Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jamie_L · 05-02-2003, 10:02 AM

Really, if our will was to be completely free, we'd have to be omnipotent. One cannot be said to have true free will if one cannot convert one's will into reality.

For example: I do not have the free will read some else's mind. I simply can't choose to do that.

In our current situations, being far from omnipotent, humans have only limited free will. What we are "free" to choose is enveloped by what we are able to do.

Someone in another thread mentioned how easy it is to cause pain and suffering and how it is relatively harder to cause pleasure and ease suffering. If you think about it, it's true:

It's easy to punch, kick, or hit someone. It's more difficult to cause them physical pleasure.

It's easy to take a relative stranger and make them dislike you. It is more difficult to develop a friendly relationship with a stranger that makes that person feel happy.

We can build bombs to kill thousands of people in one fell swoop. We can build no such bomb to make people feel good or wipe out S.A.R.S. in Beijing.

It would seem that what we are "able" to do is much more in line with causing pain and suffering, and less well suited for causing contentment and easing suffering. Thus, we have much more "free will" to cause suffering.

If we indeed live in a universe created by a benevolent diety who also values free will, it seems odd that our "free will" is slanted so far towards the suffering end of the spectrum. Wouldn't free will perfectly balanced between causing and eliminating suffering provide a better environment for free choice between the two?

Jamie

Ronin · 05-02-2003, 10:06 AM

Quote:

It's easy to punch, kick, or hit someone. It's more difficult to cause them physical pleasure.

Well...speak for yourself, sparky.

j/k ~ your point is valid and one I had not really spent much time considering.

Thanks, Jamie.

christ-on-a-stick · 05-02-2003, 10:19 AM

Excellent points, Jamie.

Theists often claim that God cannot prevent us from doing harm to one another without interfering with our free will.

However, there are lots of ways that we could do harm to each other that we are not physically *able* to do based on how God allegedly designed us.

I.E., I cannot telekenetically cause someone's heart to stop beating by focusing my energy on doing so. Why? We humans don't have telekenetic powers (although some claim to).

Why couldn't God have made it so that we didn't have the physical ability to rape, or abuse a child? Certainly an omnipotent God could have designed the physical laws of the universe and our bodies, etc. in *whatever* way he wished, so that some things were literally just physically impossible to do. Kinda like telekenesis.

TheUnbeliever · 05-02-2003, 10:54 AM

You'd think that on God's Great Big Keyboard Of Stuff That We Can't Do Even Though We Have Free Will (otherwise known as GGBKOSTWCDETWHFW), there'd be a "Sin" button next to the "Telekinesis" one.

Kinda chops the screaming, whining head off the "God didn't want robots!" argument, if you think about it.

Nice point, Jamie.

christ-on-a-stick · 05-02-2003, 11:37 AM

Quote:

You'd think that on God's Great Big Keyboard Of Stuff That We Can't Do Even Though We Have Free Will (otherwise known as GGBKOSTWCDETWHFW), there'd be a "Sin" button next to the "Telekinesis" one.

:notworthy

Or at least certains kinds of sin (er, rape, murder, child abuse/molestation etc...) just in case the theists want to protest that we have to be able to sin *some* or free will wouldn't exist (not that I agree BTW)

Shadowy Man · 05-02-2003, 11:44 AM

Imagine how much less pain we would cause others if we actually telepathically felt the pain we caused to others. We would still have the free will to cause that pain, but we'd be less likely to do it.

He could have created us in that manner without violating our free will.

christ-on-a-stick · 05-02-2003, 12:04 PM

Good point Shadowy.

Funny how we puny humans can so easily come up with Better Plan(s) for creation than this allegedly all-wise, all-powerful "God" thingy.

Pyrrho · 05-02-2003, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jamie_L

Someone in another thread mentioned how easy it is to cause pain and suffering and how it is relatively harder to cause pleasure and ease suffering.

Is this in reference to a post I made? Contrary to what you may think, I am not posting now to lay claim to thinking up the idea originally; it goes back at least as far as David Hume, who discussed this in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, a book that everyone should read. It seems likely that someone else thought of this earlier, but in any case, Hume does an admirable job of discussing this in connection with whether or not one should believe in a god.

Quote:

Admitting your position, replied Philo, which yet is extremely doubtful, you must at the same time allow, that if pain be less frequent than pleasure, it is infinitely more violent and durable. One hour of it is often able to outweigh a day, a week, a month of our common insipid enjoyments; and how many days, weeks, and months, are passed by several in the most acute torments? Pleasure, scarcely in one instance, is ever able to reach ecstasy and rapture; and in no one instance can it continue for any time at its highest pitch and altitude. The spirits evaporate, the nerves relax, the fabric is disordered, and the enjoyment quickly degenerates into fatigue and uneasiness. But pain often, good God, how often! rises to torture and agony; and the longer it continues, it becomes still more genuine agony and torture. Patience is exhausted, courage languishes, melancholy seizes us, and nothing terminates our misery but the removal of its cause, or another event, which is the sole cure of all evil, but which, from our natural folly, we regard with still greater horror and consternation.

bocajeff · 05-02-2003, 05:51 PM

The fact of the matter is this: God, an omnipotent being, could've created us in a way in which we have free will and yet still cannot sin.

