> As I mentioned earlier, it's the combination of the fact that he creates as well as having knowledge of what he creates that implies that he has at least some cause.
I guess the question is: does the fact of His creation of materiality imply determination of will? I see the two as separate facts and entities. For instance, let's assume someone creates a supercomputer, and another designer creates AI software. Is either of the creators responsible for where (what direction and consequences) learning experiences and circumstances take the software? If the software was truly designed as dynamic, fluid, responsive, and innovative, I would contend that the designer is not the responsible cause for the particular "decisions" the software makes. He designed it to be autonomous.
> Doesn't the incarnation of Jesus entail the atonement?
Yes, that's part of the plan of salvation. Jesus came to give his life as an atonement for sin. That was the whole point.
> the atonement, and consequently crimes to atone for, seem built into creation to begin with, by necessity.
He could see it coming, but He didn't make it happen. He had no part in its occurrence, but He could see that it was going to happen. Seeing isn't causing.
Board index ‹ Jesus
Re: Jesus could be a supernatural being, but not God.
by jimwalton » Sun Oct 27, 2019 1:42 pm
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Jesus could be a supernatural being, but not God.
by Book Mitten » Sun Oct 27, 2019 1:56 pm
> As I mentioned many posts ago when I elaborated about evil in the world, God's restraint from preventing atrocities may have a reason
"May have a reason" isn't good enough. What reason? And what evidence is there that said reason is the case, and a noble case?
> Possibly He is not able to do so without interfering in ways detrimental to the whole picture
If you don't give at least some idea of the detriment, I'm unconvinced that I should be swayed by this.
> Certainly He doesn't interfere with human free will
Well I don't believe free will exists. We can continue to discuss that, I think that would be beneficial. I believe freedom itself exists, but that it's an experience complimentary to (Eudaimonic) well being, and doesn't have much to do with free will as I understand many people, including theists, as describing it.
> Possibly God is not able to do so without stealing away what makes us human and what makes the world work.
The point is that the worst things are examples of the world not working, and humanity not being its best. Your point seems to be similar to the Lebnizian position on possible and best worlds, which as far as I'm concerned is pure speculation, with no testable evidence to back it up. Obviously certain things are logically impossible, but a world without, say, the crimes of Josef Fritzel which maintains a good balance of life does not seem impossible in my opinion. I would ask that you back up any position to the contrary. I will do so too by saying that the victims would have had the opportunity to live better, healthier lives had the crimes not existed.
I should add that the Leibnizian picture of certain worlds having so many contingent factors making creation difficult to balance seems to severely detract from the possibility of non-fatalism, a necessary condition for human free will.
"May have a reason" isn't good enough. What reason? And what evidence is there that said reason is the case, and a noble case?
> Possibly He is not able to do so without interfering in ways detrimental to the whole picture
If you don't give at least some idea of the detriment, I'm unconvinced that I should be swayed by this.
> Certainly He doesn't interfere with human free will
Well I don't believe free will exists. We can continue to discuss that, I think that would be beneficial. I believe freedom itself exists, but that it's an experience complimentary to (Eudaimonic) well being, and doesn't have much to do with free will as I understand many people, including theists, as describing it.
> Possibly God is not able to do so without stealing away what makes us human and what makes the world work.
The point is that the worst things are examples of the world not working, and humanity not being its best. Your point seems to be similar to the Lebnizian position on possible and best worlds, which as far as I'm concerned is pure speculation, with no testable evidence to back it up. Obviously certain things are logically impossible, but a world without, say, the crimes of Josef Fritzel which maintains a good balance of life does not seem impossible in my opinion. I would ask that you back up any position to the contrary. I will do so too by saying that the victims would have had the opportunity to live better, healthier lives had the crimes not existed.
I should add that the Leibnizian picture of certain worlds having so many contingent factors making creation difficult to balance seems to severely detract from the possibility of non-fatalism, a necessary condition for human free will.
