Pastelland Forum

Exactly!

In words most members here may understand: There is no flawed copy of there isn't an original copy.

ALRIGHT, some good discussion!

Isobel The Sorceress wrote: I think Yin and Yang represent contrast and opposites. You can't have one without the other. How do you know something is "good", if you have never seen what is "bad"? If everything is the same, there's no need to even have words to describe these things, since you have nothing to compare them to.

So, if you lived a "life without flaw", how would you know it was a perfect life? You would have no experience of imperfection, nothing to compare it to.

REALLY good point. Yeah, I think I was thinking more of the idea where good and evil are seen somehow as polar opposites, equals along a spectrum. I'm rejecting that model. Evil, it seems to me, can only exist because of good, although good can only be seen for how good it is because of evil.

And I like Neo's answer, WorldisQuiet, although it seems incomplete. It IS for love or one of the other ideas that the flawed copy derides, but the "choosing to" is the amazing ability we have. The will to do the Good, rather than give up, or merely serve our own interests.

It seems that good and evil both require self-aware persons to exist, but I don't think it is just ideas that are evil, but actions and events. Skynet, it seems to me, is a boarderline example because it may in fact be a self aware being. If it is not, then its conclusions may in some sense be innocent, a logical and deadly force of nature. Yet it can be seen as evil because its actions are evil.

My idea that evil is flaw, irrationality, and limitation seems to depend on these things effecting self-aware people in some way, in a momentary way or in an Ultimate way. The product of evil seems to be the promotion and creation of harm, pain, and death. Good, the idea of universality, consistency, and completion, promotes life, happiness, and growth. Could good and evil also somehow relate to something like an Ultimate truth or plan, even if we are ignorant of its ultimate scope, but only can discern its peripheral edges?

As strange as it may sound, this discussion is extremely applicable to my life right now as I'm struggling with a dilemma that reason has finally plopped in my lap about my beliefs and commitment to God.

Redafro wrote:It seems that good and evil both require self-aware persons to exist, but I don't think it is just ideas that are evil, but actions and events. Skynet, it seems to me, is a boarderline example because it may in fact be a self aware being. If it is not, then its conclusions may in some sense be innocent, a logical and deadly force of nature. Yet it can be seen as evil because its actions are evil.

Have you ever played The Infinite Ocean by Jonas Kyratzes? It has some interesting points about sentient computers that deviates from the standard scenario in which a computer becomes sentient and wishes to destroy humanity etc.
(Note: it's highly text based)

Redafro wrote:I'm struggling with a dilemma that reason has finally plopped in my lap about my beliefs and commitment to God.

I hope you don't mind me asking, but what may this dilemma be?

The game looks cool, I'll have to play that when I get a chance.

As for my dilemma... oh what the heck, guess I knew someone would ask that, so some part of me must have wanted to talk about it. Let me copy past some stuff from my notes then.