He did not.

So clearly he either is incapable of doing so. Which means he is not omnipotent. Or he did not want to.

Either way, the implications don't bode well for such a being.

Darth Dane · 05-02-2003, 06:09 PM

Well according to some Jesus showed all of humans what would be possible if only we have the faith of a mustard seed.

Matthew 17:20
And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

With great power comes great responsibility

If you could read people minds would you use that power for selfish or selfless actions?

In the book "Autobiography of a Yogi" Yogananda meets a saint that coulkd materialise flowers and another food.

Why do we have so little faith that we seemingly cannot do these things?

How are we to interpret "freewill"?

DD - Love Spliff

05-02-2003, 10:02 AM	#1
Jamie_L Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: U.S. Posts: 2,565	God weighted free will in favor of evil. Really, if our will was to be completely free, we'd have to be omnipotent. One cannot be said to have true free will if one cannot convert one's will into reality. For example: I do not have the free will read some else's mind. I simply can't choose to do that. In our current situations, being far from omnipotent, humans have only limited free will. What we are "free" to choose is enveloped by what we are able to do. Someone in another thread mentioned how easy it is to cause pain and suffering and how it is relatively harder to cause pleasure and ease suffering. If you think about it, it's true: It's easy to punch, kick, or hit someone. It's more difficult to cause them physical pleasure. It's easy to take a relative stranger and make them dislike you. It is more difficult to develop a friendly relationship with a stranger that makes that person feel happy. We can build bombs to kill thousands of people in one fell swoop. We can build no such bomb to make people feel good or wipe out S.A.R.S. in Beijing. It would seem that what we are "able" to do is much more in line with causing pain and suffering, and less well suited for causing contentment and easing suffering. Thus, we have much more "free will" to cause suffering. If we indeed live in a universe created by a benevolent diety who also values free will, it seems odd that our "free will" is slanted so far towards the suffering end of the spectrum. Wouldn't free will perfectly balanced between causing and eliminating suffering provide a better environment for free choice between the two? Jamie

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-02-2003, 10:19 AM	#3
christ-on-a-stick Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Durango, Colorado Posts: 7,116	Excellent points, Jamie. Theists often claim that God cannot prevent us from doing harm to one another without interfering with our free will. However, there are lots of ways that we could do harm to each other that we are not physically able to do based on how God allegedly designed us. I.E., I cannot telekenetically cause someone's heart to stop beating by focusing my energy on doing so. Why? We humans don't have telekenetic powers (although some claim to). Why couldn't God have made it so that we didn't have the physical ability to rape, or abuse a child? Certainly an omnipotent God could have designed the physical laws of the universe and our bodies, etc. in whatever way he wished, so that some things were literally just physically impossible to do. Kinda like telekenesis.

05-02-2003, 10:54 AM	#4
TheUnbeliever Junior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: United States Posts: 84	You'd think that on God's Great Big Keyboard Of Stuff That We Can't Do Even Though We Have Free Will (otherwise known as GGBKOSTWCDETWHFW), there'd be a "Sin" button next to the "Telekinesis" one. Kinda chops the screaming, whining head off the "God didn't want robots!" argument, if you think about it. Nice point, Jamie.

05-02-2003, 11:44 AM	#6
Shadowy Man Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: A Shadowy Planet Posts: 7,585	Imagine how much less pain we would cause others if we actually telepathically felt the pain we caused to others. We would still have the free will to cause that pain, but we'd be less likely to do it. He could have created us in that manner without violating our free will.

05-02-2003, 12:04 PM	#7
christ-on-a-stick Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Durango, Colorado Posts: 7,116	Good point Shadowy. Funny how we puny humans can so easily come up with Better Plan(s) for creation than this allegedly all-wise, all-powerful "God" thingy.

05-02-2003, 05:51 PM	#9
bocajeff Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: HelL.A. Posts: 1,157	The fact of the matter is this: God, an omnipotent being, could've created us in a way in which we have free will and yet still cannot sin. He did not. So clearly he either is incapable of doing so. Which means he is not omnipotent. Or he did not want to. Either way, the implications don't bode well for such a being.

05-02-2003, 06:09 PM	#10
Darth Dane Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Required Posts: 2,349	Well according to some Jesus showed all of humans what would be possible if only we have the faith of a mustard seed. Matthew 17:20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you. With great power comes great responsibility If you could read people minds would you use that power for selfish or selfless actions? In the book "Autobiography of a Yogi" Yogananda meets a saint that coulkd materialise flowers and another food. Why do we have so little faith that we seemingly cannot do these things? How are we to interpret "freewill"? DD - Love Spliff

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.