rainbow walking

I find thee concept of Free Will rather bizarre.
Do you now.

Firstly it isn't describing a condition but rather the lack there of.

How’s that?
As I understand it Free Will is humans thinking for themselves and deciding what is best to do by themselves--just like any other animal.

Well, I don’t know about the “just like any other animal” part, but humans find themselves forced to make decisions they’d rather not make…all the time. Many of them are circumstantial, i.e. tied to their personal history…and other things totally out of their control.

It implies that God could impose his will on mankind, if he wanted to, but chooses not to.
I don’t see a direct implication of this but it is one possibility. The biblical record details occasions when he chose otherwise…and when he didn’t.

However what it portrays is God taking absolutely no action at all; which is exactly what you would expect if God were fictional.

Or un-caring, or sadistic, or…you name it. I prefer waiting patiently myself but, what the hell do I know, right?

Also it doesn't describe Yahweh of the bible.

Yahweh hated Free Will. He forbade Adam and Eve from eating the fruit that allowed them to think for themselves.
Oh really? That explains why he brought the entire forbidden fruit thing to their attention, right? Why he planted such a tree among all those they were FREELY allowed to partake of, right? Yeah, he stalked Adam day and night making sure he never had an opportunity to decide for himself whether to partake, right? That’s why he warned Cain before Cain slew Abel, why he gave Abraham the choice at each juncture of his journey whether to obey god or walk away. Or maybe we’re reading from two different books?

The Talking Snake-- usually associated with the Devil-- gave man free will.

Uh…no…you can’t give a man something he already has. Adam’s freewill was activated the moment god commanded him not to mess with god’s property.
God punished mankind severely for gaining free will and then saddled them with law after law that superceded any free will that they might care to exercise.

Now that’s a curious thing, calling god’s pronouncement of what A & E’s exercising of their freewill would engender in their lives…punishment. The only thing I found unusual about the consequences of their decision was god cursing the ground…a curse he later removed after the flood…but that’s another story.

And in your part that declared that some evils have been defined, legislated against and man continues to enforce said legislation, and that his cultures and societies reflect this preference in their sustenance and constitutions. These "evils" you mention are almost invariably the laws that Yahweh laid down. For example the stoning to death of unruly children and the burning alive of Homosexuals and Atheists are very much legislated against by human laws; but demanded by God's law.

The stoning I’m familiar with but the burning alive of homosexuals and atheists? Chapter and verse please? Ever heard of civil disobedience? Ever occur to anyone that a god with an eye on historical man might be encouraging man to be compassionate with laws that were harsh and cruel? Ever heard of reverse psychology? No, of course an omniscient god wouldn’t have either. You guys amaze me with your nearsightedness. It’s like, we are focused in on this one brief moment in man’s history and that is the measure of our vision and judgment. Yep, sure sounds objective to me.

To overcome evil man has had to overcome God.


Well…duh, no shit Sherlock. I guess the jig is up now so we all can go home. Come on, the party’s over guys, turn out the lights and lets all get outta here. You know I remember having to “overcome” my parents authority too before my freewill took me into the really serious shit.


Which isn't that hard because it's a God who takes absolutely no actions and is indistinguishable from a God who doesn't even exist.

Or a god who has a long, long time on his hands and well, just don’t get in no hurry…know what I mean?

rainbow walking

Ahh, so it's people who are so rotten and not your God!
What a tap dance!


And we got that out of my statement...how?


Your God takes no action what so even. To be able to take action in the face of evil but to choose not to is evil itself. There is no way around it.


So god should what...dress up in a superman outfit and rush all over the world saving people from themselves? What action have YOU taken lately to change anything?

The world does not reflect the presence of a God with the attributes you assign to this one.


And if it did that would be evident...how?

Free Will demonstrates the absence of God.


Hey, one outta four ain't bad...

rainbow walking

Which is it? Is this deity an all good god or one capable of choosing what it can or cannot do?

He can't be one without the other, Brother.

rainbow walking

Problem:

If good and evil exist independent of God (premise 2), we cannot assume God is omnibenevolent, since this objective "good and evil" criterion requires human (and God's) determination. That is, God cannot be accepted a priori as omnibenevolent, since He must be judged first according to an objective principle of good and evil, before he be established as omnibenevolent.


