Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FYP
Oh believe PDN I've explained at length to numerous posters that this isn't the case. As you may have discovered yourself most of the atheists on this forum do not back away from explaining and re-explaining their points as needed. Often to the growing annoyance of the theist posters who are perhaps not used to such rigorous support of a position.
Such an argument would only hold true in a world where all actions were morally neutral (ie in a world where no-one can make any choices that are immoral).
The morality of an action is not particular relevant. The morality comes after the physicality of the action.
It is immoral to thrown a pot of boiling water on someone because it will burn them horribly, causing significant suffering and perhaps even death. This is a consequence of the physical rules established as part of the universe.
While it is annoying it is far from the same level of immorality of throwing a cup of luke warm water on someone. This is because such an action is largely harmless.
So we have a universe that, for what ever reason, God has established physical rules that make use susceptible to harm if we are exposed to water at a particular temperature.
Could he have done something different? Of course. Would this have effected free will? No, at least not more than any other restriction God has placed on us. I could still throw the pot of water over you, it just wouldn't do anything.
In this supposed universe you would not be able to burn someone to death with water of any temperature, but this would no more mean you do not have free will than not being able to burn someone to death with a glass of luke warm water does.I seriously doubt whether such a world could logically exist and still provide for free will. Free will, as understood by moral philosophers of all belief systems, means more than making a morally neutral choice whether to wear a blue shirt or a red shirt.
So do you feel you do not have free will because you cannot kill someone with a glass of luke warm water?Of course one possible way this could be done might be God fooling us that our decisions really mattered - when in reality we are simply experiencing an illusion.
Possibly but that isn't necessary. God can make reality any way he likes. An illusionary world is not necessary. Just a different real world with different physical properties. Free will would, as it is in this universe, be a choice between the limited options.
You seem to be suggesting that if I do not have the option to cause you harm I do not have free will. There seems to be no logical basis for that assertion.So I think it is a philosophically valid argument to suggest that a world with free moral choices (one in which qualities like love and bravery mean something) must by definition include at least the possibility of hurting someone else.
Well you have dropped bravery in there I see so I suspect you are gearing up for a classic shifting of the goal posts so common on this forum. So lets nip that in the bud.
It is entirely consistent to argue that in order for bravery to exist there must be the possibility of harm, since bravery by definition is courage to continue to do something despite risk of harm. You cannot be brave if you cannot be harmed.
But since when is bravery required for free will. Right now I am in my apartment typing on a computer, there is nothing brave about anything I'm doing. Does that mean I have no free will and am not making choices? Of course not. I'm making tons of choices.In that case the debate shifts somewhat. The issue is not really about the existence of evil or suffering - it is about why there is so much of it. Would any of us be having this debate if the worse thing you could do to another human being was to wake them up in the middle of the night, causing sleeplessness?
And that is what Dostoyevsky wrestled with in The Brothers Karamazov, in his conversation between Ivan and Alyosha about a child torn to pieces by a lanndlord's dogs (I think Fanny Cradock already referred to this). The existence of evil is not the problem - it is the intensity and unfairness of such incidents. Is such suffering as we see in the world really worth the gift of free moral choices, of love, of compassion?
The problem as I would see it is that the physical nature of reality makes it relatively easy to harm others, and provides a whole host of ways to harm others. Humans are physical weak and surrounded by a world in which there exists a multitude of methods of harm. There is no logical reason why this has to be the case in order to maintain free will (yes bravery, but then why is the existence of bravery required for free will).
Even if we suppose for a minute (which I don't by the way but you seem rather insistent) that in order to maintain free will God must provide some way for you to seriously harm or kill me. There is no reason why that way has to be an easy.
Imagine if the only way to harm someone was a hugely involved complicated and different task. You could still, if you could stick it out, choose to do it. But few ever would because humans are inherently lazy. Imagine if killing someone required the same effort as landing someone on the Moon. Do we not have free will because it is hard to land someone on the Moon? No. So why would we not have free will if the only way to harm someone required similar effort. I very much doubt people would bother.
But for some reason God decided that in fact he was going to make a universe where it was quite easy to harm each other (and very difficult to go to the Moon, go figure).I actually think that is a debate worth having - but I doubt if we will have it, because the next few pages will probably be dominated by a poster making repeated assertions without proving or demonstrating his point.
