Fiction & Theodicies

[seanD]

Yes I said that and I still say it, you either know a thing or you don't know it, you don't have degrees of knowing it.


Yes Muslims have knowledge of the ideas of a thing, but that is not the same as having knowledge of the thing itself, the thing itself may not exist and if it doesn't exist, then though they may believe the ideas, being that it doesn't really exist, they don't have any knowledge of it do they?

I have it staight, belief is not knowledge!

Okay good, but this whole discussion has been based upon free will and our disobedience to the God that you assert that we know. Well we don't "know" that God, and some of us who have the same information that you have don't "believe" in that God either, therefore we are not being disobedient to him.

Again you don't have knowledge of the Christian God, you have knowledge of the assertions that have been made about the existence of the Christian God, just as Muslims have knowledge of the assertions that have been made about the existence of the Muslim God, which means that as far as either of your Gods actual existing is concerned, for both of you, are only beliefs.

Since you have the slimy discourtesy of taking my posts apart and addressing them out of context whenever you lose the argument, I''ll reiterate my previous post. You don't know what the definition of knowledge is. You're confusing seeing with the definition of knowledge. Knowing someone -- as in acquaintance -- is too subjective to bring into the argument. Christians claim they do know God on a personal spiritual level, and you have no way of disproving that than they can prove it, but that doesn't mean they actually see God, which is what you're confusing. This is not how knowledge is defined. You can have degrees of knowledge about someone but not ever come into personal acquaintance with them, and that type of knowledge is often considered more than just a belief or an assertion. Seriously, stop trying to save your arse by obfuscating my posts into scattered pieces and just admit you were wrong or bow out of the discussion.

[Doug Shaver]

This argument would have to assume God exist Doug, for it to have any real effect. Why would it be God's fault that people use their choice to cause harm to others?

For the same reason that any manufacturer is held responsible for any damage caused by his product, if the manufacturer knew or should have known that his product was likely to cause that damage.

[Chrawnus]

For the same reason that any manufacturer is held responsible for any damage caused by his product, if the manufacturer knew or should have known that his product was likely to cause that damage.

Would it make any difference in regards to the responsibility of the manufacturer if the product had free will? Also, does it really make sense to talk about responsibility when we're talking about someone with no equals to whom the person in question have any responsibilites towards?

[lilpixieofterror]

For the same reason that any manufacturer is held responsible for any damage caused by his product, if the manufacturer knew or should have known that his product was likely to cause that damage.

Problem is that you are comparing apples to oranges here and trying to argue an analogy that doesn't work. Products that we currently make do not have a mind of their own nor have the ability to choose if they want to listen or if they want to disobey. My computer may sometimes seem like it has a mind of its own, but in truth that is simply errors in software, hardware, and improper use that cause my computer to act up, but it doesn't do it because it wants to do it, it does it due to a failure somewhere along the chain. Now, if we do create something that has the ability to choose what to do, then we are in a totally different ball game since the designer could tell or program his machine all he wants, but in the end the machine can do it or not do it. This is why your argument falls flat, the machines we produce today don't have the ability to choose, they just simply obey and problems are caused by poor design or improper operation, not because the machine simply chooses to act up.

[robertb]

Now, if we do create something that has the ability to choose what to do, then we are in a totally different ball game since the designer could tell or program his machine all he wants, but in the end the machine can do it or not do it.

Be careful...

[lilpixieofterror]

Be careful...

Of...

[robertb]

Of...

Agreeing with Doug, I guess.

[lilpixieofterror]

Agreeing with Doug, I guess.

If the product didn't have the ability to choose to obey or disobey, Doug would be right. It would be (assuming there is no operation error on the user end that is), the fault of whoever built it, but since God gave us the ability to choose, his argument is moot.

[seanD]

The analogy of freewill to a man-made product was retarded. And though I'm surprised it came from an intellectual level, I'm not surprised it came from an emotional level.

[robertb]

The analogy of freewill to a man-made product was retarded. And though I'm surprised it came from an intellectual level, I'm not surprised it came from an emotional level.

Why do you say that this analogy is retarded? Are you saying that a freewilled machine is an a priori impossiblity?

[seanD]

Why do you say that this analogy is retarded? Are you saying that a freewilled machine is an a priori impossiblity?

Yes.

[JimL]

Yes.

And what would you say the difference is between a free willed immaterial soul, and a free willed material being, or machine if you will. Wait thats not clear. What makes you think that an immaterial spirit or soul can have free will, but not a strictly material being, or machine if you will? Is it just a belief, or do you have some kind of knowledge into the workings of immaterial souls?

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

And what would you say the difference is between a free willed immaterial soul, and a free willed material being, or machine if you will. Wait thats not clear. What makes you think that an immaterial spirit or soul can have free will, but not a material being, or machine if you will? Is it just a belief, or do you have some kind of knowledge into the workings of immaterial souls?

I remember Spinoza (affirmed by Schopenhauer) saying that, if a stone being thrown through the air had sentience, it would think it were flying by its own volition. We seem obsessed by defining our own freedom in technical ways, though we cannot seem to find a universally satisfactory set of propositions to which we may reduce our experience of freedom. But, think about it....

Some of us judge God because he allows evil men to exercise their volition---that he should have made another choice in the exercise of his own volition and that all could have been better if he had. Everything seems to revolve around sentience, volition, and the experience of suffering---then judgment is meted upon either God or man.

Taking Spinoza seriously (as a little thought experiment), should one speak of a fact/value distinction? The sentient stone feels slighted in its disillusionment and blames God. Then it dreams literary dreams about theodicy, thinking that it is engaged in science when it is really occupied with symbology. Of course, the sentient stone is just another literary dream, a nontechnical symbol, an imprecise analogy. Our definitions are just as fraught as our literary symbols and analogies. What are we, and why do we feel slighted if the entire universe doesn't revolve around us?

Yet Spinoza, perhaps a "saintly" sort of man, loved his god, but the reverse, by Spinoza's definition, was apparently not the case. Pantheists and atheists can revere the cosmos when it isn't conceived as sentient or as exercising volition, even in the face of suffering. The cosmos is worthy even of awe. Free will is often reduced to an illusion in keeping with these speculative trains of thought, and the supposed lack of freedom (determinism of whatever stripe) blunts the human tendency to find fault with the cosmos or humanity. Suffering becomes something of a fact apart from values in this scenario, doesn't it?

Makes me think of Maritn Buber---do we have an I/Thou relationship ultimately, or an I/It? Are these relations between ourselves and the cosmos or God, between ourselves and one another, relations of facts or values? And, when we engage in theodicy and the musings thereon, mustn't we be implicitly defining ourselves as well as what brought us into being? Granted, these are disconnected thoughts---and there's far more to the story....

[Tassman]

The analogy of freewill to a man-made product was retarded. And though I'm surprised it came from an intellectual level, I'm not surprised it came from an emotional level.

Its’ a very good analogy!

We are complex machines and as such we can in principle be replicated and probably be improved upon. I, for one, think it is inevitable. This is not a notion with wide appeal, because it seems inadequate to explain our deeper selves, but to say we are any more than machines with a seemingly spiritual component or “soul” is a faith-statement, not demonstrable fact.

[magellan004]

If you're trying to prove a point about perfection, you're equivocating.

I don't see how - or I didn't mean to equivocate.
You made a point about imperfect parents - presumably imperfect because they made you.

I wanted to point out another way of looking at things. Our gift of being able to do good seems evidence to me of God's perfect plan.


Magellan