Apparently he's willing to take that chance. But then, you can't please everybody all the time.

philechat

My challenge is not answered here. From which perspective could we establish God's omniscience and omnibenevolence? It could not be done via definition because good and evil, by premise 2, exist independent of both God and men. And by the premise, we could establish that neither God nor men could be an "independent testifier" of good and evil. (God's omnibenevolence unestablished). There is also no "independent testifier" of historical man prefering good over evil (flawed premise 6), i.e. there exists no objective identifier of a set of objective morality. And there is no one who can makes claim about omniscience: God might be deluded about his omniscience and not know about it.

rainbow walking

My challenge is not answered here. From which perspective could we establish God's omniscience and omnibenevolence? It could not be done via definition because good and evil, by premise 2, exist independent of both God and men.


The perspective for the establishment of god's omni's is contained in premise 7.


And by the premise, we could establish that neither God nor men could be an "independent testifier" of good and evil.


History is the "independent testifier" for both god and man.

(God's omnibenevolence unestablished).


History is still in the making.

There is also no "independent testifier" of historical man prefering good over evil (flawed premise 6), i.e. there exists no objective identifier of a set of objective morality.


This is falsified by the fact that many behavior patterns once considered justifiable have been discarded. Slavery comes to mind immediately. This is historically established and demonstrates that man's cultures are maturing with an emphasis on goodness.


And there is no one who can makes claim about omniscience: God might be deluded about his omniscience and not know about it.

Relevancy?

Biff the unclean

BTU: Firstly it isn't describing a condition but rather the lack there of.
RW: How’s that?

It's like being an Atheist or a non-smoker. It is a description of ordinary activity but categorized but something the person does not do as opposed to something they actually do. It presupposes a condition where ones will would be controlled and then says, "look, it isn't happening." Of course God isn't controlling your will, God is a fictional character. God can only control other fictional characters in the stories in which he appears.

Well, I don’t know about the "just like any other animal" part,
I make my living working with animals, these days mostly great apes. I stand by what I have written.
but humans find themselves forced to make decisions they’d rather not make…all the time. Many of them are circumstantial, i.e. tied to their personal history…and other things totally out of their control.
This has nothing to do with Free Will. Your "will" is still intact dispite circumstances.

BTU: It implies that God could impose his will on mankind, if he wanted to, but chooses not to.
I don’t see a direct implication of this but it is one possibility.
The implication is that if your will wasn't free you would be nothing but a tool of God.
The biblical record details occasions when he chose otherwise…and when he didn’t.
Characters in the series of novels that make up the bible. Not too different from Clark Kent wiping off his glasses and showing his super powers. In the world of non-fiction you don't find things like that happening.

BTU: However what it portrays is God taking absolutely no action at all; which is exactly what you would expect if God were fictional.
Or un-caring, or sadistic, or…you name it. I prefer waiting patiently myself but, what the hell do I know, right?
No, just a God who doesn't exist not doing anything.

Oh really? That explains why he brought the entire forbidden fruit thing to their attention, right?
In folk tales this is called "The One Forbidden Thing." Pandora couldn't look in the box, Orpheus couldn't look back at his wife, Mrs Lot couldn't peak at Sodom. It's a standard motif in story telling

Why he planted such a tree among all those they were FREELY allowed to partake of, right? Yeah, he stalked Adam day and night making sure he never had an opportunity to decide for himself whether to partake, right?
Adam couldn't decide for himself, he didn't have free will. Genesis is quite specific about this. The fruit is the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. Without the ability to tell good from evil or right from wrong it was impossible to make a choice. You could eat the fruit or not, obey God or not…there was no way to discern that one choice was good and the other evil because the concept didn't exist. Any picking that was done would by necessity be arbitrary.

