P1: Love cannot exist without free will.
P2: A creature with free will is not predictable.
P3: Unpredictable creatures cannot be trusted.
Therefore, if God is love, then God must have free will, which means that He is not predictable and therefore cannot be trusted.
This is why I think free will is a load of freshly laid manure and why manipulation and emotional appeals play their part in every argument man ever makes.
~
The problem with this argument is P1.
P1: Love cannot exist without free will.
P2: A creature with free will is not predictable.
P3: Unpredictable creatures cannot be trusted.
P4: Untrustworthy creatures cannot love each other.
This leads to a contradiction, therefore P1 is false.
Lee Stobel is an “ass hole”! If the cross did so much- besides maybe trying to mimick us through well twisted thoughts on a story- in reality it isn’t and hasn’t done anything special for me during my life. Therefore if it doesn’t help me or do anything significant while I’m on earth, whose to say it’ll do anything afterwards? Honestly “MR STROBEL” I think due to all of the Christian claims that never come to fruition I really don’t want to throw up my hands and praise your God regardless if you twist a story of a man being killed and try and make me think “God” understands my suffering. If God knew so much about suffering he might than help my mother who suffers from paranoia and mental illness- it sure wasn’ t her choice or the “sins” of those around her. Her brain simply doesn’t work as it should. If God cares so much then maybe he’d lift his almighty hand and help me with just one of the unwarranted problems I have that I haven’t chosen and which have been given to me through mere circumstance. I don’t look for God to do anything anymore because I no longer believe the God of the Bible or of the Christians. Now realizing that my problems are my own and that their is no “god” by my side going to counsel or help me- I now suffer one less pain- the pain of why the hell “god” don’t do anything to help.
It’s really sad that Jesus died on a cross, but I’d much rather die one day on a “cross” and have had a good life instead of having so many problems and dieing a nice death.
It’s weird but when Christians talk about suffering I often times think it makes them happy- like they are some superhuman representative why life is as it is. I’d love for Lee Strobel to live a few years in the shoes of someone who really is suffering and who is crying out to a god that does nothing and who problably feels bad or sinful when something goes than worse.
P4 does not hold as set forth. You have a number of suppressed premises between P3 and P4. You’ll have to state them.
I would allow that untrustworthy creatures can indeed love. After all, every human is at least partly untrustworthy, yet we love.
The silliness of Strobel’s argument here, and similar arguments of others, is that it makes a complex mess out of the “problem of evil/suffering”. If you just say, “the universe is not run by any, benevolent being; it just is and things just happen” then the whole “problem” goes away. But, instead, theists multiply entities ad infinitum to explain a universe with an imaginary, benevolent deity. Bloody waste of time.
“P4 does not hold as set forth. You have a number of suppressed premises between P3 and P4. You’ll have to state them.”
Yeah, I thought about that after I posted it. You’re correct.
I’ll think about it some more sometime, but not right now because I don’t care enough right now to take the time.
Imagine: not caring about philosophy or theology. This is new to me!
Imagine: not caring about philosophy or theology. This is new to me!
Once again you are meandering into my realm. The realm of “I don’t care”. In this realm I try to sort the world into two categories: ‘My problem’ and “Not my problem’. The goal in the end is to get everything into the latter category. For my gravestone I’m considering either:
“It’s all your problem now.” OR
“Now I REALLY don’t give a shit.”
rofl
Both reasonings are wrong. (The first one because I think it says that God doesn’t know the future [which is false]; and the second one because it contradicts reality).
The first one because I think it says that God doesn’t know the future [which is false]
Hmm, I don’t think any of my premises include God at all. My conclusion does, on the basis of the premises. I’m just showing a contradiction in the conclusion.
and the second one because it contradicts reality
My point is that we love each other because we are trustworthy because we are predictable, therefore genuine free will must not exist.
No, man, we love eachother because we’re gifted with the power to do so. Sometimes the love we feel for another is despite all his or hers shortcomings. And we’re not predictable in the base sense of the word. Otherwise we wouldn’t be human, but machines. Sometimes we surprise even ourselves. Sometimes our actions are exasperatingly foreseeable. [Please observe the thrice use of the word `sometimes` in the last three sentences].
Oh, God! I can’t believe I’m having an argument on the existence of free will with an atheist!! (Do You at least believe in love, bro?) :-|
“No, man, we love eachother because we’re gifted with the power to do so.”
Please back this up without circular reasoning :) I don’t mind assertions, but I do expect:
a) The ability to back it up rationally
b) Humility to admit one is wrong when an error is shown – like I did above with Leo.
“Sometimes the love we feel for another is despite all his or hers shortcomings.”
