanism (free will soul whatever), and this can only exist through God.

We assumed the existence of God and his set of traditional attributes, and then tried to understand them using conventional logic. What you have done is sidestepped this by inventing a premise of your own, your personal "free will loophole". Which is not helpful at all to the discussion, and if this is the only way to resolve it, then it is logically more sound to dismiss God.