Free Will is a sign if God's inescapable weakness

[Edwardo Piet]

So you failed to address the sense that was actually relevant when you were asked about it. Noted.

[Angrboda]

So, then your God is not perfect?

I already addressed that when I said "But when it's modifying 'being', we are talking more about abilities." So, obviously using the adjective 'perfect' has some context-sensitive meaning. For God, it would also address his nature.

That's suitably vague. When it's addressing being it's more about abilities because the utility of abilities is how beings meet their goals; still teleological. In what way does the word perfect address God's nature? And how is that analogous to the standard definition which we are already familiar with? (If it's not analogous, then by what measure do you identify this usage with that of the more familiar usage of perfect?)

[Nay_Sayer]

This can all be easily settled with a simple check to the 'English Oxford Dictionary'.

[LadyForCamus]

I already addressed that when I said "But when it's modifying 'being', we are talking more about abilities." So, obviously using the adjective 'perfect' has some context-sensitive meaning. For God, it would also address his nature.

That's suitably vague.  When it's addressing being it's more about abilities because the utility of abilities is how beings meet their goals; still teleological.  In what way does the word perfect address God's nature?  And how is that analogous to the standard definition which we are already familiar with?  (If it's not analogous, then by what measure do you identify this usage with that of the more familiar usage of perfect?)

Oh, you know; 'maximally glittery'. Or something.

[Face2face]

Something from a book I am writing, that got my theist friend wiled up:

1. The job of machine learning researchers is to make smart software that do things that humans are effortlessly good at, like recognizing images.

2. These smart software are loosely inspired by the human brain, so they can learn somewhat like humans do.

3. These researchers, because they are non omniscient, they don't know how to make the perfectly smart software. As a result, the smart software that they build have to learn by trial and error/make mistakes in order to get better at doing tasks.

4. In a similar way, if Gods really gave humans free will, humans are using this free will to do both good and bad, but humans have actually learnt how to get better and better and less violent over the centuries.

5. This then has a surprising consequence; why would God need to give humans the chance to learn by free will, if God was smart enough to make perfect beings without the need to learn by trial and error? It implies that if free will is God given, God is non omniscient/non omnipotent in a similar way to how machine learning researchers are non omniscient, and therefore make smart software that need to learn by trial/error to get better at tasks!!!

If free will is real, then free will is what allows people to learn from past fuck ups. (aka allow people to fuck up in the first place, then learn from those if applicable)

We actually have gotten more peaceful: https://ourworldindata.org/slides/war-an...itle-slide

Forget perfect.

Peaceful or not, this means we were once far more violent. 

This means "God" wasn't smart enough to make organisms that couldn't be peaceful from the beginning, or stay peaceful if peace ever existed...( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[John V]

We actually have gotten more peaceful: https://ourworldindata.org/slides/war-an...itle-slide

Except that chart doesn't show man becoming more peaceful over time.

[Face2face]

We actually have gotten more peaceful: https://ourworldindata.org/slides/war-an...itle-slide

Except that chart doesn't show man becoming more peaceful over time.

Did you look at the other charts?
Are you saying humanity has not gotten less violent overall?

[John V]

Did you look at the other charts?

Yes, particularly number 7 on warfare. Just eyeballing it the trend seems to be slightly upward.

Are you saying humanity has not gotten less violent overall?

Considering two world wars, Stalin, Mao, etc, yes, that's what I'm saying.

[Face2face]

For others, here is a quote from the same source that alpha-male is reading, while saying he sees no evidence of violence decline:

Quote - "Violence has been in decline over long stretches of time", says Harvard professor Steven Pinker, "and we may be living in the most peaceful time in our species' existence."

https://ourworldindata.org/slides/war-and-violence/#/5

[Martian Mermaid]

Something from a book I am writing, that got my theist friend wiled up:

1. The job of machine learning researchers is to make smart software that do things that humans are effortlessly good at, like recognizing images.

2. These smart software are loosely inspired by the human brain, so they can learn somewhat like humans do.

3. These researchers, because they are non omniscient, they don't know how to make the perfectly smart software. As a result, the smart software that they build have to learn by trial and error/make mistakes in order to get better at doing tasks.

4. In a similar way, if Gods really gave humans free will, humans are using this free will to do both good and bad, but humans have actually learnt how to get better and better and less violent over the centuries.

5. This then has a surprising consequence; why would God need to give humans the chance to learn by free will, if God was smart enough to make perfect beings without the need to learn by trial and error? It implies that if free will is God given, God is non omniscient/non omnipotent in a similar way to how machine learning researchers are non omniscient, and therefore make smart software that need to learn by trial/error to get better at tasks!!!

I'm sorry, but I don't see where you are coming from. According to Christians, God made us imperfect on purpose, so of course we have to learn things.

However there are other issues with a God creating the free will that we have, I have just never seen this particular thing as an issue.