Right, because we still see potential in them (future value). Which is why Christians always love everyone because they always see future potential value.
If however, there is no potential for future value, Christians feel justified in hating. Satan, for example.
Do you love Satan? If not, why not? Do you love those who are predestined for hell? If not, why not?
Does God love those he has not predestined for heaven? If so, why? If He knows there is no hope, why love them? Why put any energy into them? In fact, this is why a lot of Calvinists end up concluding that Christ’s blood is only for the elect. I’m not sure where you stand, it doesn’t matter really, because I’m just trying to explain all the data in a cohesive manner.
“And we’re not predictable in the base sense of the word. ”
Right, which is why we have a hard time trusting someone until we get to know them more.
The more we know someone the more predictable they become.
“Otherwise we wouldn’t be human, but machines.”
What’s the difference between a human and a machine?
Machines are completely predictable. Humans are not. This does not mean that humans are not machines, we are just not simple enough to predict.
This is why humans like to invent stories of machines going apeshit. They can see men inventing machines that suddenly become unpredictable and “developing” free-will. Do they have free will? Of course not, they just become unpredictable. If we knew exactly every piece of code and every piece of machinery and their position and the way they are running, suddenly it would not be predictable any more.
On the other hand, I can see quantum physics might reveal a form of genuine randomness in the universe, which would basically grant the entire universe a form of free-”will”.
“Sometimes we surprise even ourselves.”
Right, because we cannot predict even our own behavior because we are genuinely more complex than our mind can comprehend.
On a related note: If we surprise ourselves, does this not mean that we do not have choice? If I do something and then go “oh shit, why did I do that?” Isn’t this a tacit confession that I did not choose what I just did and am now confused as to why I did it? If I had genuine choice, then I would never say “why did I just do that?” because I would know I just did that because I chose to do it.
Our ability to question our own actions shows that we intuitively know we do not always choose. By induction, I conclude that we only think we ‘chose’ to give ourselves a sense of conscious control and power.
“Sometimes our actions are exasperatingly foreseeable.”
Yep, sometimes, sometimes, sometimes. Because sometimes we understand and sometimes we do not. But just because we sometimes do not understand does not mean we can insert ones understanding of god into the equation. Maybe it just means we need to learn!
“Oh, God! I can’t believe I’m having an argument on the existence of free will with an atheist!!”
I can’t believe I’m responding to an argument by someone who likes to make whitty assertions based on his faith and who cannot figure out that if logic does not demonstrate his faith claims are accurate, then logic refuses to bring glory to God
:)
And BTW, Lucian, as long as you are willing to discuss and show the error in what I am saying, I just hope there is enough Golden Rule following to allow me to do the same with you. Because, after all, we are equals with equal right to correct each other.
No?
Keep coming back!
Sorry, man, but I just can’t take You seriously! (Not unless You’re either a robot, or an alien who`s just dropped from the sky, and doesn’t know the first thing about humanity or human nature). :-) [What next? Question Your own existence? Feel free to, if You want, but I'm not in any mood for reality-disconencted philosophical B.S. right now].
What’s the difference between a human and a machine?
Will, self-consciousness, emotion, self-awareness, self-movement, and so on. (I can’t believe You actually asked me that).
If we surprise ourselves, does this not mean that we do not have choice?
I was talking about me being able to recently overcome an age-long addiction. (That was in the back of my brain when I wrote that).
(It also seems as if You’re saying that will equals a lottery-extraction). If You don’t even understand the very meaning of words, then You’re beyond any help I’m able to offer You right now.
I was also unaware of the fact that the existence of love and free will are “whitty assertions” at the monopoly of my own “faith claims”… :-\
I’m also unaware of what You mean by “logic”: You seem to take the word out of the very context of reality itself… (or do You live in a parallel Universe?). Demonstrating axioms is something that not even the best of mathematicians can do.
Sorry, man, but I just can’t take You seriously!
Then I won’t take you seriously either. It takes two to tango. It takes two to communicate. And it takes respect to get it.
I can’t believe You actually asked me that
I didn’t ask YOU anything. Are you serious, why would I ask Lucian anything?
I was talking about me being able to recently overcome an age-long addiction.
I’m looking at every scenario, not just the ones that relate to me.
It sounds like you overcame an addiction and interpreted the source as God because you could not explain it. [Genuine congrats, btw!] You are welcome to your interpretation. I’ve had the same thing happen. Then I’ve had a bunch of other weird shit happen that I could not explain and I began to realize that God – at least the Christian God – could not explain all that I experienced. So I had to conclude that not everything could be genuinely and unambiguously explained by the Christian God or any related doctrine or theology or Biblical explanation.
