Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Free will defense?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
    What I would also like to understand is how was what I had presented the same or different from what you had believed?
    The differences would depend on which phase of my Christian journey we were talking about, but I think the sameness is most relevant to our discussion. At all times during that journey, what I believed then was, in my present judgment, without sufficient justification, and that is how I judge what you are telling me now.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
      You say so. You are not God. The author of Psalm 19 said so. He was not God. The author of Romans said so. He was not God.
      So you do not want to acknowledge any word from God through any man. So unless God Himself speaks to you like it is reported that He did with Adam - you are not going to accept it. Right?

      Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
      The differences would depend on which phase of my Christian journey we were talking about, but I think the sameness is most relevant to our discussion. At all times during that journey, what I believed then was, in my present judgment, without sufficient justification, and that is how I judge what you are telling me now.
      l would like to start with your first professed conversion at age 12. And step through what changed as to what you believed at each stage.
      . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

      Comment


      • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
        So you do not want to acknowledge any word from God through any man.
        What I want is irrelevant. I can't believe without a good enough reason.

        Originally posted by 37818 View Post
        So unless God Himself speaks to you like it is reported that He did with Adam - you are not going to accept it. Right?
        What I'm not accepting is any man's claim that God has spoken to any man. Why should I? Why should I believe that God spoke to Adam? Why should I believe that Adam even existed?

        Originally posted by 37818 View Post
        l would like to start with your first professed conversion at age 12. And step through what changed as to what you believed at each stage.
        For what purpose? This is an apologetics forum, where Christians defend what they believe by responding to skeptics' objections. I have stated my objection to what you believe. I don't see how anything I used to believe, or why I believed it, is relevant to that objection.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
          What I want is irrelevant. I can't believe without a good enough reason.
          What would you consider a good enough reason?

          What I'm not accepting is any man's claim that God has spoken to any man. Why should I?
          Only if it is true. What do you consider is a good enough reason to accept any other man's report?
          Why should I believe that God spoke to Adam?
          Only if it is really true. At issue is there a good enough reason to believe it is true.
          Why should I believe that Adam even existed?
          Again, have your good enough reason to.

          For what purpose?
          Cannot address no given reasons for not believing something that is true. You claim to have believed something. What is unclear. What and why your reasons were and how they changed are not given.

          This is an apologetics forum, where Christians defend what they believe by responding to skeptics' objections.
          Yeah, if those objections are actually given. Vague "good enough reasons" not explained as to what that suppose to mean doesn't really present anything to give an answer to.
          I have stated my objection to what you believe.
          And when I asked you to explain them . . .
          I don't see how anything I used to believe, or why I believed it, is relevant to that objection.
          Of course you don't.

          Do you believe that there is absolute truth? Truth is the only valid reason for faith. Valid faith has to have good reason. Good reason being based in what is really true.

          Christianity BTW has more counterfeits that any other belief system.

          If one does not know the genuine gospel to believe it, how can one believe what one does not know?
          . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

          Comment


          • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
            What would you consider a good enough reason?
            A good enough reason to believe any assertion is any undisputed fact, or set of facts, that is inconsistent with the assertion's denial.

            Originally posted by Doug Shaver
            What I'm not accepting is any man's claim that God has spoken to any man. Why should I?

            Originally posted by 37818 View Post
            Only if it is true.
            That is of no epistemological help. You or I can say "This is true" about any statement we care to make.

            Originally posted by 37818 View Post
            What do you consider is a good enough reason to accept any other man's report?
            There are many things to be considered. I cannot list all of them, but in any case, it ultimately comes down to a Bayesian analysis.

            Originally posted by 37818 View Post
            Do you believe that there is absolute truth?
            That depends on what other kind of truth you think there is.

            Originally posted by 37818 View Post
            Christianity BTW has more counterfeits that any other belief system.
            You say so.

            Originally posted by 37818 View Post
            how can one believe what one does not know?
            One cannot. But I have never said that one can. Again, you bring an irrelevancy into the conversation.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by 37818
              Do you believe that there is absolute truth?
              The existence of absolute truth would be a philosophical/theological question that would be highly subjective. Nonetheless I believe that an absolute truth underlies all of our physical existence and all possible worlds beyond our physical existence. This ultimate absolute truth could simply be the natural nature of our physical existence, or it could be God, but beyond ones belief system there is no definitive falsifiable evidence either way.

              The only evidence that we have from the scientific perspective is that the consistency and predictability Methodological Naturalism concerning the nature of our physical existence that indirectly indicates that an absolute truth underlies our physical existence.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                That doesn't even make sense. If you can't do evil you can't be good?
                I find this response interesting. The key word is "can't." Many have told me that humanity has to be capable of evil, because if we could only choose good, then we would not have free will and so would be "moral robots," not truly good because we lack the capacity to choose otherwise.

