Free Will

[Rei]

I was questioning how God could create something evil (as I believe that God has created all things good). As to your response, I don't think you are quite seeing the distinction I am trying to make and I am a bit too tired to attempt to clarify further, at the moment.

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

I do see the distinction you are trying to make, and as I noted earlier, I think it stems from your belief that the nature of anything cannot change. To this I would argue: God never changes, never can, and never will. God is perfectly being. Man is in a constant state of change, known as "becoming". no, he will never actually "be" something. he is in a perpetual state of becoming. always changing. THAT is what allowed our nature to change, while God's cannot.

[Rei]

Okay, one last attempt to articulate what I find so hugely important about the mutability of nature. First, concerning this (emphasis mine):

He created Adam and Eve as purely good, and he also created the rest of matter on Earth, which, eventually, becomes us. Adam and Eve together made the rest of humanity. God created Adam and Eve (mankind represented in them). then they sinned and changed the rest of humanity.

When it says that God created our inmost being, the psalmist is not speaking of the matter that composes our form. If it were simply our forms that were made from material made by God, then your assertion would valid. However, God made our inmost being, something that lies beneath our material form. This which God has created in every human being MUST be naturally good. If it has been created naturally evil, then God has created something naturally evil, and ceases then to be good.

You argue that God is in all ways immutable and we humans are mutable. And I agree. However, it is not our nature which is mutable, but rather our tendency to violate our nature, which may increase or decrease as we seek the one Good that is God. As Boethius taught us, we seek happiness, and if we love the One, the True, the Good, the Beautiful, and the Just, we will move towards it and become more like the image God created us in, his own. When we love anything else, we move away from God and are tossed by Fortune's wheel, for we have loved poorly. Our actions make us mutable, but we still always seek happiness which is found in what we perceive to be good.

So it may be said that our perceptions are mutable, but our nature remains good, regardless of what we perceive to be good. And God's perception remains immutable, for God knows what good looks like, for God is the One, the True, the Good, the Beautiful, and the Just. He cannot be anything else and cannot have made our nature to seek anything else without he himself violating his immutability and being fallen. What you call "becoming" is not, in fact, the changing state of Man's nature, but rather the changing perception of each individual's ability to see what is good.

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

First off, yes, God created all men when he created Adam and Eve. They were representative of our race. Secondly, I keep hearing you say that we "violate our nature" meaning our good nature. If we are constantly violating our nature, then one could argue it HAS BECOME OUR nature to "violate our nature," i.e. we are naturally evil.

also, I think that everybody can always see what is good and what is not (see my thread on moral dilemmas). The Holy Spirit gave us a conscience which tells us what is and isn't good.

[Rei]

Another thing to consider, in this discussion, is that nobody does anything because they think it is evil and they wish to perpetrate evil. Every good or evil act is done because someone believes that what they are doing is just and good. Now a person may have a very skewed idea of justice or of what is good, but they still believe that what they are doing is good. A mass-murderer does not kill people because they want to do evil, but rather because they feel it is just or right somehow. Any creature that has an evil nature will not be moved by the good they see in something, but by the evil they see in it.

Now, one might make a case that there have been some people in history who have in honesty done what they have done for the sake of being evil, but I cannot think of a single example, and there will not be enough such people to account for every fallen act committed by every single person -- from every six-year-old who lies about having done their teeth to tyrannical leaders committing mass genocide. You will be hard pressed to find a single one person who does what is fallen because it is a fallen thing to do, and not because they believe they are justified or good for doing so, however wrong they may be.

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

I agree with you that people rarely do thinks knowing perfectly well it is evil. The problem comes when they justify it in their minds. A terrorist may think that he is killing for world peace, to save future generations, but he is still doing evil. Whether a he believes he is doing good or not, he is still doing evil. That is how I can justify saying that man is naturally evil: because so often, the evil is justified in his own mind. Evil is not just what we as people percieve it to be; it is what it is because it is the absence of good. Evil and good are not relative.