That’s why he warned Cain before Cain slew Abel, why he gave Abraham the choice at each juncture of his journey whether to obey god or walk away. Or maybe we’re reading from two different books?
I don't think you are reading this book in the order of the plot line.
God lies to Adam and tells him that if he eats the fruit he will die that very day. Talking Snake says that he won't die (in fact he lives 900+ years after this incident) and that eating the fruit would make him like one of the Gods (story needs a little editing here) by giving him the knowledge of good and evil.
Adam and Eve eat the fruit and instantly know that they had done wrong. But only a minute before this they had no idea.
Cain, Abel and Abraham come later in the story long after Talking Snake had rescued Adam and Eve from their ignorance.

Uh…no…you can’t give a man something he already has. Adam’s freewill was activated the moment god commanded him not to mess with god’s property.
No that isn't what happens in the story. Adam has absolutely no concept of the difference between right and wrong. He is, as in the earlier Babylonian version of this same story, in effect God's slave.

Now that’s a curious thing, calling god’s pronouncement of what A & E’s exercising of their freewill would engender in their lives…punishment.
That's a curious thing that you think that people who don't know right from wrong can decide to do wrong before they know what it is.

The stoning I’m familiar with but the burning alive of homosexuals and atheists? Chapter and verse please?
Ahh, you are claiming that that wasn't church policy until the eighteenth century?

Ever occur to anyone that a god with an eye on historical man might be encouraging man to be compassionate with laws that were harsh and cruel? Ever heard of reverse psychology?
Yikes!! Can you really be writing such heartless sentiments?

No, of course an omniscient god wouldn’t have either. You guys amaze me with your nearsightedness. It’s like, we are focused in on this one brief moment in man’s history and that is the measure of our vision and judgment. Yep, sure sounds objective to me.
People only get to live for seventy or so years. This brief moment is all you have don't close your eyes to it.

You know I remember having to "overcome" my parents authority too before my freewill took me into the really serious shit.
Now think this out. There isn't any God whose authority you have to overcome. Only cruel and deceitful people who claim that their harsh rules come from a God. You don't have an invisible Daddy in the sky.

Or a god who has a long, long time on his hands and well, just don’t get in no hurry…know what I mean?
I know what you are saying…look at this nothing that is happening. That's God deciding not to do anything. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain

So god should what...dress up in a superman outfit and rush all over the world saving people from themselves? What action have YOU taken lately to change anything?
Last week I used the Heinlick maneuver on a fellow I was having lunch with. It was the work of a moment, hardly any trouble at all. Popped a piece of chicken out of his throat and across the room to the applause of the other dinners. I was wearing jeans and no cape.
Had I left him in the "hands of God" his wife would be widowed and his two children fatherless over a stupid sandwich.
This would appear to make me a better individual that God is, so God doesn't meet your standards

Darth Dane

"I find the challenge of justifying an all good god co-existing with an evil world an intriguing challenge, so I’ve decided to give it a whirl. I’m sure my atheist co-conspirators will enjoy ripping my arguments to shreds but…what the hell…nothing ventured, nothing gained."


Yin
_______ >------Yin/yang, together they form Tao
Yang



Good God
_____________ >------Good/evil what do they form together? Tao?
Evil world






DD - Tao Spliff

philechat

It is actually quite insufficient to base history's improvement on merely a few established facts such as slavery. There are many instances of civilizations (as a whole) declining after a period of prosperity, including, and not limited to, China's evolution toward despotism from 6th to 19th century, Roman republic changing to Roman Empire and decling afterwards, the disappearance of Maya, and Native Australian's loss of ability concerning metal tool use. The totalitarianism and millions of death by war in 20th century Europe do not help either. There are little evidences (except in very select details, as men often likes to brag about, the abolition of slavery) of the historical men inproving and aiming toward goodness itself, whatever this "goodness" is defined (and I'm not at all impressed at Hagelian dialectics).

rainbow walking

It's like being an Atheist or a non-smoker. It is a description of ordinary activity but categorized but something the person does not do as opposed to something they actually do. It presupposes a condition where ones will would be controlled and then says, "look, it isn't happening." Of course God isn't controlling your will, God is a fictional character. God can only control other fictional characters in the stories in which he appears.
Rw: While this could be inferred, to do so essentially nullifies the FWD. Theism claims that freewill is a necessity of GnE and accounts for how both god and evil can co-exist. Remove freewill and GnE becomes a moot point.


This has nothing to do with Free Will. Your "will" is still intact dispite circumstances.
Yes…but limited in scope.


The implication is that if your will wasn't free you would be nothing but a tool of God.

One possibility, to be sure, but not the only one. You could also be a tool of your genetics, or environment or of aliens.

Characters in the series of novels that make up the bible. Not too different from Clark Kent wiping off his glasses and showing his super powers. In the world of non-fiction you don't find things like that happening.

Not in our lifetimes thus far, but our lives are short in comparison to the age of the universe. There may be good reason why a god would remain silent for long stretches of time.

No, just a God who doesn't exist not doing anything.

You can’t really prove that, can you? Your “if not X, therefore not Y”, logic isn’t the only way to examine the veracity of a claim. It’s based on your limited view of WHEN a god should act. There is a collection of short novels that declare otherwise and there is a nation of Israel along with some rather specific predictions that this god would preserve this nation for eternity. Israel exists, the predictions exist. Both are verifiable claims.

In folk tales this is called "The One Forbidden Thing." Pandora couldn't look in the box, Orpheus couldn't look back at his wife, Mrs Lot couldn't peak at Sodom. It's a standard motif in story telling
And it originated…when?

Adam couldn't decide for himself, he didn't have free will. Genesis is quite specific about this.
Chapter and verse? If Adam didn’t have freewill why did god even issue the command?

The fruit is the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. Without the ability to tell good from evil or right from wrong it was impossible to make a choice.

Why do you say this? We make choices all the time that incur no moral or ethical consequence. “What color tie should I wear with this suit?” Three things are required in moral agency:
1. Knowledge of a choice
2. Knowledge of a consequence
3. Freedom to choose

God issued a command which represented a choice for Adam. God also issued a consequence if Adam made a particular choice. Adam demonstrated his understanding by making a choice. For an unspecified period of time he complied with the command. When his circumstances changed he was compelled to make that choice again.
You could eat the fruit or not, obey God or not…there was no way to discern that one choice was good and the other evil because the concept didn't exist. Any picking that was done would by necessity be arbitrary.

I think you need to re-read the story and study it closer. Adam had to know and understand the ramifications of death else it would make no sense why a god would use that as a consequent. Adam had to know and understand that death was not a GOOD thing, else he would have had no reason to comply with the command. It wasn’t until another set of consequences were introduced before Adam reconsidered his original choice. Read carefully Eve’s temptation and look at the wording and nature of the temptation. She saw that the fruit was GOOD for food, pleasing to the eye and to be desired for intellectual improvement. Had she had no prior moral agency she would have been insulated from the temptations. Without a prior knowledge of good and evil how would she know the difference between food that was good or bad? Or recognize an esthetic quality, or an intellectual improvement? She had to DECIDE that beauty was preferable to ugliness and wisdom to ignorance before these temptations would even have an effect. The serpent had to know that Eve was a moral agent else he would have had no reason to issue the alternative consequences. He started off the conversation by challenging her knowledge of the garden rules. “Hasn’t god said that you are not to eat of ANY of the trees in the garden?” Of course, this was an inaccurate depiction of the rules an Eve set him strait, demonstrating again that she was a moral agent already…BEFORE she ate of the forbidden fruit. She had a choice, freedom to choose and a consequent and she knew it and understood it.

I don't think you are reading this book in the order of the plot line.

I included these only as examples of other biblical people demonstrating moral agency and hence, freewill.

God lies to Adam and tells him that if he eats the fruit he will die that very day.

And this is another example of missing the significance of a god who’s dealing with man historically rather than individually. If you remember, I qualified my FWD with an opening statement that made a distinction. I also, in the course of elaborating on my premises, mentioned that god’s declaration to “make man in his image” was an historical claim, that Adam wasn’t the finished product but just the beginning…hence the book of Genesis (beginnings). Elsewhere the bible declares that with god a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day. This is consistent with how long Adam lived and with god’s declaration being historical rather than individual. If a day is indeed a thousand years with an ancient historical god then Adam did indeed die in the day he ate thereof. But, being human, we can’t help but interpret some things from a human perspective.
Talking Snake says that he won't die (in fact he lives 900+ years after this incident) and that eating the fruit would make him like one of the Gods (story needs a little editing here) by giving him the knowledge of good and evil.

