tw1tch

Jobar,
Actually I'm glad you brought this up. I'd love to talk to you about my non belief in Invisible Pink Unicorns (and why it would be irrational to believe in them).

Work is letting up. Three day weekend. I would request that you start a new thread however as this is a topic in it's own right.


Sound amenable?


I may even try to remember my infidels password for SOMMS.



Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

tw1tch

Dr. Retard,
<sidenote>Are you native Czech?</sidenote>

Again, lets set semantics aside. Hopefully we can agree on what the basic terms mean. Then I'd like to address your question and ask you one.

To me 'freewill' is simply 'Freedom' (notice the capital). It means that I am 'free' to do whatever I wish that logic and physical reality allows.

This 'Freedom' is very different than 'freedom' (notice the non-capital) or 'the ability to do X'. Notice that you might have 'freedom/ability to think about carrots' or 'freedom/ability to do jumping jacks' yet still not have 'Freedom'. Prison is a great example of this.

When I use the term 'robot' I am (sarcastically) referring to a situation in which mankind does not have 'Freedom' (notice the capital). 'Robot' is really a cynical euphimism for 'lack of Freedom'.
I don't really think people in jail are robots.


Can we agree on these terms (Freedom, freedom)?



Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

GunnerJ

I've been had.

Yep, hook line and sinker. All this time I was getting mad at SOMMS, I was doing just what he wanted. The evidence is right here: tw!tch/SOMMS is a troll. I mean, think about it. He refuses to consider my whole argument in any of his replies. He thrashes straw-men so blatant that they can only have been deliberately constructed. He maintains an aura of superioity so annoying it can onyl be calculated.

SOMMS, if you wish to contradict this evidence, there are two things you must do:

1) Deal with my whole argument, that is, every one I make in my posts, not just a few of them.

2) Provide the steps you use to deconstruct my argument to "I feel God is selfish for giving me freedom. "

Otherwise, I'm going to have to act on the assumption that you're a troll. And if you are, bravo.

tw1tch

Rimstalker,
Deal with it? No need. Your 'argument' is nothing more than just your opinion (God is selfish). I need not address someones mere opinion.


If you wish to leave it at that fine. However, a rational person would either
A-admit it is opinion or
B-Give some reasoning/evidence why this notion (God is selfish) is something more than opinion.

What's it going to be?





PS-You label me a troll simply because I don't share your opinion?


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Clutch

tw1tch,This is hilarious for its utter deafness to irony.

You think "semantics" is getting in the way. Then you define your way out of trouble with a guffaw-worthy non-sequitur: were we only able to do less than we now can, we would be robots!

Of course, you are free to invent your own language, a la Orwell or Humpty Dumpty, in which 'freedom' means 'slavery', 'there's glory for you' means 'a nice knock-down argument', and 'robotic' means 'less able than the average human'. Why anyone -- even you -- would confuse this for an actual argument, however, is entirely unclear.

rainbow walking

Dr. Retard: After all, the dispute is over whether restricting someone's freedom need turn that someone into a robot. I say No. Restricting someone's freedom need not turn that someone into a robot. Proof: Prisons restrict criminals' freedom; they do not turn criminals to robots. Paralysis restricts paralytics' freedom; it doesn't turn paralytics into robots.


rw: Then you are proposing that to eliminate evil and suffering god should have created, in lieu of this universe, a prison full of paraplegics? Hardly seems like a good thing to me.

In these two examples you've given you are correct, in neither case are the humans in question, robots. However, what they are is congenital dependents. Both prisoners and paraplegics require twenty four hour maintenance. This is a good thing?

Philosoft

I hoped you would mention this. I suspected you were engaging in circular reasoning. The very most you can say about 'Freedom' is "this is the precise amount of freedom of will and freedom of action God wanted us to have." This, of course, exposes you to a possible worlds scenario whereby all degrees of free will obtain and your 'Freedom' loses the true objectivity you desperately need, which propmpts you to make a special pleading appeal to God's nature, or something like that. Right?

Know what else is a great example of that? Gravity. I have 'freedom' to think about jumping 12 feet high, but I lack the 'Freedom' to do it. What's that you say? Physical limitations are exempt from the robotics objection? Why is that?
Maybe. I'm still waiting for you to decide what you actually mean by them.

rainbow walking

Dr. Retard: So the question is: Why didn't (and doesn't) God limit our freedom in these non-robotifying ways? It looks like a good thing to do; we pay people to do it for us; we do it ourselves when we have the chance; why doesn't God do it?



rw: This, too, is not analogous to a god somehow limiting freedom. By, "we pay people to do it all the time", I presume you are referring to government bodies. The reason this is not analogous is because governments limit freedoms on paper. You still have the choice to violate the law that's on paper. PoE is advocating that this god should make it a permanent condition of reality in some, as yet, un-specified way. With governments, they come after you AFTER you've violated the law. What PoE is advocating is that this god arrange it so you can't. Big difference, and frankly, one that I see no way to enact without serious repurcussions to man's autonomy of will. Cause and effect.

Ensign Steve

You see no way to enact it, but you don't think that an all-powerful god could come up with a way? Or are we still in the position that god is bound by the laws of cause and effect? The very laws that he chose to create. Why did he create those laws if they would bind him in such a way that he couldn't prevent suffering while also letting us retain free will? The point is if he CAN'T do it, then he's not all-powerful. So what kind of god is that?

Jen

Dr. Retard

SOMMS:

No, I'm just an American teaching ESL here.

So, I think those terms are fine. I don't really care what terms we use, so long as we understand each other. So, the question still stands: Why didn't God limit our freedom, while leaving our Freedom intact? It looks like a recipe for improvement.