[Rei]

One's nature, however, defines what one desires. If anyone desires good, even if they have a distorted view of what is good, their nature is still good. No one with an evil nature can desire something because it is good. They can only desire something because it is evil. The fact of believing something is good and doing it for that reason shows that that person's nature is good, even if they are mistaken in what they are doing.

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

NO! That is exactly the thing I'm trying to tell you. when something is evil, believing it is good doesn't make it any less evil. An evil nature causes people to do evil acts, reguardless of how they think of it in their own mind. That's like saying that a Satan-worshipper can get into heaven as long as he believed he was doing good, because that would make his action good. That is one of the philosophies of C.S. Lewis, which is why I've never liked him. Evil is Evil no matter how much you want it not to be.

[human.]

I think the point Rei was trying to make is that sometimes one commits an act that he believes is truly good. Absolutely, without a doubt in his mind, this is what is for the best. This is good. You see that act as evil. But he doesn't even comprehend that it is anything but good.

The act is evil, in your eyes. But it is good in his. What makes you the sole decider of what is good and what is evil?

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

Because good is absolute. I didn't decide it, God did. Rei? what about the answer to my last post?

[human.]

Not all people believe in the same God as you do. Other people worship other deities, and have different beliefs about what is good and what is evil. Some people believe that God told them to commit the acts they do.

My friend believes that his God told him and his family to move to South America, where they help build houses and run a school for children there. But perhaps a suicide bomber believes his God has told him to become a suicide bomber. They both believe that their God, the ultimate power in their lives, told them to commit the acts, so they commit them.

So, what is the difference? They both do things because they believe what they are doing is inherently good and what their God wants them to do. Now, to you and me and a large part of the world we live in, the suicide bomber is committing an evil act.

But what if some of the Quechua people in Peru believe my friend and his family are committing an evil act by moving into their land and impregnating their children with ideas and stories about a God that they don't believe in?

Someone sees each of these people as committing an act of evil, but both of these people believe they are doing intrinsically good things.

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

As I have said earlier (maybe in another post?) There is only one truth. If two people believe opposite things, only ONE person can be right. saying it is so and believing it is so does not make it so. But there IS an absolute standard for good, as determined by God. Anybody who has done evil and has not been saved, reguardless of how "good" they thought they were being, will go to Hell. I assume, then, from your disagreement with me that you believe in the free will of man, and not the omnipotence of God?

[human.]

I do not believe in a god. I was for a majority of my life a Christian and for about three years before the year I became an atheist, I felt that I was quite devout, according to what I had been taught.

However, what I'm trying to say is that not everyone believes exactly what you believe. In order to debate this subject, it is imperative that you are open to this idea.

I do not believe in god, so I decide by myself what is evil and what is good and whether the person committing the act is evil or good. I believe in black and white and also shades of grey. You believe in your God, and what you believe he says is evil, is evil, and what you believe he says is good, is good (because if it is the Christian God, and you take your beliefs from the Bible or preachers, etc. I know first hand that the beliefs on what is good and evil differ dramatically between different people who all worship this same God.) Others believe in their God and what they believe their God says is good or evil is good or evil, respectively. I would venture to say that it is completely impossible to have everyone believe that x, y, and z are all inherently evil acts and that anyone who commits them is evil because everyone knows they are evil. People will not agree on this fact. Everyone has their own personal opinions, as evinced just by you and me.

So, I understand and respect that you believe that someone who commits an evil act is evil. But what I'm asking you to do is, explain to me how, in context of the fact that everyone believes differently from each other, an act can be inherently evil if the person committing it is in complete belief that they are doing good.

Okay, hypothetically, let's say we live in this society. And doing charity is an act of evil that is banned by the God that we believe in. However, Isabel is from a society where they believe that doing charity is the most pure and good act anyone can do, as decreed by the God they believe in. She comes to our society, without knowledge of how we believe, and she starts to do charity for us. She thinks she is being a great citizen and a devout follower of her God. We think she is committing a dreadful and evil sin.

Is she evil?

[Rei]

Crazy Tom: I am not meaning to suggest that there is no absolute good. I have been speaking of how individuals perceive their own actions, much as human. described. When considering justice, one CANNOT forget such issues as intent. Believing that something is good does not make it all okay. I believe that God is the One, the True, the Beautiful, the Just, and the Good, and that everything we see in life which bears those qualities is a reflection of him, even if it is a distorted reflection. It is up to each person to seek the clear vision of God.

And, out of curiosity, have you read Speaker for the Dead, yet?

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

Yep. great book. read the entire EG + ES series except for EiE. I think that intent SHOULD be ignored when dealing woth matters of justice. as we noted earlier, a person never does evil knowing full well that it is evil.

Human: I would be a Nihilist if I hadn't seen Truth. If you don't believe in God, why are you on this forum? RELIGION and moral philosophy? I see your point about how there are multiple opinions concerning what is good and what isnt, but NONE OF THEM MATTER. Only God can determine what is and isn't good. I don't care if a terrorist thinks mindless slaughter is "good" because it isnt because God has said so. of course, you are an aetheist, so what do you care?

[jotabe]

You realize, of course, that atheists and agnostics can discuss morals and the nature of free will completely obviating any religious concern.

Also, i fail to see the link between being atheist and being nihilist. Well there is one, but Nietszche worked on that.

[human.]

Essentially, what jota said.

I'm slightly offended that you think this is not a place I should be, but maybe that is not what you meant, so I will not take it that way.

The thing is, I don't have a set moral code that I follow that has already been decided. You have what your God has said. But it's not so easy for me. I have to figure out what feels right and wrong to me. So a discussion of morals is always interesting to me because I'm curious to how my own beliefs differ or are similar to others around me.

Now for religion. I happen to find religion extremely interesting. Some people, such as yourself it would seem, base their entire lives off of their religion and what it mandates and how they interpret it or it has been interpreted to them. This fascinates me. I find the similarities in beliefs also extremely fascinating and I enjoy learning about people and their religions. I am not a god hater or anything like that. I simply do not believe in a god.

Interestingly, I am applying to colleges right now and one of the topics said to describe a learning experience that has affected the way you view the world today. I thought about my experiences and the one that stood out beyond all the rest was this:

Two summers ago, I went on a trip to Singapore, during which I took a day trip to Malaysia. We had a tour guide and we toured one of the Malay states. In one town, the tour guide brought us to this temple. It was a temple. Not much more to say from first glances. However, once we had entered the temple, she explained that there were three sides to the temple. There was a side for Buddhists, a side for Hindus, and a side for Taoists. Now, if a Buddhist came to this temple, he went to the side designated for Buddhists, where he would meditate. When he was through, he would go to the Hindu side of the temple and pay his respect to that religion. Then he would go to the Taoist side of the temple and pay his respect to that religion. He knows that what he believes is true is the absolute truth; however, he respects and understands that others believe differently than he does. He may think they are wrong, but he still understands that they believe they are correct.

My point is, it doesn't matter if I don't believe the same things you do. It doesn't matter if I don't believe in a god. I respect your beliefs. I acknowledge the fact that while I believe there is no god, that I can be wrong. I don't think I'm wrong, but I know that it is a possibility.

I dislike the fact that you ask "so what do you care?" I care immensely about others' ideas and opinions, especially about things that govern the world they live in. I don't have to believe in god to know how much god means to some people. And I personally believe that in order to feel confident and secure in one's life, it is necessary to have someone or something that you know you can always count on to be there. For some people, this is their god. For me, it is not.

But you refuse to even consider, even in the hypothetical, other options than your own belief. And I think that brings everything to an impasse.

[CezeN]

^^^I hear that people applying instate have to write a ton of essays, while I only had to write like one for the commonap. (And maybe 1 for certain college supplements)

How many did you write?

[human.]

Well, that wasn't really the point of the story..

But I wrote one essay for the main common app, then about three more for supplements. The most I wrote was on MIT because it's a bunch of different length responses. NC State had five 70-word responses. For instate, I wrote one essay and used my common app essay for another. Then I had to write a 350-word response for UT Honors Engineering.

Then I wrote two essays for a scholarship and one for an honors program, both for out of state schools.

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

I only meant that, as an aetheist, you obviously believe in free will (unless you follow determinism). I understand that aetheists have morals, and I apologise for unintentionally implying that you did not. I simply think that because you do not believe in a higher entity, you have no basis for morality other than what you yourself think. Do you believe that there is an abolute truth?

As to your other accusation about me refusing to consider other beliefs:

Yes, absolutely. I have no doubts or qualms about my faith, I believe it with my whole heart, soul, and mind. I post on these forums to better understand others views and, hopefully, to expose them to the Word of God and bring them to salvation. That may sound cheezy and childish to you, but however stupid, arrogant, or idiotic I may seem, this is the goal I pursue. As you are an aetheist, I have severe doubts of convincing you of anything, hence my unintentionally hostile remarks. sorry.

[human.]

I don't actually understand what "absolute truth" means, to me. I understand what it means to you. But I can't really fathom it in my own life, so I think that I do not believe in it. And, you're right, the only basis I have for morality is what I think. Now, I was a Christian for quite some time, so many of my morals have evolved from what I was taught when I was a Christian. Some of them have changed, but a lot are the same. I'd venture to say my moral code is extremely complicated, and those on this forum who know me outside of pweb would probably agree with me on that.

I definitely look at things from as many perspectives as I can, which is why I support looking at intent to decide whether an act is evil or not. Nothing is completely concrete, to me (well, not nothing, but most things, anyway). So if someone does something terrible in my eyes, I might be mistaken, and I want to make sure I have looked at what that person did through as many perspectives as possible, including that person's own perspective. To be honest, I think I've become more open-minded since I became an atheist than I was when I was a Christian. But maybe that stems from the fact that there isn't an absolute truth in my life that I believe and follow, so when I don't know the exact truth of the world, I'm more open to others' ideas on it.

You can convince me of a lot of things. My opinion is very easily swayed. But, I need proof and evidence and detail to back up whatever you say. Now, with this, it's obviously something that you either believe or not. But for other things, if you can show me why it's true and answer every question I have, then you can very well convince me. Now, I wouldn't try convincing me that there is a god right off the bat, but baby steps are good. =]

Personally, I believe what sounds most logical to me, except when it comes to relationships. Those are just crazy. But overall, if you can logically explain something to me to where I believe it, I can be convinced. I think I would have a much harder time convincing you that a god doesn't exist, than you would convincing me a god does exist. Though that's not to say it'd be easy. =]

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

(see my post on Evolution versus Creation. THAT is my proof that God exists)

[jotabe]

CT, if your morals depend solely on what God says, and you are not allowed to judge yourself if they are righteous or not, how many leaps of faith do you need to do?

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

None. I read the Bible and know that it's true. I judge based on what the Bible says

[Sonikku13]

Which bible? There are many versions. (I know, odd question, but there are differences between versions.)

[jotabe]

Ah, so your moral system doesn't come from God, after all. It comes from the Bible. You believe in the Bible, not in God.

[human.]

(see my post on Evolution versus Creation. THAT is my proof that God exists)

My point is, I need explanation. Not rhetorical questions, nor simply "The Bible says so." I don't believe what the Bible says is true. It has truths in it, just like most literature examined in American English classes. So using the Bible to prove something to me won't prove it to me. It might be all the proof that you need, but you have to cater to my needs in order to change my mind.

Er, but free will and stuff! I realize now that I've helped get this a bit off topic...

[perspicacious.emperor]

Ooooh I don't want to bother reading everything, even though I should :x

I read somewhere about the argument of free will/consciousness. There are three sides, apparently: a) mind and body are different things (metaphysics), b) mind and body are the same thing, and lastly c) SHIRANAI LOL ¯\(°_o)/¯

I'm one of those people who believe the mind and body are two different things. Some merda about Astral Plane and Physical Plane, etc., etc. I won't go into detail. I'm really hopeful about this. But even if THIS, this EARTH AND SUN AND GALAXY AND UNIVERSE is all we really have, then I'm not going to complain. (But I do hope we build some better spaceships soon.)

I see some people have brought religion into this. Something about free will, first sin, God's purpose... (that's all I really absorbed from scanning). I'm an absurdist so... I really don't think there is a purpose. I'd go further and fight about this, but I don't want to maul or be mauled.

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

Ah, so your moral system doesn't come from God, after all. It comes from the Bible. You believe in the Bible, not in God.

How utterly ignorant and insulting. I DO believe in God. the Bible is simply the word of God. Simple as that.

Sonik, I prefer the NKJV, but I use others as well.

[human.]

Jota was not attempting to insult you, I'm sure. I think what he was pointing out is that you believe the Bible. Whatever it says is the truth. (EDIT: To clarify, my opinion starts here.) But the Bible was written by men, who have the ability to commit evil acts and who do not have absolute knowledge like your God does. So, if your God doesn't tell you exactly what he thinks is moral and what is not moral, how can you know that things are and are not moral?

Now, that's very broad and overexaggerated, so I hope you don't think I'm saying the Bible is lying. I promise you that I am not saying that.

But look at the way CezeN, or jota, or other people interpret the Bible differently from you. You don't agree even though you read approximately the same words. And, the Bible was not originally written in English, so how can you know that the translation you read is absolute truth and that the way that you interpret it is absolutely correct? If your God isn't telling you directly, how can you be sure that humans, (who have the ability to make mistakes), haven't written things slightly differently than what God had intended.

[jotabe]

No, don't misunderstand me, i meant no offence, but for you to reflect on my question instead of simply disregarding it; so i just replied accordingly.
The Bible CLAIMS to be the word of God: that's the first leap of faith. But not only that: unless you believe that the bible was handwritten by god, you have to trust that the humans are relaying truthfully their experience with god (second), and that they do so without mistake (third). Then you have to trust that god is actually as he portrays himself in the bible, that is, that god isn't lying to the people who wrote it (fourth) nor that god isn't mistaken (fifth). And finally, you have to trust that all successive translations, rewritings, recompilations and rearrangements have not altered the originals (sixth).
That's a lot of leaps of faith, and very large ones, to many to trust it on topics (like science) where the writers had no expertise whatsoever, against what reality says.

Edited for spellnig, too late in the night XD good night!

[human.]

Wow, Jota, we think so alike!

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

Jota.

I spotted several blasphemous and outright wrong statements in that last post.

God cannot lie, God cannot be mistaken.

As to the rest of that, the Bible is divinely inspired. The original writers wrote exactly what God intended them to write.

Out of all of those, the only "leap of faith" I am making is about the translators. That's why my dad leaned Greek: so he could understand the original. Thats why I learn Latin: so I can understand the one right next to the original. But KJV is the best English translation I have seen, so I use that.

[CezeN]

Religon is pretty much centered around faith. In fact, I don't call it my "religon", I call it my faith.

Also, my belief is that there is a part of God; the holy spirit; that lies within all of us. Though, it wasn't sent down to the whole masses till after Jesus rose.
However, I believe that through the holy spirit guiding the writiers, the bible was written. Meaning, the men may have used their own slang and style of speaking, but were directly writing what God desired them to write.

Last, I've only been to the adult bible study on Wednesday at my church a few times, since I usually go to the teens/children's class.
But, I distinctly remember that one of those times they used another book to go back to what words were used in whatever particular verse in whatever (I assumed)origin language, and interpret the meaning based on that.

Oh yeah, Human, you're experience reminded me of the book Life Of Pi.

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

I agree about the individual writers expressing things in their own way, but still being divinely inspired via the Holy Spirit.

Life of Pi as opposed to the book Life of Human. lol

3~3.1415927.... Pi.

NEway, I'll post later. I go to a Trinity Bible institute every Monday 7-10, and I have 2 leave soon.