by Sills and Doors » Tue Aug 28, 2018 2:49 pm
> But what I'm saying is this: If God is going to stop bad things from happening to you, He has to micro-control your environment so that the baseball coming towards you veers off course, the bottle of milk you drop goes crooked as it falls to the floor so it doesn't hit your foot, and the guy about to miss a red light and careen through the intersection magically stops his car anyway.
Preventing humans from performing evil acts and preventing any and all unfortunate events is two different things.
None of your examples here are pertaining to humans performing evil acts, which is what I was addressing originally. They are unfortunate accidents.
> You are contending God needs not only to control your environment (you never lose electric power, tornadoes are sent off course or lifted over your house, it never snows too much, and the snow in people's driveways clears itself away so there are no heart attacks), but He also needs to control other people so they don't do anything to hurt you.
I was only contending the second premise, and then only the protection of intentional attempts to harm.
> God needs to control machines, trees, winds, rain and snow. God needs to take control of your body so you don't whack your leg on the corner of the table while walking past, stub your toe on that raised piece of sidewalk and trip to your own injury, slip in the shower, or walk into that half-open door.
In no way did I contend or assume that within my post. You are adding on layers and concepts. I was merely speaking of the ability of God to prevent evil actions of humans.
> and of personality, because we would no longer have the qualities essential for personality but rather just a robot initiatives and responses.
One can have a personality without being able to perform evil thoughts or actions. One can be shy or bold without evil coming in to the picture. One can be patient or less so without evil coming into the picture, etc.
> This is not the full extent of the problems with this approach, though; we would have to take it further. People say things that hurt us, and so God would have to control their minds and their tongues. People use body language that hurts us, so God would have to take control of everything they think, say, and do. And sometimes people say innocent things and we take it wrongly and feel hurt, so He again would have to take control of our minds. At this point it is certain we are no longer human. I would lack the qualities and attributes that define me as a human being: thinking, feeling, and acting. If God were going to make sure nothing bad happens to me, I become a robotic nothing. I don't think for myself, I don't speak for myself, and I don't act on my own.
Saying things that hurt another's feelings may or may not be evil depending upon the context, so again I think you're adding concepts that I didn't state or comment about.
> I can no longer love, because if I tell somebody I love him or her, they'll know I did'’t mean it because God made me say it.
I don't agree that God would have to control every thing just to prevent evil acts from being performed, but even if i did, who's to say we would even know that this is the case? God could prevent whatever he wanted and we would not necessarily know any difference or that anything was done at all.
> But their feelings can’t be hurt by it, so God has to make it so they don't care. This is all getting quite ridiculous.
These are assumptions you've made and that I don't necessarily agree with and never stated.
> If God made sure to intervene so that bad things didn't happen to people, there would be no love, no joy in life, no happiness of any kind, no forgiveness, or anything.
I don't agree because I feel love, joy, happiness, forgiveness can all be present with or without evil acts/bad things. Also, I never advocated for the prevention of "bad things" necessarily, only evil acts performed specifically by humans. Nature would be free to act as it may. Animals would act as they may. The environment would act as it may.
> There wouldn't even be any goodness, because I'm just being made to do everything.
If a man without free will donates to charity or helps an old lady across the street, is that no longer a good act? I would say the results are beneficial or good whether it is freely willed or not.
> Let's assume God created a world in which there would never be any pain of any kind, any suffering of any kind, any evil—in short, nothing negative at all.
I'm fine with assuming that for the sake of argument but that wasn't what I was getting at with my comment.
> The artificiality of happiness and kindness in a world where nothing else was known or even possible is not true happiness, fulfillment, or kindness. It's only a false, superficial, and self-contradictory world without love, and, ultimately, without will.
Love to me is an emotional state of the brain. This can be achieved with or without free will as far as I'm concerned. Happiness and fulfillment are the same way. Kindness can be exhibited freely or non freely I can only assume.
> For example, in "The Truman Show" (Paramount Pictures, 1998), even though Truman had a free will, it was a false world. When he discovered the ruse he felt empty and that life had lost its meaning. He felt like ultimately he had no authentic choices but was just a spectacle in a false world.
And if he never found out it was a false world, he would have acted as he did and not have done any differently. He would never have felt that it was all a sham because he wouldn't have known any better.
> In real life, if God insured that there were no pain or suffering, it would be even more so an empty and meaningless existence.
And we would possibly be none the wiser.
> And if I am but a machine, love and will, happiness, fulfillment, and kindness are all delusions.
First off, we wouldn't be but a machine if we didn't have free will (I'm not convinced we do currently have free will yet we aren't machines.) We would biological beings that think and feel regardless.
Also, I don't agree that love, happiness, fulfillment, etc. would be any more of delusions than they are with or without free will. They are all simply brain states.
> It's just not possible for God to intervene so that bad things never happen to people.