- Book Mitten
Re: Jesus could be a supernatural being, but not God.
by jimwalton » Sun Oct 27, 2019 2:01 pm
> "May have a reason" isn't good enough. What reason?
I elaborated on some of the possible reasons, and I also explained that we can't possibly know all of them. Some of the reasons are (1) a dynamic world, (2) some of the benefits that can only come through hardship (perseverance, courage, etc.), (3) disciplinary lessons, and (4) that some suffering is the only possible path to good (as in a surgeon).
But there is much we cannot know. I gave the example of hippopotamus in a dog park. We would know whether or not there was one. But what of a dog whistle in the dog park? That is beyond our capability, so I am not a competent judge on that one.
> If you don't give at least some idea of the detriment, I'm unconvinced that I should be swayed by this.
I've given you ideas. I said that we would cease to be human if God removed all potential for evil and suffering. I also said that science and reasoning would become impossible, because cause-and-effect would be abrogated.
> Well I don't believe free will exists.
Free will has to exist. If an organism is self-aware, it is necessarily self-determined, and therefore there is free will.
If there is no such thing as free will, there is no such thing as reasoning and science, because science, to be real, takes deciding on a hypothesis and how to evaluate it, authentic categorizing of data, weighing of information, juggling theories and arriving at a conclusion. If you have no free will, none of this is really happening. You're not really thinking, and you're not really doing science. You're a robot.
If there is no free will, love is an illusion. There is no such thing.
> Your point seems to be similar to the Lebnizian position on possible and best worlds
I don't think it's a tenable position to say this is the best of all possible worlds. That would mean it's impossible to add any element (no matter what) that would improve it, like even a new species or an incremental increase or decrease in temperature or something. To me it's an untenable position.
I elaborated on some of the possible reasons, and I also explained that we can't possibly know all of them. Some of the reasons are (1) a dynamic world, (2) some of the benefits that can only come through hardship (perseverance, courage, etc.), (3) disciplinary lessons, and (4) that some suffering is the only possible path to good (as in a surgeon).
But there is much we cannot know. I gave the example of hippopotamus in a dog park. We would know whether or not there was one. But what of a dog whistle in the dog park? That is beyond our capability, so I am not a competent judge on that one.
> If you don't give at least some idea of the detriment, I'm unconvinced that I should be swayed by this.
I've given you ideas. I said that we would cease to be human if God removed all potential for evil and suffering. I also said that science and reasoning would become impossible, because cause-and-effect would be abrogated.
> Well I don't believe free will exists.
Free will has to exist. If an organism is self-aware, it is necessarily self-determined, and therefore there is free will.
If there is no such thing as free will, there is no such thing as reasoning and science, because science, to be real, takes deciding on a hypothesis and how to evaluate it, authentic categorizing of data, weighing of information, juggling theories and arriving at a conclusion. If you have no free will, none of this is really happening. You're not really thinking, and you're not really doing science. You're a robot.
If there is no free will, love is an illusion. There is no such thing.
> Your point seems to be similar to the Lebnizian position on possible and best worlds
I don't think it's a tenable position to say this is the best of all possible worlds. That would mean it's impossible to add any element (no matter what) that would improve it, like even a new species or an incremental increase or decrease in temperature or something. To me it's an untenable position.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Jesus could be a supernatural being, but not God.
by Book Mitten » Mon Oct 28, 2019 4:12 pm
> AI software. Is either of the creators responsible for where (what direction and consequences) learning experiences and circumstances take the software?
That depends. Can they see the software malfunction and be able to prevent it doing so? If yes, then I would say they have a responsibility to prevent it.
> Yes, that's part of the plan of salvation. Jesus came to give his life as an atonement for sin. That was the whole point.
So is the incarnation of Jesus existent prior to creation?
That depends. Can they see the software malfunction and be able to prevent it doing so? If yes, then I would say they have a responsibility to prevent it.