I was also unaware of the fact that the existence of love and free will are “whitty assertions” at the monopoly of my own “faith claims”… :-\
I’m summing up your comments on de-con in this statement too :) Don’t take it too seriously. But, haha, you already don’t take me seriously, so I guess I don’t have to ask :D
I’m also unaware of what You mean by “logic”: You seem to take the word out of the very context of reality itself… (or do You live in a parallel Universe?).
Logic is a heuristic which men have discovered by trial and error to interpret their experiences.
Lucian, how do you account for the existence of logic?
Here is the options you have, as I see it:
Did God make logic or is He subject to it? If He made it, He is not subject to it. If He did not make it, then He is subject to it. If God is subject to logic then everything He does must be explainable logically. If God is explainable logically, then if we knew every cause / effect chaing in what God does, God is nothing more than a superuniverse. If God is not subject to logic, then anything we say about Him could be right because we have no way to determine whether a person’s interpretation of God or God’s Word is accurate or not.
Demonstrating axioms is something that not even the best of mathematicians can do.
Oh.
Lucian, just as an FYI, please understand that I emotionally understand how the thought that you could be wrong in your interpretation about how you overcame your addiction is wrong is somewhat terrifying. Almost as terrifying as when a person first believes hell might be real.
I have no desire to cause you to enter that epistemological dilemma and the pain that it causes. If you could “skip it”, that would be awesome.
But it’s worth it. Trust me. One must have the courage to let go of an old interpretation to accept a better one. And once you do, the world becomes quite clearer. Bleaker at first, almost depressingly bleak. But trust me, man, that goes away and the awe and wonder and joy of being human comes back stronger than it ever was as a Christian. It does.
From experience, the reason believers feel “under attack by Satan” when encountering foreign ideas is because they are interpreting the mind’s discomfort at discovering a contradiction (which causes mental pain) as a supernatural attack from Satan.
At least that is the best explanation I can come up with, because it explains how people react when encountering any idea that is foreign to them – regardless of whether the “devil” is the antagonist or not.
Why?
Because peace comes when the mind never encounters any contradiction between what it expects and what it encounters.
You only live once, why risk living it for God when a whole new world might open before your very eyes by letting go of that idea? Besides, if God exists, not even you can genuinely leave Him. Try leaving Him. Become an atheist. If He actually exists, He will draw you back to Himself. Right?
Trust that if all creation gives glory to God, then reason should lead you to God too. Start a path based on reason and see if it leads you to the Christian God. If it does, then praise be. If not, then why would you want to worship a God whose own creation does not give Him complete glory?
[Sorry, I keep editing my comments inline rather than submitting tons of new ones... so they probably don't match your emails]
BTW, I would love to go into detail on any of my own “assertions” if you kindly ask.
The thing is, I don’t normally ask why you make your assertions because I know that make them ultimately because they fit your interpretation of what the Bible says.
I’m not interested in your interpretation per se, I am interested in whether the way you interpret is accurate.
Josh,
I was talking about the non-predictability and wilfulness of human beings (in this case, for the best: overcoming an addiction).
Logic, if You’re interested in the theo-logical approach to it, is the attribute that the Logos seems keen on exhibiting (just like the life-giving Spirit is keen on exhibiting life). It is not a created thing, but an uncreated property of God.
In any case, the fact that You actually don’t believe in the existence of either love, or will, or God-knows what else, seems pretty … weird to me. That’s all… :-|
It is not a created thing, but an uncreated property of God.
This doesn’t make any sense.
I’ll let you figure out why :)
In any case, the fact that You actually don’t believe in the existence of either love, or will, or God-knows what else, seems pretty … weird to me.
I believe in all of them. I just explain them differently.
Some things in life are illusions, but the fact that it is an illusion does not make it any less real, right?
Just because a 3D image is an illusion does not mean it is any less 3D, right?
Three-dimensionality is not an illusion. (Look, I’m sorry, where are You getting this false informations from?).
Three-dimensional view is due to us seeing two slightly-different 2D-projections of the surrounding 3D-reality (each with a different eye), and our brains doing the visual extrapolations needed. (This isn’t an `illusion` by any stretch of the word… who told You this, or where did You read such things?)
I’m affraid I also don’t get why “this doesn’t make any sense.” :-\
Three-dimensionality is not an illusion.
Oh. That’s not what I meant. I meant one of those fancy 3D illusion images where you cross your eyes. When you cross your eyes it looks genuinely 3D – even though it is not. This does not make it any less real. That’s what I meant, my bad, I was being a little ambiguous. My mistake :)
Just because when you look at free will just right it disappears does not make it any less real to experience it, if that makes sense. But it helps explain things better – at least for me.