Didn't you just outline what exactly would happen yet now you say it's not possible?
> But what I'm saying is this: If God is going to stop bad things from happening to you, He has to micro-control your environment so that the baseball coming towards you veers off course, the bottle of milk you drop goes crooked as it falls to the floor so it doesn't hit your foot, and the guy about to miss a red light and careen through the intersection magically stops his car anyway.
Preventing humans from performing evil acts and preventing any and all unfortunate events is two different things.
None of your examples here are pertaining to humans performing evil acts, which is what I was addressing originally. They are unfortunate accidents.
> You are contending God needs not only to control your environment (you never lose electric power, tornadoes are sent off course or lifted over your house, it never snows too much, and the snow in people's driveways clears itself away so there are no heart attacks), but He also needs to control other people so they don't do anything to hurt you.
I was only contending the second premise, and then only the protection of intentional attempts to harm.
> God needs to control machines, trees, winds, rain and snow. God needs to take control of your body so you don't whack your leg on the corner of the table while walking past, stub your toe on that raised piece of sidewalk and trip to your own injury, slip in the shower, or walk into that half-open door.
In no way did I contend or assume that within my post. You are adding on layers and concepts. I was merely speaking of the ability of God to prevent evil actions of humans.
> and of personality, because we would no longer have the qualities essential for personality but rather just a robot initiatives and responses.
One can have a personality without being able to perform evil thoughts or actions. One can be shy or bold without evil coming in to the picture. One can be patient or less so without evil coming into the picture, etc.
> This is not the full extent of the problems with this approach, though; we would have to take it further. People say things that hurt us, and so God would have to control their minds and their tongues. People use body language that hurts us, so God would have to take control of everything they think, say, and do. And sometimes people say innocent things and we take it wrongly and feel hurt, so He again would have to take control of our minds. At this point it is certain we are no longer human. I would lack the qualities and attributes that define me as a human being: thinking, feeling, and acting. If God were going to make sure nothing bad happens to me, I become a robotic nothing. I don't think for myself, I don't speak for myself, and I don't act on my own.
Saying things that hurt another's feelings may or may not be evil depending upon the context, so again I think you're adding concepts that I didn't state or comment about.
> I can no longer love, because if I tell somebody I love him or her, they'll know I did'’t mean it because God made me say it.
I don't agree that God would have to control every thing just to prevent evil acts from being performed, but even if i did, who's to say we would even know that this is the case? God could prevent whatever he wanted and we would not necessarily know any difference or that anything was done at all.
> But their feelings can’t be hurt by it, so God has to make it so they don't care. This is all getting quite ridiculous.
These are assumptions you've made and that I don't necessarily agree with and never stated.
> If God made sure to intervene so that bad things didn't happen to people, there would be no love, no joy in life, no happiness of any kind, no forgiveness, or anything.
I don't agree because I feel love, joy, happiness, forgiveness can all be present with or without evil acts/bad things. Also, I never advocated for the prevention of "bad things" necessarily, only evil acts performed specifically by humans. Nature would be free to act as it may. Animals would act as they may. The environment would act as it may.
> There wouldn't even be any goodness, because I'm just being made to do everything.
If a man without free will donates to charity or helps an old lady across the street, is that no longer a good act? I would say the results are beneficial or good whether it is freely willed or not.
> Let's assume God created a world in which there would never be any pain of any kind, any suffering of any kind, any evil—in short, nothing negative at all.
I'm fine with assuming that for the sake of argument but that wasn't what I was getting at with my comment.
> The artificiality of happiness and kindness in a world where nothing else was known or even possible is not true happiness, fulfillment, or kindness. It's only a false, superficial, and self-contradictory world without love, and, ultimately, without will.
Love to me is an emotional state of the brain. This can be achieved with or without free will as far as I'm concerned. Happiness and fulfillment are the same way. Kindness can be exhibited freely or non freely I can only assume.
> For example, in "The Truman Show" (Paramount Pictures, 1998), even though Truman had a free will, it was a false world. When he discovered the ruse he felt empty and that life had lost its meaning. He felt like ultimately he had no authentic choices but was just a spectacle in a false world.
And if he never found out it was a false world, he would have acted as he did and not have done any differently. He would never have felt that it was all a sham because he wouldn't have known any better.
> In real life, if God insured that there were no pain or suffering, it would be even more so an empty and meaningless existence.
And we would possibly be none the wiser.
> And if I am but a machine, love and will, happiness, fulfillment, and kindness are all delusions.
First off, we wouldn't be but a machine if we didn't have free will (I'm not convinced we do currently have free will yet we aren't machines.) We would biological beings that think and feel regardless.
Also, I don't agree that love, happiness, fulfillment, etc. would be any more of delusions than they are with or without free will. They are all simply brain states.
> It's just not possible for God to intervene so that bad things never happen to people.
Didn't you just outline what exactly would happen yet now you say it's not possible?