Talking snake lied. The fruit had no power to give them what they already had. What they didn’t have, and what talking snake didn’t mention nor want them to know they didn’t have, was the EXPERIENCE of bad consequences resulting from wrong choices. They knew and lived in good consequences every day in the garden…but they couldn’t appreciate their good fortune, until they had actual EXPERIENTIAL knowledge of the opposite end of the stick.

Adam and Eve eat the fruit and instantly know that they had done wrong. But only a minute before this they had no idea.

No, they simply had no experience of a bad consequence. They trespassed on god’s property. God had given them access to all the trees in the garden with the exception of that one. That was god’s personal property signifying morality. God was establishing his domain over good and evil. By forbidding historical man from tampering with the fruit of that tree, from making good evil and evil good, god, in his wisdom knew that historical man would do just that. Exactly as A & E did. Also, in his wisdom, he was making the statement that in the day man tampers with morality, making good evil and evil good, man would surely die…and you know what? He didn’t miss it even a little bit. Also, this god, in his infinite wisdom, covered his own ass in that when man tampered with the fruit of morality god would no longer be responsible for the consequences…so you have the basis of the FWD and how an all good god can co-exist with suffering and evil.

Cain, Abel and Abraham come later in the story long after Talking Snake had rescued Adam and Eve from their ignorance.
Yeah, that snake did us all a big favor. But, that was god’s doing anyway, so what the hell. You should make an effort to get into this shit. It really is meaningful.

No that isn't what happens in the story. Adam has absolutely no concept of the difference between right and wrong. He is, as in the earlier Babylonian version of this same story, in effect God's slave.

Sorry but that isn’t even remotely correct. Adam had the freedom of choice else the command would have needed no consequence. If he was a slave to anything it was to his own lack of experience.

That's a curious thing that you think that people who don't know right from wrong can decide to do wrong before they know what it is.
And I would strongly suggest you re-read the story and make an effort to comprehend the obvious. It just isn’t logical to issue a command and consequence to people who didn’t have the capacity to comprehend it.

Ahh, you are claiming that that wasn't church policy until the eighteenth century?
You didn’t specify when you were reciting church policy and when you were reciting biblical narrative so I had to ask. So you’ll allow the historicity of the church into your reasoning when it’s convenient but expect god to act now and declare he doesn’t exist if he doesn’t honor your expectations? If this god has an historical purpose for man then there’s a rhyme and reason for everything relating to man, both good and bad.

Yikes!! Can you really be writing such heartless sentiments?

I don’t understand your accusation.

People only get to live for seventy or so years. This brief moment is all you have don't close your eyes to it.
O’kay, I promise I’ll make every effort not to do that.

Now think this out. There isn't any God whose authority you have to overcome.

This is true. This particular version doesn’t force anyone under his authority.
Only cruel and deceitful people who claim that their harsh rules come from a God. You don't have an invisible Daddy in the sky.

Amen to that!

I know what you are saying…look at this nothing that is happening. That's God deciding not to do anything. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain

I wouldn’t suggest taking your eyes off the man behind the curtain. That’s what he’s waiting for you to do.

[b] rw: So god should what...dress up in a superman outfit and rush all over the world saving people from themselves? What action have YOU taken lately to change anything? [/quote]

Last week I used the Heinlick maneuver on a fellow I was having lunch with. It was the work of a moment, hardly any trouble at all. Popped a piece of chicken out of his throat and across the room to the applause of the other dinners. I was wearing jeans and no cape.
Had I left him in the "hands of God" his wife would be widowed and his two children fatherless over a stupid sandwich.

You are to be commended. And you have successfully demonstrated that man doesn’t need a superman god. If you want things done right you have to do them yourself. So tell me again, why are you arguing so adamantly against a god who allows you to participate in such challenging adventures as saving a man’s life? Would you prefer to live a life not worth saving?

This would appear to make me a better individual that God is, so God doesn't meet your standards
Well, you’re certainly entitled to your comparisons…for whatever reason. But I think it’s your standards that any god would never meet…nor likely have any desire to.