Why would a perfect being make an imperfect world?

[Godscreated]

I made it very clear, I'm not sure why you can't understand what I said. Here it is one more time, the only true will you have is choosing Christ or rejecting Him, outside that all bets are off.
I do not see how I can make this any clearer.

GC

Christ, would you relax?  I didn't remember you saying that.

I'm not uptight, I said you didn't read my post to you, how hard could it have been to find. I found it to make sure of exactly what I had said.

What you are saying is that free will is both vitally important and not very important at all.

No, you are reading that into my statement an atheist strategy to avoid the truth. If you would go back and read my first post to you you would see how important free will is. Free will can't be important and unimportant to a person. It's one or the other.

And before Jesus existed, free will didn't exist.  Nobody could choose to accept or reject a savior before he existed and nobody was expected to.  So, early on, free will was also not at all important to God.

Jesus has always existed, the Hebrew's have been expecting Him when the exile began. God has always existed and the acceptance of Him is through free will. Free will was so important to God from the beginning that He allowed Adam and Eve to choose to disobey Him. He wasn't going to interfere with perfect love. Adam and Eve chose to destroy that relationship.

I think you are a bit confused as to the nature of free will.  Free will is the ability to act freely according to my own will.  What you're talking about is the ability to make one single, extremely specific choice.

I'm very clear on what free will mean, if you had read the first post I made to you you would know what I was saying. So try reading it.

GC

I owe you an apology, I confused my posting to Aurora with posting to you, I'm sorry. The post I refer to is #19.

GC

[Drich]

But again what makes you think any of what happened was a mistake? God placing the tree of Knowledge in the center of the garden indicates a design point, not a mistake.

Again, it's not about right or wrong it was about electing the knowledge of Good and evil for ourselves that set us on a path of spiritual growth. Which according to his design was purposed from the beginning. God created Spiritual infants and when we got old enough he allowed us to grow through sin.

Idk the whole "I'm not pleased time to fuck this shit up with water lol" very subtly hints at mistake to me.

If it were a mistake why preserve any of it? why not just wipe it all out with the water?

[Socrates]

Idk the whole "I'm not pleased time to fuck this shit up with water lol" very subtly hints at mistake to me.

If it were a mistake why preserve any of it? why not just wipe it all out with the water?

If you made a mistake on your homework would you throw the whole worksheet out, or would you fix the problems you got wrong?

[SteveII]

---

You say there is no evidence for Free Will. Isn't your conclusion that there is no Free Will based on naturalism--a philosophical position, and not based on science or other concrete 'evidence'? Why should I believe your ideology that there is nothing but natural properties and causes when I have very good reason to suspect there is more than that? In case you are going to ask what are my reasons, I would reply that Naturalism does not address why:

a. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.
b. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
c. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
d. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.
e. God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

a. no it isn't, it's overly complicated and only raises more difficult questions.
b. no it isn't, it's overly complicated and only raises more difficult questions.
c. no it isn't, it's overly complicated and only raises more difficult questions.
d. no it isn't, it's overly complicated and only raises more difficult questions.
e. no it isn't, it's overly complicated and only raises more difficult questions.

Determinism is not a philosophical position any more than atheism is.  I just don't believe in it, as there is no scientific evidence it exists.  I'm an a-free-will-ist.  
You assert it exists, much like God, so it's on you to show me evidence that it does. You also assert there is something aside from the natural, so that's on you too.

Show me evidence of a choice made that was not affected by prior causes, ever, in all of human history. Go ahead, I'll just wait right here........

Determinism is a doctrine that stems from a metaphysical naturalism worldview--there only exists material properties and causes. This is most definitely a philosophical position.

Your question: "Show me evidence of a choice made that was not affected by prior causes, ever, in all of human history." does nothing to undermine the argument of Free Will. Of course every choice is informed by our past...and our present.  The question remains do we have a choice to act. 

I think the best evidence is the mind/brain relationship. What evidence does neuroscience provide that the mind is identical to our brain, and therefore material? 