> Yes, that's part of the plan of salvation. Jesus came to give his life as an atonement for sin. That was the whole point.
So is the incarnation of Jesus existent prior to creation?
- Book Mitten
Re: Jesus could be a supernatural being, but not God.
by jimwalton » Mon Oct 28, 2019 4:16 pm
> Can they see the software malfunction and be able to prevent it doing so?
I'm not even talking about malfunction. AI is able to set its own course. The designer is not responsible for the course AI sets. He programmed it but didn't determine it; that's the whole premise of AI.
> So is the incarnation of Jesus existent prior to creation?
No. The incarnation of Jesus was an event in space/time history. That he would incarnate was known prior to creation, since God looks at time from an eternal present (not linearly), but the incarnation itself was not prior to creation.
I'm not even talking about malfunction. AI is able to set its own course. The designer is not responsible for the course AI sets. He programmed it but didn't determine it; that's the whole premise of AI.
> So is the incarnation of Jesus existent prior to creation?
No. The incarnation of Jesus was an event in space/time history. That he would incarnate was known prior to creation, since God looks at time from an eternal present (not linearly), but the incarnation itself was not prior to creation.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Jesus could be a supernatural being, but not God.
by Book Mitten » Mon Oct 28, 2019 4:33 pm
> If there is no such thing as free will, there is no such thing as reasoning and science, because science, to be real, takes deciding on a hypothesis and how to evaluate it, authentic categorizing of data, weighing of information, juggling theories and arriving at a conclusion.
All these things are part of what compels us. We can't just choose to believe something out of thin air. Our thinking and experiences are a flow of consciousness. You might call this a "process" in so far as it's a flux, but I don't say how this detracts from the ability to think. Thinking involves at least some degree of flux in that it flows.
If you have no free will, none of this is really happening. You're not really thinking, and you're not really doing science. You're a robot.
Wrong. Robots as of yet are not conscious. Besides, computers carry out processes and calculate. I'm not sure how this corresponds.
All these things are part of what compels us. We can't just choose to believe something out of thin air. Our thinking and experiences are a flow of consciousness. You might call this a "process" in so far as it's a flux, but I don't say how this detracts from the ability to think. Thinking involves at least some degree of flux in that it flows.
If you have no free will, none of this is really happening. You're not really thinking, and you're not really doing science. You're a robot.
Wrong. Robots as of yet are not conscious. Besides, computers carry out processes and calculate. I'm not sure how this corresponds.
- Book Mitten
Re: Jesus could be a supernatural being, but not God.
by jimwalton » Mon Oct 28, 2019 4:34 pm
> We can't just choose to believe something out of thin air. Our thinking and experiences are a flow of consciousness. You might call this a "process" in so far as it's a flux, but I don't say how this detracts from the ability to think. Thinking involves at least some degree of flux in that it flows.
Some things we cannot choose whether to believe them or not. We certainly can't make ourselves to believe against all evidence that the world is flat. But many things we do choose whether to believe them or not. Right now we are all assessing whether Donald Trump has done something illegal or not. We are evaluating the evidence (if we're getting any reliable information), categorizing the input, weighting the information, juggling theories, and arriving at a conclusion (eventually). This is genuine thinking, and without free will, it's just not possible. Nothing is pre-set in our brains about this. We receive information, process it, and conclude. We will never let computers (robots) be on a jury, because it takes processing skills of true reasoning, not just sorting data. The ability to think and reason, not just process information, are necessary for science.
> Wrong. Robots as of yet are not conscious. Besides, computers carry out processes and calculate. I'm not sure how this corresponds.
Computers calculate. People think. Computers follow their programming. People are capable of imagination, intuition, creativity, and reasoning.
Again, it's obvious we're not going to have a meeting of the minds here. We see our worlds very differently, you and I.
> Our thinking and experiences are a flow of consciousness.