                So that raises the question, is god capable of evil? If the answer is "yes," can he be claimed to be "all good?" If the answer is "no," then does he possess the freedom of will necessary to be described as a "moral being?"

                I would be curious to know how this would be responded to.
                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                Comment


                • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  I find this response interesting. The key word is "can't." Many have told me that humanity has to be capable of evil, because if we could only choose good, then we would not have free will and so would be "moral robots," not truly good because we lack the capacity to choose otherwise.

                  So that raises the question, is god capable of evil? If the answer is "yes," can he be claimed to be "all good?" If the answer is "no," then does he possess the freedom of will necessary to be described as a "moral being?"

                  I would be curious to know how this would be responded to.
                  I would disagree with Sparko on this. I would say that of course God's moral character is immutable, He can not do evil. But that He desires creatures that freely love Him and each other. That a freely chosen love is of value to Him.
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by seer View Post
                    I would disagree with Sparko on this. I would say that of course God's moral character is immutable, He can not do evil. But that He desires creatures that freely love Him and each other. That a freely chosen love is of value to Him.
                    So how do you escape the observation that a human being lacking the capacity to do evil is a moral robot, so lacks free will? Why would a god who is incapable of evil be any less a moral robot?

                    There is only one escape I can think of: that god DEFINES morality, so whatever god defines as good is therefore good - maintaining free will. Unfortunately, it seems to me that this creates the dilemma that god COULD define rape or random killing as "good" and it would be so, and we would perceive it as so.

                    That just makes me shudder....
                    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                      I find this response interesting. The key word is "can't." Many have told me that humanity has to be capable of evil, because if we could only choose good, then we would not have free will and so would be "moral robots," not truly good because we lack the capacity to choose otherwise.

                      So that raises the question, is god capable of evil? If the answer is "yes," can he be claimed to be "all good?" If the answer is "no," then does he possess the freedom of will necessary to be described as a "moral being?"

                      I would be curious to know how this would be responded to.
                      Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                      So how do you escape the observation that a human being lacking the capacity to do evil is a moral robot, so lacks free will? Why would a god who is incapable of evil be any less a moral robot?

                      There is only one escape I can think of: that god DEFINES morality, so whatever god defines as good is therefore good - maintaining free will. Unfortunately, it seems to me that this creates the dilemma that god COULD define rape or random killing as "good" and it would be so, and we would perceive it as so.

                      That just makes me shudder....
                      Wow, nice to see you around again carpedm!

                      I think for a lot of Christians what they mean by choosing between good and evil is that we have the capability to choose to align our wills to God (the good), or to choose not to align our wills to God (evil). Sin, simply defined, is missing the mark, the mark being that which aligns with God's perfect nature.

                      In order to escape some sort of Euthyphro dilemma, I think most Christian thinkers don't want to say that God defines morality so much as that he is, by his very nature, the moral good. The moral good that God commands isn't something that he commands or defines arbitrarily, rather, it proceeds from who he is as the paradigm of goodness.

                      So, with that in mind, since there is nothing above or outside of God to which he could align his will to (there is no good devoid of God seeing as God is the good) he isn't in the situation that created beings are in as far as this form of choice is concerned. It isn't possible for him to miss any mark because to do so would be to deny his very nature, which would be logically impossible for him to do.

                      However, we can still say that God has free will in that he has the ability to make choices that are not determined by causal factors (which is an easy feat for God considering there is no causal factors outside of him).

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                        Wow, nice to see you around again carpedm!

                        I think for a lot of Christians what they mean by choosing between good and evil is that we have the capability to choose to align our wills to God (the good), or to choose not to align our wills to God (evil). Sin, simply defined, is missing the mark, the mark being that which aligns with God's perfect nature.

                        In order to escape some sort of Euthyphro dilemma, I think most Christian thinkers don't want to say that God defines morality so much as that he is, by his very nature, the moral good. The moral good that God commands isn't something that he commands or defines arbitrarily, rather, it proceeds from who he is as the paradigm of goodness.

                        So, with that in mind, since there is nothing above or outside of God to which he could align his will to (there is no good devoid of God seeing as God is the good) he isn't in the situation that created beings are in as far as this form of choice is concerned. It isn't possible for him to miss any mark because to do so would be to deny his very nature, which would be logically impossible for him to do.

                        However, we can still say that God has free will in that he has the ability to make choices that are not determined by causal factors (which is an easy feat for God considering there is no causal factors outside of him).
                        Nice to see you too, Adrift! Been a long time!

                        This is an interesting issue to me because it is one of the many internal contradictions I find in the concept of an all good, all-powerful, eternal, all knowing being. It is not clear to me how simply asserting that god "is by nature good," gets you away from a moral lack of freedom, hence a lack of morality altogether - the same assertion that is made about humanity (i.e., we must have free will and the capacity for evil to be able to choose good."). I'm sure you recognize this as the eternal "problem of evil." The concepts of all good, all powerful, all knowing, and eternal just do not mesh (from my perspective) with the presence of evil as described in the Christian worldview. My worldview has no problem with explaining the presence of both good and evil in the universe, which is one of the many reasons I prefer it. I don't find I have to twist myself into a pretzel to make it work.
                        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                          Nice to see you too, Adrift! Been a long time!

                          This is an interesting issue to me because it is one of the many internal contradictions I find in the concept of an all good, all-powerful, eternal, all knowing being. It is not clear to me how simply asserting that god "is by nature good," gets you away from a moral lack of freedom, hence a lack of morality altogether - the same assertion that is made about humanity (i.e., we must have free will and the capacity for evil to be able to choose good."). I'm sure you recognize this as the eternal "problem of evil." The concepts of all good, all powerful, all knowing, and eternal just do not mesh (from my perspective) with the presence of evil as described in the Christian worldview. My worldview has no problem with explaining the presence of both good and evil in the universe, which is one of the many reasons I prefer it. I don't find I have to twist myself into a pretzel to make it work.
                          Well God's good nature is not simply an assertion, Christian philosophers typically base it on certain ontological considerations for what makes up a greatest conceivable being. I'm not really clear on the difficulty you're having regarding God's ability to have free will, but if I'm understanding your issue at all, perhaps this link to Dr. William Lane Craig's website can help clarify a few couple things: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writ...o-choose-evil/

                          I obviously have no issue at all meshing the idea of an all good, all powerful, all knowing, and eternal God with the presence of evil. I feel that Plantinga's free will defense solves it just fine. I also obviously don't find that your worldview adequately explains the presence of good and evil in the universe, because there can be no true "good" or "evil" in a universe devoid of objective moral values.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                            Well God's good nature is not simply an assertion, Christian philosophers typically base it on certain ontological considerations for what makes up a greatest conceivable being. I'm not really clear on the difficulty you're having regarding God's ability to have free will, but if I'm understanding your issue at all, perhaps this link to Dr. William Lane Craig's website can help clarify a few couple things: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writ...o-choose-evil/

                            I obviously have no issue at all meshing the idea of an all good, all powerful, all knowing, and eternal God with the presence of evil. I feel that Plantinga's free will defense solves it just fine. I also obviously don't find that your worldview adequately explains the presence of good and evil in the universe, because there can be no true "good" or "evil" in a universe devoid of objective moral values.
                            I will review the link you suggested. Meanwhile, I found the last sentence interesting. It begins, of course, with a bit of word substitution. What does it mean for a good to be "true?" It must be objective. So how do you make the case that a subject moral position is not "true?" By pointing out that it is not objective. It's a circular argument that, from my perspective, has no validity. Morality is an internal construct. We each have a moral code - and they can change depending on how they have been defined. Some change less if they are rooted in reason. Some change less if they are rooted in a documented code (e.g., the ten commandments). Some change more if a person is given to constant adjustments of worldview. But the argument that a moral position is not "true" if it is not "objective" simply doesn't say anything except to say it is not objective if it is not objective. That statement is, of course, true a priori, but it is also content free. It's like saying "the red ball is red." We're having this discussion in a separate thread (I think).
                            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                            Comment


                            • By "true" I mean something to do with transcendence. I believe that a morality rooted in reason is rooted in shallow ground. Reasons change from society to society, from person to person, and upon personal whim. I believe that if I were an atheist, I would choose to be an utter nihilist and disregard any notion of good and evil as simply valueless concepts that originated in someone else's head that I wouldn't feel the need to accept except to prevent myself from being put into a straightjacket or jailed away.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                                Well God's good nature is not simply an assertion, Christian philosophers typically base it on certain ontological considerations for what makes up a greatest conceivable being. I'm not really clear on the difficulty you're having regarding God's ability to have free will, but if I'm understanding your issue at all, perhaps this link to Dr. William Lane Craig's website can help clarify a few couple things: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writ...o-choose-evil/
                                I have read the article, and I have to disagree with the author. There is a slight-of-hand that happens in this article. The author narrowly defines "free" as "our choices are not determined by causal factors outside our own volitional powers." But his focus is exclusively on the choice we DO make, and he completely ignores the possibility of our choosing otherwise. My ignorance of my choice constraint does not alter the fact that I am actually constrained, which is essentially what he is arguing. Take the case of the man who stands in a long hallway, believing himself free to choose to go in either direction. However, in one direction lies a transparent wall that prohibits him from proceeding in that direction. The fact that he chooses to walk in the direction unimpeded by a wall does not alter the fact that the wall IS there and the man is actually NOT free to walk in either direction. He MUST walk in the one possible direction, rendering the freedom of choice academic.

                                When we talk about moral principles, the inability to realize an evil choice is a serious constraint on free will, and calls into question the "morality" of the person in question. If I can only chose what is good, it does not seem to me that I can be called a "moral actor." I am merely a moral robot.
                                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                185 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                428 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                305 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,517 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X