havok579257 Posted August 15, 2009 Share Posted August 15, 2009 [quote name='Hassan' post='1950018' date='Aug 15 2009, 07:20 PM'][i]If those in heaven have free will and there is no sin or evil in heaven, then God may have a reality in which there are being with free will and there is no evil or sin in that reality[/i] Do you agree with that conditional?[/quote] again, i have no clue what heaven is like nor understand how and why God does everything he does, so i don;t know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassan Posted August 15, 2009 Author Share Posted August 15, 2009 [quote name='havok579257' post='1950024' date='Aug 15 2009, 07:28 PM']Do you know what free will is? Cause what you quoted is exactly free will. Just because there are consequenses to your actions does not mean it negates free will. Infact it further proves it. YOu have free will and depending upon what you choose, your have to deal with the consequenses of your actions.[/quote] No, she used the wrong terms but her point is valid. You are claiming that God wants our choice to love and follow him to be a free one. In Selah's example yes, the agent has free will but the actual choice is still coerced. [i] "I want you to love me. I want it to be a free choice. If you fail to choose to love me I will beaver dam you eternally to hell"[/i] Those t propositions are not internally consistent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted August 15, 2009 Share Posted August 15, 2009 [quote name='Selah' post='1950027' date='Aug 15 2009, 07:31 PM']Well, yes you could choose. But, it appears that the person is being coerced into believing out of fear. No one wants to go to hell. So, naturally, the person will choose to believe. That may be free will in some way, but the person isn't choosing because he or she wants to. They are doing it out of fear.[/quote] and yet people break laws and don't believe in God. As science says, with every action there is a reaction. Your theory is flawed because it would mean everyone in the world needs to believe in God and everyone who does, does it because they are afriad of hell and that's the main reason they believe. Your scenerio doesn't work because no one wants to end up in jail, but how many people break the law. If we are coerced into believing, and no one wants to go to hell, the why does everyone not believe in GOd? There is no coersion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassan Posted August 15, 2009 Author Share Posted August 15, 2009 [quote name='havok579257' post='1950028' date='Aug 15 2009, 07:31 PM']again, i have no clue what heaven is like nor understand how and why God does everything he does, so i don;t know.[/quote] You don't have to know what heaven is like to tell my if that conditional is logically valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selah Posted August 15, 2009 Share Posted August 15, 2009 (edited) [quote]and yet people break laws and don't believe in God. As science says, with every action there is a reaction. Your theory is flawed because it would mean everyone in the world needs to believe in God and everyone who does, does it because they are afriad of hell and that's the main reason they believe. Your scenerio doesn't work because no one wants to end up in jail, but how many people break the law. If we are coerced into believing, and no one wants to go to hell, the why does everyone not believe in GOd? There is no coersion[/quote] "Follow me or else." That sounds like coersion. How is that free will? It's one thing to commit a crime...and in that retrospect, Hell is understandable (at least in terms of it lasting for a determined period of time, not forever) but quite another to send someone to hell simply because they don't follow a certain religion or Deity. Edited August 15, 2009 by Selah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted August 15, 2009 Share Posted August 15, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Hassan' post='1948813' date='Aug 14 2009, 01:24 PM']cheep.[/quote] [img]http://www.geocities.com/pedros_alt/Cheep2.gif[/img] cheap [img]http://blogs.southtownstar.com/money/Juggle_cheap_cs_20080625172105.jpg[/img] Edited August 15, 2009 by Winchester Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassan Posted August 15, 2009 Author Share Posted August 15, 2009 [quote name='havok579257' post='1950033' date='Aug 15 2009, 07:35 PM']and yet people break laws and don't believe in God. As science says, with every action there is a reaction. Your theory is flawed because it would mean everyone in the world needs to believe in God and everyone who does, does it because they are afriad of hell and that's the main reason they believe. Your scenerio doesn't work because no one wants to end up in jail, but how many people break the law. If we are coerced into believing, and no one wants to go to hell, the why does everyone not believe in GOd? There is no coersion.[/quote] Actually your counter argument fails on several points I think. The fact that an agent may be willing to risk punishment does not mean that the option is free of coercion. Answer me this. "You may choose either piece of cake you wish to eat. Pick either chocolate or vanilla (you must pick one). If you pick chocolate I will have you savagely beaten" You have free will in that scenario. However that does not mean the relationship is free from coercion. Even if you are willing to suffer a beating to get the chocolate cake I still did try to coerce you into choosing vanilla. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassan Posted August 15, 2009 Author Share Posted August 15, 2009 [quote name='Winchester' post='1950037' date='Aug 15 2009, 07:40 PM'][img]http://www.geocities.com/pedros_alt/Cheep2.gif[/img] cheap [img]http://blogs.southtownstar.com/money/Juggle_cheap_cs_20080625172105.jpg[/img][/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted August 15, 2009 Share Posted August 15, 2009 Silent shame will suffice, next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peach_cube Posted August 15, 2009 Share Posted August 15, 2009 [quote name='Selah' post='1950015' date='Aug 15 2009, 08:17 PM']But is it really free will? "You can choose to follow me or not. But if you choose not to follow me, you'll go to hell." [/quote] Just because there are consequences does not mean that our will is not free. Choices are limiting in their nature. When I chose my wife I also made the decision to never be married to any other woman. One consequence is to shun all the others. Does that mean that my choice was not free? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted August 16, 2009 Share Posted August 16, 2009 [quote name='Selah' post='1950036' date='Aug 15 2009, 07:38 PM']"Follow me or else." That sounds like coersion. How is that free will? It's one thing to commit a crime...and in that retrospect, Hell is understandable (at least in terms of it lasting for a determined period of time, not forever) but quite another to send someone to hell simply because they don't follow a certain religion or Deity.[/quote] so under your theory america is not a state of free will. we are a country cohersed into being a good country. where as darfur is a truely free will counrtry because you can do anything there an no laws are really imposed. by your logic, we are being coerced into breathing by God since if we stop breathing, we die. this is a very illogical statement. your trying to say that because a given action has a consequence , it means its cohersed. no, the ability to make a decision, any decdision you so choose, beaver dam be the consequences is free will. just because there is consequences to yoyr actions does not make your actions void of free will. free will is the ability to look at the situation, look at the possible reactions to your action and freely decide on which action to take or not to take one at all. just because one action has a good outcome and one has a bad outcome, does not mean its not free will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted August 16, 2009 Share Posted August 16, 2009 it's in a sense not free. and in a sense it's free. all this 'logically invalid' BS, is, well, BS. you can dance around all night saying they're 'not free', or 'free', when you have the faith prospect of God damning you. but, it's just different ways of looking at the same thing. comparing a God who is known to you, and says "i will condemn" you-- and choosing a God without that explicit knowledge-- the explicit knowledge one is less free than the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted August 16, 2009 Share Posted August 16, 2009 [quote name='Hassan' post='1950041' date='Aug 15 2009, 07:42 PM']Actually your counter argument fails on several points I think. The fact that an agent may be willing to risk punishment does not mean that the option is free of coercion. Answer me this. "You may choose either piece of cake you wish to eat. Pick either chocolate or vanilla (you must pick one). If you pick chocolate I will have you savagely beaten" You have free will in that scenario. However that does not mean the relationship is free from coercion. Even if you are willing to suffer a beating to get the chocolate cake I still did try to coerce you into choosing vanilla.[/quote] Again, just because there are consequences to actions does not make us not have free will. It if fact defines free will. Free will is the ability to choose an option, no matter what the consequnces are. God gave us free will. God said, you can do whatever you want. Its your choice. Although if you want to be allowed in my house(heaven) you must follow my rules. If not, then that;s your choice and you will go to the only other place there is, hell. God gives us the choice. Its our choice to go to heaven or hell. That is free will. Are there consequences to doing bad things and not believing in God? Yes, but that does not mean when we choose those things, its not of our own free will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted August 16, 2009 Share Posted August 16, 2009 not believing in God because of suffering, in fact. is sort of like believing in nihilism. i mean, not ultimately, but it's getting there. "there is no hope" etc. i mean, not ultimately, cause you could just think "i dont believe or disbelieve, i have hope, but not sure in what, but not in God, not at least in a God of love" it's almost like you're willing to say, love isn't the ultimate answer, or that God isn't there, or hope isn't there. you can see why i'd call it approaching nihilism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassan Posted August 16, 2009 Author Share Posted August 16, 2009 [quote name='peach_cube' post='1950053' date='Aug 15 2009, 07:59 PM']Just because there are consequences does not mean that our will is not free. Choices are limiting in their nature. When I chose my wife I also made the decision to never be married to any other woman. One consequence is to shun all the others. Does that mean that my choice was not free?[/quote] Free will is a cognitive capacity. If it exists it does so as a particular aspect of our brains intentional states. Freedom of will is a totally distinct matter from whether a choice is free from coercion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now