What does this mean that doesn't involve free will? Any being that is self-aware is also necessarily self-directed. How can experiences be dynamic (they just happen, often unexpectedly) and thinking be a "flow", but without the true option of deciding anything?
Some things we cannot choose whether to believe them or not. We certainly can't make ourselves to believe against all evidence that the world is flat. But many things we do choose whether to believe them or not. Right now we are all assessing whether Donald Trump has done something illegal or not. We are evaluating the evidence (if we're getting any reliable information), categorizing the input, weighting the information, juggling theories, and arriving at a conclusion (eventually). This is genuine thinking, and without free will, it's just not possible. Nothing is pre-set in our brains about this. We receive information, process it, and conclude. We will never let computers (robots) be on a jury, because it takes processing skills of true reasoning, not just sorting data. The ability to think and reason, not just process information, are necessary for science.
> Wrong. Robots as of yet are not conscious. Besides, computers carry out processes and calculate. I'm not sure how this corresponds.
Computers calculate. People think. Computers follow their programming. People are capable of imagination, intuition, creativity, and reasoning.
Again, it's obvious we're not going to have a meeting of the minds here. We see our worlds very differently, you and I.
> Our thinking and experiences are a flow of consciousness.
What does this mean that doesn't involve free will? Any being that is self-aware is also necessarily self-directed. How can experiences be dynamic (they just happen, often unexpectedly) and thinking be a "flow", but without the true option of deciding anything?
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Jesus could be a supernatural being, but not God.
by Book Mitten » Mon Oct 28, 2019 4:40 pm
> I don't think it's a tenable position to say this is the best of all possible worlds. That would mean it's impossible to add any element (no matter what) that would improve it, like even a new species or an incremental increase or decrease in temperature or something. To me it's an untenable position.
I agree.
> If there is no free will, love is an illusion. There is no such thing.
As I said, I don't love someone out of thin air so to speak. I am compelled. Let me ask you, could you "choose" to love Hitler?>
I agree.
> If there is no free will, love is an illusion. There is no such thing.
As I said, I don't love someone out of thin air so to speak. I am compelled. Let me ask you, could you "choose" to love Hitler?>
- Book Mitten
Re: Jesus could be a supernatural being, but not God.
by jimwalton » Mon Oct 28, 2019 4:40 pm
> Let me ask you, could you "choose" to love Hitler?
I could. It's contingent on many variables. Eva Braun obviously did, as did many of his loyal officers. But you're talking about me. Love is not an alliance or even approval (or one could never love one's enemies, by definition). But if love is sacrificing oneself for the other person's wellbeing, I could choose to do that. (Of course, that doesn't mean I would approve of his actions.) As Christians we are told to love everyone because it's a choice, not a compulsion.
I could. It's contingent on many variables. Eva Braun obviously did, as did many of his loyal officers. But you're talking about me. Love is not an alliance or even approval (or one could never love one's enemies, by definition). But if love is sacrificing oneself for the other person's wellbeing, I could choose to do that. (Of course, that doesn't mean I would approve of his actions.) As Christians we are told to love everyone because it's a choice, not a compulsion.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Jesus could be a supernatural being, but not God.
by Book Mitten » Tue Oct 29, 2019 3:05 pm
> I'm not even talking about malfunction. AI is able to set its own course.
Could you give me an example? I'm not a computer scientist, but it's my understanding that AI is made with a purpose in mind. Either way, I would argue that AI doesn't have free will. Were you not also pointing to robots as an example of something without free will? Also, doesn't the creator have a responsibility to stop the AI causing harm (if the creator can) even if he/she is not responsible for its activities?
Could you give me an example? I'm not a computer scientist, but it's my understanding that AI is made with a purpose in mind. Either way, I would argue that AI doesn't have free will. Were you not also pointing to robots as an example of something without free will? Also, doesn't the creator have a responsibility to stop the AI causing harm (if the creator can) even if he/she is not responsible for its activities?
- Book Mitten
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests