Is every "Miracle" a violation of "Free Will?"

[T.G.G. Moogly]

No.

And I think both you and Atheos are confusing free will (intent) with ability.

If the policeman puts me in handcuffs he isn't violating my free will - I still want to escape.

You are equating free will with freedom of thought, which leads to endless absurdity.

Free will has always been connected with freedom of action, that people have choices, and that their choices, as manifested by their actions demonstrates that they have free will.

By your definition, free will is just worthless currency, more religious stupidity. It's actually comical if one applies your definition out there in the real world. Doing so renders free will valueless and irrelevant, something less than worthless.

"Hey Slave, What ya got in yer suitcase?"

Got me some Free Will.

"Oh yah? What's it good for?"

It lets me think anything I want.

"What does it let you do?"

Not a fuckin' thing.

"Nice."

 

[Underseer]

Change the word spaceman to police man and explain why the situation is any different.
The policeman has his own free will just like the victim and the attacker. And the intersection of each of the separate autonomous free wills of three different people doesn't seem to undermine freedom of choice.

Change the word spaceman to policeman and the situation becomes vastly different. A policeman, if he knew that someone was about to rape and kill an 8 year old girl, would likely do everything in his power to prevent the rapist from exercising his free will. Hypothetically given a spaceman with absolute knowledge that the rape is going to happen, unrestricted ability to stop the rape from happening and unabated desire to prevent the rape from happening the only mystery left is why the rape would happen.

If the spaceman prefers to let free will reign then he doesn't have unabated desire to prevent the rape. The desire to prevent the rape is abated by the greater desire to allow free will.

I've never heard a rationalization for this problem that didn't involve trying to sneak the power down on at least one of the three Tri's of the Tri-Omni spaceman. I know that's not what we started with but that's the explanation of the difference between the spaceman and the policeman in this hypothetical discussion.

But if a policeman stops a crime in progress, then the policeman is "violating the free will" of the criminal. Therefore, the police should be more like God and simply watch the crimes happen and do nothing to stop them. To stop or prevent crime would clearly be immoral. Because free will.

 

[Atheos]

To put the three aspects of the tri-omni spaceman back into play one of the following has to happen before the rapist can traumatize and kill the young girl in our scenario:

• The spaceman wants something more than it wants there to be no suffering (in which case it is less than maximally benevolent)
• The spaceman lacks the power to get whatever it wants without resorting to means to ends (suffering is a necessary by-product of getting what it wants). In this case it is less than omnipotent.
• The spaceman lacks the knowledge that the suffering it taking place. In this case it is not omniscient.

If this is a false trilemma I'm all ears. Otherwise a tri-omni spaceman does not exist in the same frame of reference as the universe in which we live.

 

[Lion IRC]

...one of the following has to happen before the rapist can traumatize and kill the young girl in our scenario:

*The spaceman wants something more than it wants there to be no suffering (in which case it is less than maximally benevolent)

We obviously have to rule this out. It doesn't logically follow that God must want either/or in this case. (False dilemma.) God might not want a certain thing to happen but He might reluctantly allow it to happen. Whence the theological necessity for God to either 'like' the bad stuff that happens or prevent it from happening. God condemns sin. He warns against sin. He punishes sin. Why assume that He must prevent everything He dislikes (sin) - and if not then it proves He isn't benevolent and must 'like' sin because He doesn't absolutely prevent it from ever happening?

*The spaceman lacks the power to get whatever it wants without resorting to means to ends (suffering is a necessary by-product of getting what it wants). In this case it is less than omnipotent.

We obviously have to strike this one out. God is able to prevent or cause any/everything. Omnipotence is non-negotiable. Of course it doesn't follow that God actually DOES everything He wants. Omnipotent beings are ABLE to exercise self-restraint. If they could NOT exercise self-restraint they wouldn't be omnipotent.
And no, suffering ISNT necessary for God to get what He wants. But suffering might be necessary for us to get what we (think) we want.

*The spaceman lacks the knowledge that the suffering is taking place. In this case it is not omniscient.

This one is ruled out as well. Omniscience is non-negotiable. And clearly God knows of every evil and will punish it accordingly. We should never mistake God's inaction as a sign of His ignorance of evil.

...If this is a false trilemma I'm all ears. Otherwise a tri-omni spaceman does not exist in the same frame of reference as the universe in which we live.

I think it is a false trilemma because of your unreasonable/unfounded presumption that God's apparent inaction shows He must 'like' all that He permits. And that just because sin happens it proves God either doesn't care about it or isn't willing to prevent it.

You presumably expect God to prevent sin/evil before it even happens. But it's logically incoherent to object to something which hasn't ever happened and never will - because God prevents it.

Yes, God could have created Adam and Eve in such a way that they had no choice but to remain perpetually obedient and programmed to never 'sin' - no robbery, no murder, no lying, no choice. And then God could pat Himself on the back and brag about how omnipotent and benevolent He is and what a great victory He had achieved over satan.

But what shall God's accusers then say? Nobody freely chose to obey God. Nobody rejected sin because there never was anything to reject.

 

[Lion IRC]

You are equating free will with freedom of thought, which leads to endless absurdity.

Free will has always been connected with freedom of action, that people have choices, and that their choices, as manifested by their actions demonstrates that they have free will.

By your definition, free will is just worthless currency, more religious stupidity. It's actually comical if one applies your definition out there in the real world. Doing so renders free will valueless and irrelevant, something less than worthless.

Freedom of thought (free will) is, as they say, the one freedom they can't take away from you.
As such it's probably/arguably the most important freedom there is.

"Hey Slave, What ya got in yer suitcase?"

Got me some Free Will.

"Oh yah? What's it good for?"

It lets me think anything I want.

"What does it let you do?"

Not a fuckin' thing.

"Nice."

Free will has always been connected with freedom of action

View attachment 8882

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

"Yes, God could have created Adam and Eve in such a way that they had no choice but to remain perpetually obedient and programmed to never 'sin' - no robbery, no murder, no lying, no choice. And then God could pat Himself on the back and brag about how omnipotent and benevolent He is and what a great victory He had achieved over Satan."


So God allows original sin to destroy our free will. Of course, original sin is an innovation from Paul.
Does this free will and original sin stuff work conceptually? Not really.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

God condemns sin. He warns against sin. He punishes sin. Why assume that He must prevent everything He dislikes (sin) - and if not then it proves He isn't benevolent and must 'like' sin because He doesn't absolutely prevent it from ever happening?

IOW the spaceman lets sin happen so he can let us know that he doesn't like when sin happens. Utterly brilliant spaceman.

... it doesn't follow that God actually DOES everything He wants. Omnipotent beings are ABLE to exercise self-restraint. If they could NOT exercise self-restraint they wouldn't be omnipotent.

That's beyond absurd. How does an omnipotent spaceman ever require self restraint? Is an omnipotent spaceman going to do something it might regret? Do omnipotent spacemen routinely second guess themselves?

And clearly God knows of every evil and will punish it accordingly.

Brilliance. The spaceman doesn't like evil and will punish it but allows it to happen so it can punish it. If this doesn't sustain the charge of intellectual nihilism then nothing does.

You presumably expect God to prevent sin/evil before it even happens. But it's logically incoherent to object to something which hasn't ever happened and never will - because God prevents it.

Yes, God could have created Adam and Eve in such a way that they had no choice but to remain perpetually obedient and programmed to never 'sin' - no robbery, no murder, no lying, no choice. And then God could pat Himself on the back and brag about how omnipotent and benevolent He is and what a great victory He had achieved over satan.

But what shall God's accusers then say? Nobody freely chose to obey God. Nobody rejected sin because there never was anything to reject.

So the omniscient, omnipotent spaceman allows things to happen that it does not want to happen and could easily prevent happening because it wants to go on record as not wanting these things to happen. FYI I sat with a couple folks at the bar today that are smarter than that.

BTW the Magic Garden Story is interesting. One magic spaceman makes a garden where everything is happy, happy, happy all the live-long-day. Into it he puts another spaceman that tells the two proprietors of the garden that there's knowledge to be had that will make them as smart as their spaceman master, but that it comes with a cost. So they accepte and are able to escape their mindless existential garden. It sounds pretty accurate when it comes to describing what we all go through except for the characters of the spacemen. Of course, any reasonably intelligent teenager could compose the same plot.

 

[DBT]

Freedom of thought (free will) is, as they say, the one freedom they can't take away from you.
As such it's probably/arguably the most important freedom there is.

Freedom of thought is enabled by the apparatus of thought, we cannot think beyond the parameters of whatever the apparatus not only enables and allows, but does. Capacity, ability, aptitude, etc, all being determined by neural architecture.

Freedom of thought, which is the ability to think enabled by neural networks, is not an example of free will. It is the ability to think and reason according to your [brain] condition.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Again, if God is omniscient and has foreknowledge of the future, and creates all, free will is impossible.
From any possible starting point of any creation God consider actualizing, all unfolds from that, the Universe is strictly determinate. So if God decides to actualize a world where John is a murderer, John will commit murder and has no free will about that. If God decides to actualize a world where John does not commit murder, it was God's choice that matters, not any sort of free will John may said to have.

If we claim by revelation God creates all, and has foreknowledge of the future, free will is impossible.

God's creation of all, God's foreknowledge of all future events, man's free will.

Choose two.

 

[Atheos]

*The spaceman wants something more than it wants there to be no suffering (in which case it is less than maximally benevolent)

We obviously have to rule this out. It doesn't logically follow that God must want either/or in this case. (False dilemma.) God might not want a certain thing to happen but He might reluctantly allow it to happen. Whence the theological necessity for God to either 'like' the bad stuff that happens or prevent it from happening. God condemns sin. He warns against sin. He punishes sin. Why assume that He must prevent everything He dislikes (sin) - and if not then it proves He isn't benevolent and must 'like' sin because He doesn't absolutely prevent it from ever happening?

This is tantamount to saying that god requires a means to get to an end, which rules out omnipotence. You're turning down the "omni" of omnipotence. An omnipotent being would never have to compromise. If an omnipotent being wanted to eliminate suffering as much as it is possible for any being to want suffering to be eliminated the only thing that could possibly deter that being from eliminating suffering would be its lack of knowledge of where suffering was taking place.

Also, there is a huge difference between "he isn't benevolent" and "he is maximally benevolent." He could be somewhat benevolent but there are other things more important to him than benevolence.

*The spaceman lacks the power to get whatever it wants without resorting to means to ends (suffering is a necessary by-product of getting what it wants). In this case it is less than omnipotent.

We obviously have to strike this one out. God is able to prevent or cause any/everything. Omnipotence is non-negotiable. Of course it doesn't follow that God actually DOES everything He wants. Omnipotent beings are ABLE to exercise self-restraint. If they could NOT exercise self-restraint they wouldn't be omnipotent.
And no, suffering ISNT necessary for God to get what He wants. But suffering might be necessary for us to get what we (think) we want.

If suffering is necessary for us to get what we (think) we want then god cannot accomplish getting us what we (think) we want without suffering. He lacks the power to do so, which once again means he's not really all that omnipotent after all.

*The spaceman lacks the knowledge that the suffering is taking place. In this case it is not omniscient.

This one is ruled out as well. Omniscience is non-negotiable. And clearly God knows of every evil and will punish it accordingly. We should never mistake God's inaction as a sign of His ignorance of evil.

Your response here is meaningless. It is not "clear" that "God knows of every evil and will punish it accordingly." This is something you accept through faith, not something that is in evidence. You could happen to be right, but it would be by accident. You have no evidence of this thing which you believe. Of course there is a way such evidence could be obtained. God could reveal to you the sequence of numbers on the index card we discussed a few weeks back which still sits face down on my desk. Then we'd have some evidence that god at least knows something..

Regardless, this 3rd element of the trilemma hasn't been addressed because each of your other treatments compromises omnipotence. Fail.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Again, if God is omniscient and has foreknowledge of the future, and creates all, free will is impossible.
From any possible starting point of any creation God consider actualizing, all unfolds from that, the Universe is strictly determinate. So if God decides to actualize a world where John is a murderer, John will commit murder and has no free will about that. If God decides to actualize a world where John does not commit murder, it was God's choice that matters, not any sort of free will John may said to have.

If we claim by revelation God creates all, and has foreknowledge of the future, free will is impossible.

God's creation of all, God's foreknowledge of all future events, man's free will.

Choose two.

Judging by its own behavior the tri-omni spaceman is a clueless idiot when it comes to encouraging acceptable behavior in others.

It has decided to just kill everyone for something it didn't like that two of them did when it laid a trap for them.

It isn't even close to matching the punishment to the offense, something humans with their institutions do a lot better. It could have initiated a universe where its inhabitants suffered accordingly wrt their personal behavior, ratcheting up the unpleasantness for said persons based on their individual circumstances, and not mindlessly spreading blood and destruction everywhere. Human institutions do much better than their alleged spaceman maker. If the spaceman would use the same systems its imperfect creations use it might gain some cred, not to mention it could do so without them even having knowledge of same.

Taken at face value the magic spaceman wants chaos and anarchy, as demonstrated by the fact that it lets the other spacemen who are its declared enemy run around unchecked spreading destruction and disbelief in its own existence.