Not everything that goes on in our mind is causally determined by our bodies. Sometime what goes on in our bodies is a result of what goes on in our mind. I am choosing to reply to you and do the necessary chores of getting sentences down on the screen. We have mental-to-physical causation. The explanation of both the choice I made and the physical events going on in my body is for the purpose of defending my position. A purposeful explanation is a teleological explanation and a teleological explanation is not a deterministic one. 

Secondly, electrodes can be used to stimulate the brain to do different things (make a noise, raise a hand, etc.). However the patient always says something like "I didn't do that, you did that". There is no place that can be stimulated to cause a patient to decide to do something. 

Lastly, while there is a causal dependency of the mind events on the brain events, you cannot confuse correlation with identity. It does not follow that if two events are correlated, that they are identical.

[The Valkyrie]

"Why would a perfect being make an imperfect world?"

To make fiction a popular genre?

[SteveII]

First, it does not follow that if Free Will is important in this life, it must be important in the next. Second, Free Will for the sake of Free Will is not what God measures as important in this life, it is what you do with the Free Will--choosing God. If you achieved this, the purpose of Free Will has been complete. 

And Free Will is certainly throughout the Bible. Even with your objection that God tampers with it...isn't that just further proof that it exists?

My objection that God tampers with it was simply a way of pointing out that it wasn't apparently that important.  Pharaoh was not given the opportunity to "choose God".

Where, in the Bible, does it in any way mention "free will"?  Yes, you can choose or reject God, but again, that is a single choice, not an overall "free will" theme.

And quick note, the definition of "free will" the two of you are using doesn't match.  On says it's "choosing Christ", the other "choosing God".  It's almost as if you guys are making this shit up as you go along.  Oh wait...YOU ARE!

So you admit that the Bible teaches that we have free will to "choose or reject God." So then regarding all 10 commandments and the 1000 other rules in the OT, that would just be more "choosing God?" The prophets and psalmist that lament the choices that people have made was more "choosing God?" The proverbs that tell you the best way to live, were more "choosing God?" Paul's teaching on the fruits of the spirit and chapter after chapter of Christian living were just more "choosing god?". So, you simply defined everything in the Bible as "choosing God" and then exempted it from the "overall free will theme". You don't seem to have a firm grasp on the issue. 

Are you really distinguishing between "Christ" and "God" as an argument that we are making things up? Ugh.

[Aroura]

---

a. no it isn't, it's overly complicated and only raises more difficult questions.
b. no it isn't, it's overly complicated and only raises more difficult questions.
c. no it isn't, it's overly complicated and only raises more difficult questions.
d. no it isn't, it's overly complicated and only raises more difficult questions.
e. no it isn't, it's overly complicated and only raises more difficult questions.

Determinism is not a philosophical position any more than atheism is.  I just don't believe in it, as there is no scientific evidence it exists.  I'm an a-free-will-ist.  
You assert it exists, much like God, so it's on you to show me evidence that it does. You also assert there is something aside from the natural, so that's on you too.

Show me evidence of a choice made that was not affected by prior causes, ever, in all of human history. Go ahead, I'll just wait right here........

Determinism is a doctrine that stems from a metaphysical naturalism worldview--there only exists material properties and causes. This is most definitely a philosophical position.

Your question: "Show me evidence of a choice made that was not affected by prior causes, ever, in all of human history." does nothing to undermine the argument of Free Will. Of course every choice is informed by our past...and our present.  The question remains do we have a choice to act. 

I think the best evidence is the mind/brain relationship. What evidence does neuroscience provide that the mind is identical to our brain, and therefore material? 

Not everything that goes on in our mind is causally determined by our bodies. Sometime what goes on in our bodies is a result of what goes on in our mind. I am choosing to reply to you and do the necessary chores of getting sentences down on the screen. We have mental-to-physical causation. The explanation of both the choice I made and the physical events going on in my body is for the purpose of defending my position. A purposeful explanation is a teleological explanation and a teleological explanation is not a deterministic one. 

Secondly, electrodes can be used to stimulate the brain to do different things (make a noise, raise a hand, etc.). However the patient always says something like "I didn't do that, you did that". There is no place that can be stimulated to cause a patient to decide to do something. 

Lastly, while there is a causal dependency of the mind events on the brain events, you cannot confuse correlation with identity. It does not follow that if two events are correlated, that they are identical.

Everything that goes on in your mind may not be caused by the body, but it caused by something.  You think you are "choosing" to reply to me, but it is just output based on input.
Everthying we have observed is caused (or perhaps random), but in the macro world, caused.  You don't get to insert magic if you cannot find the exact cause.  This is just God of the Gaps inserted into the free-will argument.

You have demonstrating nothing but weak arguments based on presuppositions that are themselves unproven (Duality of Mind is BS, and presupposed the supernatural to explain the mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_(p...y_of_mind)) for free-will, no evidence, and not even strong logical arguments.  Show me evidence for the supernatural, now.  Every statement you make is just based on one more unsupported claim.

[Neo-Scholastic]

A perfect being wouldn't make a world at all. They'd be so perfect they would be all that would be required to exist. In fact they wouldn't do anything, they'd be changeless. Nothing would need to happen. Everything would be perfect.

It is an interesting paradox. I think the answer is that He creates out of love. He needs nothing from us but gave us life from His abundance and opportunities to enjoy it.

---

So basically, all of you, 5 answering so far, depend entirely on the notion of freewill to explain pretty much everything. Quite the loophole it provides.

So this thread is destined to turn into yet another thread on freewill, and how it magically explains everything, even though there's as much evidence for it as there is for God, which is to say none. Your god delusion is dependent on a grand illusion, lol.

You say there is no evidence for Free Will. Isn't your conclusion that there is no Free Will based on naturalism--a philosophical position, and not based on science or other concrete 'evidence'? Why should I believe your ideology that there is nothing but natural properties and causes when I have very good reason to suspect there is more than that? In case you are going to ask what are my reasons, I would reply that Naturalism does not address why:

a. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.
b. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
c. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
d. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.
e. God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

Not sure about B and C, but the rest are clearly the case.

[Asmodee]

Christ, would you relax?  I didn't remember you saying that.

I'm not uptight, I said you didn't read my post to you, how hard could it have been to find. I found it to make sure of exactly what I had said.

"Your first post to me", what, today? In this thread? Ever? I don't remember ever reading that before so I asked for some fucking clarification. Let's make a federal fucking case out of me asking for clarification rather than going back and finding it myself. I'm fucking sorry.

What you are saying is that free will is both vitally important and not very important at all.

No, you are reading that into my statement an atheist strategy to avoid the truth. If you would go back and read my first post to you you would see how important free will is. Free will can't be important and unimportant to a person. It's one or the other.

No, I'm trying to understand your apparently contradictory stance. It appears to be both important and unimportant to God.

And before Jesus existed, free will didn't exist.  Nobody could choose to accept or reject a savior before he existed and nobody was expected to.  So, early on, free will was also not at all important to God.

Jesus has always existed, the Hebrew's have been expecting Him when the exile began. God has always existed and the acceptance of Him is through free will. Free will was so important to God from the beginning that He allowed Adam and Eve to choose to disobey Him. He wasn't going to interfere with perfect love. Adam and Eve chose to destroy that relationship.

Now you're just fucking with me. Jesus has always existed because people were "expecting him" AFTER some point in time? Oh, I get it. This is a sly shift away from "Free will is your ability to accept or reject Christ" to "Free will is your ability to accept or reject God". This is what you people do instead of saying, "You're right. I misspoke. I meant God." You dig yourself a big fucking hole, fill it to the top with hot steaming bullshit and dive right in head first. So Adam and Eve had the choice to follow or reject "Christ" because he always existed, even before he was prophesied? I can smell that from here.

I think you are a bit confused as to the nature of free will.  Free will is the ability to act freely according to my own will.  What you're talking about is the ability to make one single, extremely specific choice.

I'm very clear on what free will mean, if you had read the first post I made to you you would know what I was saying. So try reading it.

GC

I owe you an apology, I confused my posting to Aurora with posting to you, I'm sorry. The post I refer to is #19.

