Your Own Way...

[Zarathustra]

Actually, as a molecular biologist I'd say I'm giving genetics exactly the credit it deserves More seriously - there is no known gene responsible for these behaviours that we know of - so until one is found, if it ever happens, Occam's razor suggests it's a problem of nurture, not nature.

Sounds similar to "god of the gaps" reasoning to me. Since we don't know the genetic mechanisms (an area of deep ignorance), you're going to assume "nurture?" Whatever. It was a throwaway point. You completely skipped over my next paragraph that makes the point superfluous. (But at least you got to sneak an argument by authority!) The point here is to imagine how a world could have been better if you were god. We are not limited in this thought experiment to your expertise in genetics or your personal views on the power of "nurture." If we're imagining infinite powers, there is nothing about the logic of freewill that would limit us to supposing that God could create humans that aren't irreparably, uncontrollably shaped by "nurture."

First of all, to use the Exodus as an argument in this debate, you first must prove it really happened, otherwise I could just as easily pick up a fairy tale to prove my point Since I don't think the Bible to be a literal account of the history of the world (and I know you don't either), that topic doesn't prove anything.

I don't think you understand the concept of this thread (a thought experiment), or appreciating that I'm using a reductio ad absurdum. I'm assuming the argument of my opponent to show that it leads to an inconsistent or otherwise untenable result. I don't have to prove Exodus happened in order to show that it undermines another belief being espoused from the perspective of that same worldview.

Secondly, the source of the prevention matters just as much as the motives behind the prevention.

It doesn't matter in the terms of this argument. You haven't shown how it is conceptually different for God to be the preventer or for man to be the preventer. In regards to violating freewill, how is it different?

He would be perfectly successful in preventing 100% of crimes, and no would-be criminal - no matter how prepared or how astute - would be able to avoid getting caught.

Getting caught wouldn't change the fact that the criminal could still choose to attempt the crime. Criminals ignore the consequences all the time. Death penalty doesn't stop murders. You're assuming a level of rationality with these people that I don't believe they exhibit.

Moreover, everyone would know there's no way to get away with a crime - because everyone would know for sure that (a) an omnipotent, omniscient God exists ("why, just yesterday a man tried to mug me and he was shot to death by lightning from the sky...") and that (b) He prevents all crimes from occurring.

I've already covered this possibility in my first post here by supposing that god could supply a memory of committing the act, so that no one would realize they hadn't succeeded in completing it.

Besides, if we're going to assume the Judeo-Christian system, then people should know that they'll get caught with 100% success in the afterlife. Even people who have this belief still sin.

See above - it would be a restriction because even the instant you had a fleeting thought about coveting your neighbour's wife, you'd know without any room for misunderstanding that as soon as you did something in that regard, you'd be unable to complete the deed because God would stop you (maybe also punish you).

But according to the Bible, merely thinking this thought is enough to qualify for the sin. Not the act.

Finally: if the Judeo-Christian God exists, then focusing your speculation on the world we see and touch is limiting. Divine perspective must perforce be different from ours, and if the Judeo-Christian God exists, then an afterlife must also exist, which means that those who suffer in the living world may well be rewarded with an eternity of blessings, for all we know - which incidentally would be a way to both not restrict free will in the living world, and at the same time to ensure that suffering is not in vain.

The point of this thread was to imagine a different world if we were god. Not to be limited by the Judeo-Christian belief system. Rus responded to Rob (page 2?) that we couldn't have a world where people choose no evil. I think we could. My reasoning transcends the Judeo-Christian assumptions, and in fact shows their limits.

That's not a valid argument, because you're still not explaining how you think this should be handled.

Yes I have: if I were god, I'd stop all victimization (from my point of view), and I'd substitute a memory that the deed was done. That would allow people to be free, and stop what I consider to be victimization. I'm god, so I get to decide what is or is not victimization.

I could just as easily counteract with "We're talking about a being with infinite powers. How can you judge His actions without knowing His mind - and therefore without having all the necessary elements to judge objectively?"

Another argument that depends upon ignorance. God of the gaps. Because I don't know, I can't judge? That's like saying you can't can't do science because we can't explain the reason for the mass ratio of protons vs electrons. In this thought experiment, it's sufficient that I've given a noncontradictory version of reality. The burden of proof isn't on me to know the infinite mind of a hypothetical god and eliminate all his potential knowledge. The burden of proof is on anyone who objects to my imaginary world on the basis of it being inconsistent or impossible. You don't have to know the mind of god to do that, but you do have to show where my reality wouldn't work. There is nothing in principle that would make my hypothetical reality impossible, nor is there anything here that would invalidate freewill.

That statement of mine referred to your idea of God preventing crimes; and as I said before, that WOULD violate free will. Therefore, no instance of God preventing any kind of crime would not violate free will.

Well, then explain how the hypothetical Exodus wouldn't violate the freewill of the Egyptians when God directly, miraculously intervened to save the Jews? Your argument is so strict, that you've not only eliminated my version of reality (apparently ), but also the Judeo-Christian one, too. I don't care, I'm an atheist. I have nothing investted in that myth. But you seem to be arguing against my version of reality on the basis of the hypothetical validity of the Judeo-Christian one (as you did above).

Which means of course that the fact God is not preventing crimes in the observable universe therefore doesn't demonstrate anything, least of all God's absence.

My point was never to demonstrate anything about the J-C god on the basis of him not preventing crimes. My point was to demonstrate the fallacies in the idea that preventing crimes would violate freewill, for the purpose of proposing a counter-reality that would be better than this purported one. It is merely a side-benefit that this thought experiment also shows the deficiencies in the hypothetical world of Christianity. Indeed, that's the point of this thread: I can do better than that myth. I don't need to demonstrate God's absence in order to show that I can construct a better myth. But the fact that I can easily construct a better myth certainly casts doubt of the myth of Christianity.

It's the problem of evil, combined with a reductio ad absurdum.

[Xar]

Actually, as a molecular biologist I'd say I'm giving genetics exactly the credit it deserves More seriously - there is no known gene responsible for these behaviours that we know of - so until one is found, if it ever happens, Occam's razor suggests it's a problem of nurture, not nature.

Sounds similar to "god of the gaps" reasoning to me. Since we don't know the genetic mechanisms (an area of deep ignorance), you're going to assume "nurture?" Whatever. It was a throwaway point. You completely skipped over my next paragraph that makes the point superfluous. (But at least you got to sneak an argument by authority!) The point here is to imagine how a world could have been better if you were god. We are not limited in this thought experiment to your expertise in genetics or your personal views on the power of "nurture." If we're imagining infinite powers, there is nothing about the logic of freewill that would limit us to supposing that God could create humans that aren't irreparably, uncontrollably shaped by "nurture."

Sorry, not buying it. Are you saying that science and religion are both flawed? Or do you apply one standard to science and another to religion?
Occam's razor - which is, by the way, an empirical argument often used in science when faced with doubt - states that if you are confronted with two possibilities to explain a particular phenomenon, the simplest one is likely the right one. Incidentally, you yourself use Occam's razor in your reasoning, even if you don't realize it: considering the problem of evil, and being faced with two possibilities (either God doesn't exist, or God exists and therefore there must be a heretofore unknown reason for evil), you choose the simplest one and state that the presence of evil proves there is no God. I'm merely doing the same with the nature vs. nurture thing. But if you say it's a throwaway point, fine by me, let's go on.

Going back to the whole thought experiment point, then I could just as validly state that this is an impossible experiment because your finite mind simply cannot plausibly conceive a scenario in which you would have infinite power. Or to put it another way: because your mind is finite, you cannot grasp infinity, therefore you cannot grasp what it would mean to be omnipotent. Therefore any idea you came up with would be necessarily based on a false assumption - i.e. the assumption you're able to imagine what "omnipotence" entails.

First of all, to use the Exodus as an argument in this debate, you first must prove it really happened, otherwise I could just as easily pick up a fairy tale to prove my point Since I don't think the Bible to be a literal account of the history of the world (and I know you don't either), that topic doesn't prove anything.

I don't think you understand the concept of this thread (a thought experiment), or appreciating that I'm using a reductio ad absurdum. I'm assuming the argument of my opponent to show that it leads to an inconsistent or otherwise untenable result. I don't have to prove Exodus happened in order to show that it undermines another belief being espoused from the perspective of that same worldview.

Sure you do! You may employ reductio ad absurdum and quote the discrepancy between Exodus and the modern world when debating with religious fundamentalists who take the Bible literally, but your whole argument doesn't hold up without evidence as soon as you argue with someone who does not. To put it another way: you say

I'm assuming the argument of my opponent to show that it leads to an inconsistent or otherwise untenable result.

but it's not my argument (nor the argument used by most if not all people here), so you're not really showing any inconsistent or untenable result contingent to the worldview of someone who doesn't take the Bible literally.

Secondly, the source of the prevention matters just as much as the motives behind the prevention.

It doesn't matter in the terms of this argument. You haven't shown how it is conceptually different for God to be the preventer or for man to be the preventer. In regards to violating freewill, how is it different?

Again, apples and oranges. Human crime prevention systems aren't based on a mandate from heaven: in fact, they are not an absolute phenomenon. Cavemen didn't have policemen and tribunals to deal with Caveman A who killed Caveman B; in many societies, these deeds were even encouraged, at least partially. Reducing the whole discussion to the importance of free will: if God prevented crime Himself, he would be impinging on humankind's free will by preventing some humans from exercising it (the criminals, for example). There simply is no way to defy an omniscient and omnipotent God. On the other hand, a human-created crime prevention system - say, the police - is based on the concept of free will: policemen choose to become policemen, they choose to enforce the law, and a criminal can defy a policeman and get away with it. Heck, a policeman could even choose to let a blatant criminal run away, and face the consequences.
Human crime prevention is created by non-infallible beings and represents a clash of equally valid exercises of free will - the policeman's will to capture the criminal vs the criminal's will to commit the crime. Because the pendulum can swing both ways, both can win or lose - and suffer the consequences. This is critical to free will - do what you want and pay the consequences. How could you fulfill that mantra if God prevented you perfectly?

In any case, my initial understanding of your thought experiment was that the God in it would blast people to smithereens - so I apologize for the misunderstanding here. I've taken your rectification into account in the later points.

He would be perfectly successful in preventing 100% of crimes, and no would-be criminal - no matter how prepared or how astute - would be able to avoid getting caught.

Getting caught wouldn't change the fact that the criminal could still choose to attempt the crime. Criminals ignore the consequences all the time. Death penalty doesn't stop murders. You're assuming a level of rationality with these people that I don't believe they exhibit.

That's your opinion. Many criminals have perfectly valid reasons (in their minds) for what they did, and these reasons may even be entirely rational, even if amoral.

But step back a bit and consider teenagers. We know teenagers often attempt dangerous stunts, sometimes attempting to steal things or do something similar for "the thrill". "The thrill" refers to danger - the danger of getting hurt, or the danger of getting caught. But do you think they would truly do anything that brash if they knew, with 100% certainty, that they WOULD get caught? Remember - in your thought experiment, people must necessarily know that God exists because, well, even if you implanted memories in the criminal that he performed the act and prevented him from truly performing it, after 3-4 centuries of memory discrepancies ("how comes this guy remembers raping you at the party, and neither you nor your friends have ever seen him?"), even the thickest-headed people would realize there's a powerful agency preventing crime and modifying memories. And that's not counting the possibility the God you describe actually came out into the open and stated what was going on!

Moreover, everyone would know there's no way to get away with a crime - because everyone would know for sure that (a) an omnipotent, omniscient God exists ("why, just yesterday a man tried to mug me and he was shot to death by lightning from the sky...") and that (b) He prevents all crimes from occurring.

I've already covered this possibility in my first post here by supposing that god could supply a memory of committing the act, so that no one would realize they hadn't succeeded in completing it.

Which is of course what I referred to in the earlier paragraph. If your thought experiment suggests that both the would-be criminal and the would-be victim would get false memories implanted, then where would be the difference between this and actually committing the act? And if it's only the criminal getting the false memories, how could people not realize what's going on after hundreds of thousands of situations in which one person remembers committing a crime and the supposed victim is objectively fine and clearly has no memory of the fact? Either you'd have half the population of the world in an asylum, or you'd have everyone convinced something is preventing all crimes with 100% accuracy.

Besides, if we're going to assume the Judeo-Christian system, then people should know that they'll get caught with 100% success in the afterlife. Even people who have this belief still sin.

True, but they rationalize it within their framework. Besides, scientific studies have demonstrated that humankind is unable to process the concept of long-term consequences years in the future: in other words, while you could hesitate to commit a crime if you knew a policeman was nearby and there was a high likelihood he'd arrest you and throw you into prison (an immediate consequence, i.e. being locked up would occur soon, even if it the sentence itself later stretches for years), you would not hesitate if you knew you would be arrested 40 years later. This is scientifically proved. The knowledge of an afterlife of punishment in the distant future is not enough to prevent crimes (or sin, in the case you describe) even among deeply religious people.

See above - it would be a restriction because even the instant you had a fleeting thought about coveting your neighbour's wife, you'd know without any room for misunderstanding that as soon as you did something in that regard, you'd be unable to complete the deed because God would stop you (maybe also punish you).

But according to the Bible, merely thinking this thought is enough to qualify for the sin. Not the act.

Sure, but I'm not talking about sinning here; I'm talking about committing to a physical course of action following your free will to do so.

Finally: if the Judeo-Christian God exists, then focusing your speculation on the world we see and touch is limiting. Divine perspective must perforce be different from ours, and if the Judeo-Christian God exists, then an afterlife must also exist, which means that those who suffer in the living world may well be rewarded with an eternity of blessings, for all we know - which incidentally would be a way to both not restrict free will in the living world, and at the same time to ensure that suffering is not in vain.

The point of this thread was to imagine a different world if we were god. Not to be limited by the Judeo-Christian belief system. Rus responded to Rob (page 2?) that we couldn't have a world where people choose no evil. I think we could. My reasoning transcends the Judeo-Christian assumptions, and in fact shows their limits. [(quote]

That's your opinion - I think your reasoning simply replaces Judeo-Christian assumptions with your own, but this is my opinion

That's not a valid argument, because you're still not explaining how you think this should be handled.

Yes I have: if I were god, I'd stop all victimization (from my point of view), and I'd substitute a memory that the deed was done. That would allow people to be free, and stop what I consider to be victimization. I'm god, so I get to decide what is or is not victimization.

See above.

I could just as easily counteract with "We're talking about a being with infinite powers. How can you judge His actions without knowing His mind - and therefore without having all the necessary elements to judge objectively?"

Another argument that depends upon ignorance. God of the gaps. Because I don't know, I can't judge? That's like saying you can't can't do science because we can't explain the reason for the mass ratio of protons vs electrons.

Apples and oranges again (I like this metaphor ): science cannot explain the reason but it's looking for it; but your mind is objectively finite and no matter what you do, will never be able to grasp infinity or eternity. And by the way: the entire judiciary system is based on the concept that if you can't prove someone's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, then you can't judge that person guilty. Just saying...

In this thought experiment, it's sufficient that I've given a noncontradictory version of reality. The burden of proof isn't on me to know the infinite mind of a hypothetical god and eliminate all his potential knowledge. The burden of proof is on anyone who objects to my imaginary world on the basis of it being inconsistent or impossible. You don't have to know the mind of god to do that, but you do have to show where my reality wouldn't work. There is nothing in principle that would make my hypothetical reality impossible, nor is there anything here that would invalidate freewill.

Again, that's your opinion. In my opinion your world is contradictory (for the reasons stated above re: memories), and it invalidates free will in that you are forcing people not to act according to their desires. Think on it: once the people in your world realize they cannot physically commit crimes, would that make them behave better? Or would it only add to their frustration (thereby stunting their potential growth and realization of the enormity of their deeds)? Maybe it would even degrade morality in your world: a person who "murdered" somebody might figure out that, hey, if there are no consequences and he can still "get the rush" so to speak (because he'd remember the murder and getting away with it), why not do it another time? And maybe another?

That statement of mine referred to your idea of God preventing crimes; and as I said before, that WOULD violate free will. Therefore, no instance of God preventing any kind of crime would not violate free will.

Well, then explain how the hypothetical Exodus wouldn't violate the freewill of the Egyptians when God directly, miraculously intervened to save the Jews? Your argument is so strict, that you've not only eliminated my version of reality (apparently ), but also the Judeo-Christian one, too. I don't care, I'm an atheist. I have nothing investted in that myth. But you seem to be arguing against my version of reality on the basis of the hypothetical validity of the Judeo-Christian one (as you did above).

Why should I explain away the literal tale of Exodus if I already stated I don't believe in it as it is literally presented? BTW, most Christians outside the U.S. do not take the Bible literally either, so the "Judeo-Christian version of reality" you refer to has nothing to fear from my argument - unlike the "taking the Bible literally" version of reality

Which means of course that the fact God is not preventing crimes in the observable universe therefore doesn't demonstrate anything, least of all God's absence.

My point was never to demonstrate anything about the J-C god on the basis of him not preventing crimes. My point was to demonstrate the fallacies in the idea that preventing crimes would violate freewill, for the purpose of proposing a counter-reality that would be better than this purported one. It is merely a side-benefit that this thought experiment also shows the deficiencies in the hypothetical world of Christianity. Indeed, that's the point of this thread: I can do better than that myth. I don't need to demonstrate God's absence in order to show that I can construct a better myth. But the fact that I can easily construct a better myth certainly casts doubt of the myth of Christianity.

My opinion is that you didn't succeed, only replaced some assumptions with others... Then again, to each his own

[rusmeister]

Except that no one here feels the need to extensively quote Donaldson when trying to make a point about anti-fundamentalism, or tells people that if they want to understand anti-fundamentalism, they should read Donaldson's books.

I'm afraid Fist is right: he is not debating with Chesterton or Lewis, he's debating with you, and he wants to know what you think. Even if you agree with Chesterton and Lewis, Fist still wants to hear their arguments through the filter of your mind, so to speak.

Also...

but to say that he doesn't get to his point to me, when I know that he does, tells me volumes.

You know he does get to his point because of your own perception and beliefs. Fist is entitled to his opinion just as you are entitled to yours: if he doesn't like Chesterton's style, he should not be forced to read the book anyway as the only possible way to understand where you're coming from. Hence the need for you to paraphrase Chesterton's beliefs, even if you're in complete agreement with him...

Hi Xar,
On the first, that just shows up the limits of the analogy for me. There are many directions that I do not intend the analogy that you can take it in; I readily admit that I am not a master of analogy (as Chesterton was, btw).

So on to the second. Of course Fist wants to debate me. Perhaps some of you are fully as busy as I am (although to me it seems difficult to beat three jobs and four children, I grant that it is possible). The kind of things that I see that need to be written to get across what is now a totally alien POV to you guys is beyond my strength. Even the "small steps" are so wrapped up in sophistry that every single question has to go back to root thought; it cannot be dealt with by quick surface answers AND deliver that the POV is actually sensible, let alone convince. Too many assumptions are buried everywhere now. Certainly people can wait for me to post my thoughts - and I have posted reams, and they are hardly 10% of what I do think. So many things involve what I have learned, slowly, over a period of seven years (and that, after telescoping the rest of my life) - how could I get all of that across, even in a hundred posts? Since the things that first convinced me (by Lewis - the baby steps) were based a great deal on my experience, and prior knowledge - I encountered thought that was shatteringly convincing, because it explained my whole life - everything. Chesterton was much later - and more advanced thought. I bow before my masters - they are better thinkers than me, a purely mediocre thinker. So debate me. Fine. And even after you have won, I tell you that you have not defeated the best. You could say that by defeating me, you have just defeated something a little better than a scarecrow.

On the last, yes, I get your main point. But it is something that for the twin reasons of the enormous complexity required (which I think I CAN deal with, otherwise I would not have accepted Fist's challenge - and I admit that in our one conversation, the ball is in my court) and my personal/family circumstances, which work directly against those requirements, and I have many ongoing conversations competing. I was hoping that Fist would understand GKC's points, even if he disagreed with them, but if he does not, which seems at the moment to be the case, then he must await me. I would've recommended ch 5 "The Story of the Family" to get more directly to the point we were talking about and that I intend to use as a springboard, but if the writer is altogether not understood, it is pointless to recommend it. It will have to await my interpretation - which could be well into April or May. I was hoping to get ahead of the curve, and reading and understanding dead authors would help the impatient.

Still, you say, Fist is entitled to his opinion. I say, let him show me where Chesterton does not get to his point and I will show him where he did not understand. There are not two different answers to this question, both equally correct. Chesterton had one intent, so to speak, not two or twenty. Fist either understands it, or he does not. (See my siggy) As someone who actually claims to understand GKC, I challenge him to tell me what he does not understand, rather than just say "He is a bad writer, and I want to hear what you think." I will interpret and show that I DO understand. I want to 'up the bar', to deal with the very best thoughts on a subject, not wallow in mediocrity forever. I equally invite challenges from Bertrand Russell and others admired by various people here (since I've already defeated Russell in hand-to-hand, this may not be fair, so I won't insist on him).

[Zarathustra]

Xar, I have no interest in debating nature vs nurture or Occam’s razor in this thread. I shouldn’t have taken the bait. It has nothing to do with my point, except to say that an omnipotent being could overcome either explanation for why some people choose “good” and why some choose “evil.” If it’s genes, a god would never have to make “attracted to children genes” or “resolve conflict with violence” genes. If it’s environment/upbringing, then a god wouldn’t have to make people such that they are shaped by these factors to the degree that they feel pressure to act along these routes. If neither of these were the case--nurture or nature causing people to perform evils acts--not only would people still retain their freewill despite not wanting to victimize each other, but they’d actually be MORE free because they wouldn’t be “slaves” to their genes or upbringing. If genes and/or upbringing explains these choices, then we’re not talking about freewill anyway.

I don't want to victimize people. Whether it's my upbringing or my genes, it's not my choice. I simply don't want to do it. I don't have to try not to. It has nothing to do with willpower . . . and yet I'm still free.

Going back to the whole thought experiment point, then I could just as validly state that this is an impossible experiment because your finite mind simply cannot plausibly conceive a scenario in which you would have infinite power. Or to put it another way: because your mind is finite, you cannot grasp infinity, therefore you cannot grasp what it would mean to be omnipotent. Therefore any idea you came up with would be necessarily based on a false assumption - i.e. the assumption you're able to imagine what "omnipotence" entails.

Granted, from my limited perspective I can’t imagine with full clarity all the details of omnipotence. But I can understand what you mean when you say it, and what I mean when I say it. This doesn’t stop us from imagining how we’d change the world, no more than our finite minds stops us from dealing with infinite sets in mathematics. I can say, for instance, that I’d create a world without victimization, and there is no rational reason to use my finitude as an excuse to say this is impossible for me to imagine.

it's not my argument (nor the argument used by most if not all people here), so you're not really showing any inconsistent or untenable result contingent to the worldview of someone who doesn't take the Bible literally.

I was specifically arguing against the idea, given by an Orthodox Christian, that god couldn’t created people who don’t choose evil without violating their freewill. Apparently, this concept is necessary to that particular worldview. So if I can show that this worldview contains apparent “violations” of freewill by god, then no argument from that worldview can be used to consistently maintain that this is necessary to reality. If it doesn’t apply to you, then we don’t need to discuss it.

if God prevented crime Himself, he would be impinging on humankind's free will by preventing some humans from exercising it (the criminals, for example). There simply is no way to defy an omniscient and omnipotent God. On the other hand, a human-created crime prevention system - say, the police - is based on the concept of free will: policemen choose to become policemen, they choose to enforce the law, and a criminal can defy a policeman and get away with it. Heck, a policeman could even choose to let a blatant criminal run away, and face the consequences.

I do not agree that the ability to successfully exercise freewill (in all cases) is necessary to having freewill. I think that intent is sufficient, especially if you combine it with the illusion of successful fulfillment. For this thought experiment, I’d have no problem tricking evil people into thinking they were successful if that’s the price to stop victimization. I personally believe that’s a better reality than people actually victimizing each other. [Though you have a good point, see below.]

. . . even if you implanted memories in the criminal that he performed the act and prevented him from truly performing it, after 3-4 centuries of memory discrepancies ("how comes this guy remembers raping you at the party, and neither you nor your friends have ever seen him?"), even the thickest-headed people would realize there's a powerful agency preventing crime and modifying memories.

Hmm . . . not a bad point. I think that it could be overcome; seems like a practical issue rather than an issue of principle. However, it does seem to introduce unacceptable levels of illusion into reality to make it work. I’ll concede the point, and fall back on my claim that a god could simply create people who aren’t attracted to children, who don’t want to murder, etc.

Or, we could just accept a reality where certain acts are impossible. I can’t breath in a vacuum. Why should I be able to kill someone? If impossibility doesn’t violate my freewill in some situations, then why it should it violate my freewill in others? The moral aspect of murder vs vacuum-breathing doesn’t make a difference to me, since I don’t believe the universe has a preference between humans being able to kill and being able to breathe in a vacuum; there is no absolute good/evil. Therefore, we’re only talking about human preferences anyway. People could still have freewill, and not violate each other’s preferences. There is no reason why reality couldn’t act on the same principles as America (for instance): your right to swing your fist stops at my nose. Isn’t this the kind of society we’re trying to perfect anyway? One where our rights are protected? I suppose I’m willing to give up that measure of freewill in order to preserve the right to not be victimized. Just like I'm willing to jail people for raping my kids. Perhaps I’d be a benevolent enough god to put it to a vote. We could even have different realms of reality for different groups of people who agree to different sets of rights.

Or would it only add to their frustration (thereby stunting their potential growth and realization of the enormity of their deeds)?

I suppose I’m not as interested in helping assholes grow as I am helping innocent people not become their victims. Just like I am in real life. I don't believe your right to (potentially) grow from your victimization of others trumps their rights to not be victimized. Does that make me Warden Dios? Damnit, maybe it does.

Maybe it would even degrade morality in your world: a person who "murdered" somebody might figure out that, hey, if there are no consequences and he can still "get the rush" so to speak (because he'd remember the murder and getting away with it), why not do it another time? And maybe another?

You mean like a video game? I love first-person shooters. If people could satisfy their blood-lust with simulations, I’d have no problem with that.

Why should I explain away the literal tale of Exodus if I already stated I don't believe in it as it is literally presented?

Okay, so we agree that the J-C god, as presented literally in the Bible, cannot possibly be considered an example of a god who refrains from violating freewill. We’re on the same page there. Good.

[Avatar]

Good posts guys. I guess I can't really take part in this one. Technically, I agree with Z...if we hypothesise that god is an omnipotent being, it could have created a world without murder etc.

But it's purely hypothetical. Xar would be equally within his rights to say that it didn't want to. Or it didn't fit in with its plan, and that's why we have murder etc.

As somebody who doesn't even believe in an objective morality, let alone an omnipotent creator, I know that we will always hve murder etc. In fact, I think murder is perfectly natural, just like anything else which is possible in nature.

We can agree subjectively and sociologically that it's wrong or immoral, but nothing we ever do will eradicate it. The best we can probably manage is the promise to punish it when it happens. We can't actually do anything about it.

I don't even think we'll ever reach the point where everybody agrees we shouldn't do it. There will always be exceptions, as well as circumstances in which we think we should do it.

--A

[rusmeister]

Good posts guys. I guess I can't really take part in this one. Technically, I agree with Z...if we hypothesise that god is an omnipotent being, it could have created a world without murder etc.

But it's purely hypothetical. Xar would be equally within his rights to say that it didn't want to. Or it didn't fit in with its plan, and that's why we have murder etc.

As somebody who doesn't even believe in an objective morality, let alone an omnipotent creator, I know that we will always hve murder etc. In fact, I think murder is perfectly natural, just like anything else which is possible in nature.

We can agree subjectively and sociologically that it's wrong or immoral, but nothing we ever do will eradicate it. The best we can probably manage is the promise to punish it when it happens. We can't actually do anything about it.

I don't even think we'll ever reach the point where everybody agrees we shouldn't do it. There will always be exceptions, as well as circumstances in which we think we should do it.

--A

Of course, some of us maintain that God DID create a world without murder. It was the free will of one man by which sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

[Fist and Faith]

I thought it was a woman that did us all in???

*duck & cover*

[rusmeister]

I thought it was a woman that did us all in???

*duck & cover*

Actually, Adam could have said 'no' to Eve and the buck would've stopped there. I suppose one could speculate on the difference that would've made.

If you look, you'll notice that Scripture and Tradition lay the big buck on Adam. It might be drawn that he could've stopped or mollified the Fall. There are some interesting things to think about within that tradition that I'll bet few people do. Like the fact that Adam lived for hundreds of years post-Fall with the knowledge that he blew it and that it was all his fault, one son murders the other and takes it on the lam, that everything came back to his own choice to say 'no' to God and 'yes' to himself in a Paradise with the shortest list of commandments ever... When I saw an Orthodox iconic representation of him I was really surprised to see an old man with a long beard, after being so used to the image of a young naked man.

Lewis's "Perelandra" (the 2nd novel of his "space trilogy") gives some good ideas on what a pre-Fall world might have been like.

[Fist and Faith]

If you look, you'll notice that Scripture and Tradition lay the big buck on Adam. It might be drawn that he could've stopped or mollified the Fall.

Since the Fall wouldn't have happened if Eve hadn't eaten it in the first place, I wonder why Adam gets the blame.

[aliantha]

If you look, you'll notice that Scripture and Tradition lay the big buck on Adam. It might be drawn that he could've stopped or mollified the Fall.

Since the Fall wouldn't have happened if Eve hadn't eaten it in the first place, I wonder why Adam gets the blame.

I'd say something about how it's clearly because women are weak and men are supposed to be stronger and more sensible, so of *course* Adam would be more at fault. But if I did, I'd likely get a lecture from rus...

[Orlion]

If you look, you'll notice that Scripture and Tradition lay the big buck on Adam. It might be drawn that he could've stopped or mollified the Fall.

Since the Fall wouldn't have happened if Eve hadn't eaten it in the first place, I wonder why Adam gets the blame.

If we're looking at the culture of the time, I'd say it's because Eve is Adam's responsibility, so he bears quite a bit of the blame. It'd be like if your child came up to you with a gun and said that he shot someone and you should shoot someone too so that you would be able to remain a family in prison (*sigh*, me and my weird analogies). Both you and your child would have committed a crime, but I bet that courts would find you to be more responsible. Is this a little sexist? Yeah, but that's your source material!


Some more recent religious thoughts identify Eve as being the more spiritually inclined, that at some unconscious level, she knew that for humanity to rise up to be co-inheritors with God, they'd have to "de-base" themselves first. As a result, some credit Eve as being the one who made our divine potential possible.

[Fist and Faith]

Yeah, but I'm wondering what the Christian answer is.

[Cybrweez]

Some speculate its b/c Eve was deceived, whereas Adam chose to follow Eve rather than God.

But it could be b/c Adam was the head, and did have authority over Eve, he was ultimately responsible.

In any case, the why is somewhat secondary, b/c as has been demonstrated quite a few times here in the Close, people still think the Bible or any church teaches that it's woman's fault, a complete ignorance.

[Avatar]

Yeah, have to agree with 'Weez there. The bible and church is actualy a lot less down on Eve than I'd originally thought.

--A

[Fist and Faith]

I didn't really know until now. But if I had to guess, I'd've guessed Eve was primarily blamed, because of that thing about making childbirth more painful.

Anyway, no need for me to chime in with my opinion of all this.

[Zarathustra]

Forget debating whether sin would still transfer if only Eve had sinned . . . what we really need to focus on is how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

[Avatar]

Bah, that's easy...the only real limit is the big gaps between the atoms.

--A

[Orlion]

Forget debating whether sin would still transfer if only Eve had sinned . . . what we really need to focus on is how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

If I were God... 63.

[Cybrweez]

But Fist, there was a curse on Adam too, that work would suck.

[Avatar]

Well that one came true too.

--A