Not sure if that is in reference to me but I assure you I'm more than happy to have this debate and more than happy to spend any amount of time explaining and demonstrating my points.And there's an example of what is wrong, and will continue to be wrong, with this thread. That certainly isn't what I believe - and you continually asserting that it is won't make it my opinion.
Well I hate to break it to you PDN but not every single comment on this thread is directed at you, particularly when another Christian poster is referenced in the post :P0 -
That is not true. I have yet to see you offer a coherent explanation.Oh believe PDN I've explained at length to numerous posters that this isn't the case. As you may have discovered yourself most of the atheists on this forum do not back away from explaining and re-explaining their points as needed. Often to the growing annoyance of the theist posters who are perhaps not used to such rigorous support of a position.
The morality of an action is not particular relevant. The morality comes after the physicality of the action.It is immoral to thrown a pot of boiling water on someone because it will burn them horribly, causing significant suffering and perhaps even death. This is a consequence of the physical rules established as part of the universe.
While it is annoying it is far from the same level of immorality of throwing a cup of luke warm water on someone. This is because such an action is largely harmless.
No, I think you are wrong. I think it is immoral to throw cold water over someone, thus causing annoyance. The degree of immorality is different - which I think reinforces my point that the real issue is not the existence of evil and suffering, but the amount and intensity of it.
Yes, because you have already switched the issue from the existence of evil and suffering to the degrees of evil and suffering. If throwing cold water over someone, or indeed any other possible action, caused them no ill effect whatsoever, then it is difficult to see how moral choices can exist.So we have a universe that, for what ever reason, God has established physical rules that make use susceptible to harm if we are exposed to water at a particular temperature.
Could he have done something different? Of course. Would this have effected free will? No, at least not more than any other restriction God has placed on us.
In this supposed universe you would not be able to burn someone to death with water of any temperature, but this would no more mean you do not have free will than not being able to burn someone to death with a glass of luke warm water does.
You are making a very elementary logical mistake. I am proposing that a certain degree of bad consequences to others from our actions is necessary for free will in respect to moral choices to exist. Removing one possible consequence does not negate our free will. Therefore you jump to the illogical conclusion that if one particular bad consequence can be removed and leave us retaining free will, then every single one of them can be removed together, and still leave us with the ability to make moral choices. Do you see the big gaping hole in that logic?So do you feel you do not have free will because you cannot kill someone with a glass of water?
No, because all my moral choices have not been removed. I still have plenty of other opportunities to choose love over hate, or bravery over cowardice.
No, that isn't true. God cannot make reality where self-contradictions co-exist. He cannot create a world with square circles. He cannot create a world where I exist but simultaneously have no existence. And I think there are good reasons for believing that a world without any adverse consequences to our actions, yet where we still have thre free will to make moral choices, is inherently self-contradictory.Possibly but that isn't necessary. God can make reality any way he likes. An illusionary world is not necessary. Just a different real world with different physical properties. Free will would, as it is in this universe, be a choice between the limited options.
Coming from you that is classic.Well you have dropped bravery in there I see so I suspect you are gearing up for a classic shifting of the goal posts so common on this forum. So lets nip that in the bud.
I think you're confusing yourself again. There are a whole range of moral choices we can make. The fact that, at one particular point in time, you cannot exercise every single moral choice simultaneously, does not mean that each particular moral choice is not valuable.It is entirely consistent to argue that in order for bravery to exist their must be the possibility of harm, since bravery by definition is courage to continue to do something despite risk of harm. You cannot be brave if you cannot be harmed.
But since when is bravery required for free will. Right now I am in my apartment typing on a computer, there is nothing brave about anything I'm doing. Does that mean I have no free will and am not making choices? Of course not.The problem as I would see it is that the physical nature of reality makes it relatively easy to harm others, and provides a whole host of ways to harm others.
Even if we suppose for a minute (which I don't by the way but you seem rather insistent) that in order to maintain free will God must provide some way for you to kill me. There is no reason why that way has to be easy.
Imagine if the only way to harm someone was a hugely involved complicated and different task. You could still, if you could stick it out, choose to do it. But few ever would because humans are inherently lazy.
But 'easy' is a relative term, is it not? If you had never known any other universe than this, and if the only way to kill someone was through a complicated process - you would still complain that it was easy, because you'd never lived in a universe where it was easier to kill someone.
Or, if you lived in a universe where we could kill each other by telepathy - thinking bad thoughts at each other - you might imagine our present universe and think how hard it would be to kill people.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement