Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[¿]

In my opinion, the "without bad there is no good" Yin-Yang fallacy doesn't hold up simply because it wouldn't be so if God didn't want it so.

Not his decision. Good and Evil are more or less our own invention from our limited comprehension. In an omnipotent being's terms, they are one and the same.

Then that goes back around to "why free will"? I don't know. But I like it. I'll still take it over being one of Grek's robot people, which I'd assume an omnipotent being would know.

[Cyx]

I'm still talking about a benevolent God here, and I'll suppose you are too: if an evil thing is merely a good thing we can't understand as such, then we'd have to revise our moral system, because the sense that harming others is bad isn't justified anymore if happiness and suffering are one and the same in our God's eyes.

But if God was a higher being, although not morally inclined, or if there was no God at all, then the yin-yang theory would be interesting because it would apply inside our own understanding of the world to point out the limitations of our (moral, notably) perceptions. But it's rather about God's perception we are talking about, I think.

Actually, thinking about it, don't you feel that free will (as ability not to do the right thing) in the christian God's universe is ridiculous ? The only way you can use it is by performing evil deeds, yet these can only be done out of ignorance of what is right, impotence to do what is right, or just plain cruelty that'll probably lead you right to Hell.

(Sorry for the english mistakes I've probably made throughout the thread. Please point them to me if you've got time on your hands.)

[Grek]

Then that goes back around to "why free will"? I don't know. But I like it. I'll still take it over being one of Grek's robot people, which I'd assume an omnipotent being would know.

Determinism fully allows for emotions, FYI.

[LegoLord]

Then that goes back around to "why free will"? I don't know. But I like it. I'll still take it over being one of Grek's robot people, which I'd assume an omnipotent being would know.

Determinism fully allows for emotions, FYI.

Dude, face it.  Hardly anyone seems to like that idea.

[¿]

The only way you can use [free will] is by performing evil deeds, yet these can only be done out of ignorance of what is right, impotence to do what is right, or just plain cruelty that'll probably lead you right to Hell.

I and many others have always had the nagging suspicion some grand experiment or test is at hand. Besides, we wouldn't have free will if we couldn't choose do something that would lead us straight to hell. Though I've always considered that you have to know what is right to be punished for doing otherwise, so I think ignorance can be crossed off your list.

[Earthquake Damage]

Without free will we are little more than emotionless robots.  Why emotionless?  Well, if your emotions are decided for you by something else, are you really feeling emotions?

Yes.  Yes, you are.  You're asking "if X is true, and Y is true, then is X true?"  Of course you're "really feeling" those emotions.  Feel free to make whatever value judgments you like about X, but don't try to say "if X then not X" or something equally silly.

Then that goes back around to "why free will"? I don't know. But I like it. I'll still take it over being one of Grek's robot people, which I'd assume an omnipotent being would know.

And how do you know you do possess free will?

[¿]

And how do you know you do possess free will?

Because right now I have the choice to commit abominations. I can willingly be dysfunctional of all purposes. I am physically capable, and the only thing stopping me is me (and immense social pressure), but the power is still there in everyone. If there were not simply pressures keeping me, but actual solid programming rendering me incapable of being intentionally dysfunctional like an actual robot, then I would not. Although I have not tested this myself (which I believe is a choice of my own free will), I see other humans exert such power and so I think it safe to assume I can as well.

[Strife26]

I have free will becuase I have free will. My perceptions are my (our) entire existence.

[¿]

I have free will becuase I have free will. My perceptions are my (our) entire existence.

I love self-centered universes because I love them.

[Strife26]

The idea behind my unclear statement was the idea that I can't tell if I have free will, but becuase I don't do anything I (think) I wouldn't have done, it makes no difference if I have free will or not-really-free-but-impossible-to-tell-will.

[Andir]

Now stop bashing other people's beliefs.  You have nothing solid to do so with, and they have nothing solid with which to do that to you.  It's fine if you don't believe in a religion, but saying it's wrong is an extremely close-minded view, especially when you attempt to prove it wrong.

Did anyone else find this extremely ironic?

You are, in fact, trying to prove disbelief wrong and bashing those that would choose to do so by saying they are close minded...

[Strife26]

No, he's trying to prove that bashing beliefs is bad. Don't identify yourself and your cause too closely.

[Andir]

No, he's trying to prove that bashing beliefs is bad. Don't identify yourself and your cause too closely.

Then simply posting in this thread has defied that teaching.

[Strife26]

It seemed that your argument was identifing your critiques of religon with religon itself, thereby preventing agument about the critiques, as it would be self-hypocritical.

[Andir]

It seemed that your argument was identifing your critiques of religon with religon itself, thereby preventing agument about the critiques, as it would be self-hypocritical.

Precisely, so what's the point in religion at all?  If you cannot identify exactly what "God" is and what he/she/it wants or desires that you do, then why practice religion at all in hopes that you might pick the right answer?