GC
[/quote]

Well thank you. So it wasn't my memory which failed me at all (this time). I don't read every post in a thread. Even if I did, I wouldn't remember anything but vague ideas. I have a terrible memory.

Okay, I read it. Choose Christ or reject him. I'm sorry, but I don't see how that applies to Adam and Eve. I don't see how that applies to the twelve tribes of Israel. At no point were they told to "accept" Christ. To accept Christ is to be Christian. You can't be Christian before the Christ exists. I'm sorry, but you're just making up bullshit here. That would be a HUGE loophole for anyone before Jesus to get into Heaven. You can't go to Hell unless you've heard the word, after all, and Jews hardly went around preaching about the Christ a thousand years before his appearance. That makes Oprah God. You're going to Heaven, you're going to Heaven, you're going to Heaven, EVERYBODY is going to Heaven!

---

My objection that God tampers with it was simply a way of pointing out that it wasn't apparently that important.  Pharaoh was not given the opportunity to "choose God".

Where, in the Bible, does it in any way mention "free will"?  Yes, you can choose or reject God, but again, that is a single choice, not an overall "free will" theme.

And quick note, the definition of "free will" the two of you are using doesn't match.  On says it's "choosing Christ", the other "choosing God".  It's almost as if you guys are making this shit up as you go along.  Oh wait...YOU ARE!

So you admit that the Bible teaches that we have free will to "choose or reject God." So then regarding all 10 commandments and the 1000 other rules in the OT, that would just be more "choosing God?" The prophets and psalmist that lament the choices that people have made was more "choosing God?" The proverbs that tell you the best way to live, were more "choosing God?" Paul's teaching on the fruits of the spirit and chapter after chapter of Christian living were just more "choosing god?". So, you simply defined everything in the Bible as "choosing God" and then exempted it from the "overall free will theme". You don't seem to have a firm grasp on the issue. 

Are you really distinguishing between "Christ" and "God" as an argument that we are making things up? Ugh.

Now you're just being a dick.  I would like to have a serious conversation like an adult.  What are you, fucking twelve?  "So you ADMIT that I'm right and you're wrong because you used a word that I used proving that I'm right and you're wrong!"  Grow the fuck up and you'll get a serious response, putz.

[Ravenshire]

god of the bible isn't good by comic book status.
simple put the christian good is a psychopath that demands love
and worship and punishes humans but why the fuck not.
Or you know the reality of it all god doesn't exist and humans like me and you are just looking up into
the night sky thinking oh man a god might have created all that and which god(s) instead of crediting nature
for all that hard work.

The christer gawd is no better than an abusive spouse. "Love me or I'll send you to hell, dirty sinner." really isn't any different than "Love me or I'll kill you, bitch."

---

So basically, all of you, 5 answering so far, depend entirely on the notion of freewill to explain pretty much everything. Quite the loophole it provides.

So this thread is destined to turn into yet another thread on freewill, and how it magically explains everything, even though there's as much evidence for it as there is for God, which is to say none. Your god delusion is dependent on a grand illusion, lol.

Looks like you would see that free will is a deep rooted part of Christianity, especially when all the Christians bring it up upfront. You don't like it because you either don't understand it or you can find no argument against it.

GC

Or, because we see it for the bullshit cop out it is.

---

Can't answer that. I don't live in a perfect world so I can't say for sure. My reason tells me yes so if you wanna go off that then go ahead.

It's a common sense question, perfection cannot exist without imperfection because imperfection is what defines perfection, therefore one cannot truly appreciate or know what "perfection" is without experiencing imperfection.

Appreciating it or even knowing what it is doesn't mean it can't exist. More bullshit rationalization.

200 years ago, no one could appreciate x-rays or even knew what they were. So, did they not exist?

---

If it were a mistake why preserve any of it? why not just wipe it all out with the water?

If you made a mistake on your homework would you throw the whole worksheet out, or would you fix the problems you got wrong?

Kinda what it allegedly did. Killed off all the "mistakes," kept the only righteous folks in the whole world and we still ended up where we are. Some god.