_____
Part 1: Compatibilism vs Determinism (with a little absolute free will thrown in).

It is fallacious to declaring something is determined after the fact. You have to know how it is determined.
Ignoring the capacities of choice, perception, abstraction, prediction, conceptualization, value assigning, and invention.
Ignoring that within these capacities exist a range of choices one can make.
Ignroing that without concistancy (laws of cause and effect) no meaningful freedom of choice could exist anyway.
It is ridiculous to claim a person is not free because they will only choose what they perceived as their best choice. They are still exercising the freedom, or capacity, of choice regardless of why they made their choice in an ultimate sense. The fact that an individual would not have chosen something other than their perceived best option in no way nullifies the fact of a person who is capable of determining their percieved best option and that they could not have done otherwise. (Best option, not best interest, because people often choose things that are not in their best interest relative to Betterment, but relative to various short term perceived or emotional gains.)
That I did not choose other than my best percieved option in no way implies that I could not have. Of course I didn't choose otherwise, why would I? Yet we could in fact choose any other of our perceived option simply as an exercise of our capacity to choose freely. If the determinist smirks and says “but you were determined to do that,” is still missing the point that the choice was chosen.
So, it is not that “you could make no other choice,” but “I would make no other choice.” The emphasize deserves to be with the choice maker, not on the circumstances effecting the choice. Otherwise, you ingore the choice capacity and the self that makes it.
We create alternative realities and choose between them. This alone seems a violation of one past, one future. The very limitation of our predictive power creates possible future realities that could not have existed otherwise without us. When you have the complexity of predictability coupled with a value system that can learn and improve its choices, you have something that seems to violate a single outcome universes. However, it could be that this seeming is the illusion that determinists speak of. Yet even if you grant that the synthesizing of alternative futures is still, in the end, a deterministic process, you're really not saying anything to contradict the existence of a choice making, valuing assigning, and predicting set of faculties.
But on the other hand, a conception of absolute free will ignores the limitations the self is under. Choices are not infinite because capacities (physical and mental) are not infinite.
So, what does this conception of self-determinism get us? It states that the self is responsible for its actions, not the external world, because it is only the self that is capable of making the choice to do those actions, not the external world. This means an evil person might be limited to evil choices because they are limited to their world view, but it also means that they might have simply choosen the evil path even though they knew better.

Part 2: God and compatibilism.

Is God justified in:
1. creating people whom he knows will ultimately be eternally punished for who they have chosen to become (be it a “free” choice or not)
2. in order to create the circumstances for creating people who will ultimately choose to love and serve Himself (the ultimate good) eternally
3. and who will know the depth of God's goodness by the contrast of the evils and pain of a fallen world?
4. And I would add, who have the experience of Betterment in each circumstance in which they (freely?) will to make God the God of that circumstance, but who mostly fail at Betterment when they fail to do so, and through this exercise come to a fuller understanding of the Goodness of God.
A big question in all this is the question of freedom. I see man as having the capacity to choose freely relative to their opportunities, limitations, and their character. For example, one cannot freely choose to kill one's wife if the will to do so is not somehow within oneself, externally induced issues aside. Character is an identity system including ones good and bad choices, ones values and goals, and any and all inconsistencies within that system.

_____
I never saw the conclusions in part 2 clearly until I went through part 1. My model of compatibility is still essentially deterministic such that there is no innocents for God in the creation of people whom he knows will eventually choose to reject him. So I have to ask the question, how do I handle a supposedly good God who would create a person for a purpose, however beneficial to others, that will eventually lead to that persons eternal pain. It's an ugly thought, as if heaven is built on the suffering of the damned.

The hardest part is perhaps that I'm a Christian because I've experienced God changing me so much over the past 20 years that a mere intellectual argument has not much power to overcome that weight of evidence and I'm much more inclined to think the above arguments are simply wrong somehow. However, I'm not just committed to God (as you would to a spouse, a friend, or a parent) but to discovering truth, so I will forge ahead and see what I can find. I have a few work arounds this dilemma, but not a good one yet. Mainly because they obviously ARE work arounds.

I’ll try my best to give a good response, not weak arguments and empty words, but I can’t guarantee that I will.

Redafro wrote: creating people whom he knows will ultimately be eternally punished for who they have chosen to become (be it a “free” choice or not)

The whole idea of freedom is that there are many possibilities as to what is chosen. What if there is a decision between a number of equally-advantageous choices? Wouldn’t the final decision be a result of free will? Sure you can say that there may be variables involved, but not if the decision is between opposites (does that even make any sense?). Every choice made counts (even if seemingly unimportant at the time that it was made) and will determine what choices will be faced with later. The outcome is random and therefore cannot be determined.

Redafro wrote: in order to create the circumstances for creating people who will ultimately choose to love and serve Himself (the ultimate good) eternally

There are many who have went astray (through their choices) and the people who have dedicated themselves to serve God must have certain attributes to be successful (i.e. choose options that would in the future help bring them closer to the Almighty).

Redafro wrote:and who will know the depth of God's goodness by the contrast of the evils and pain of a fallen world?

Didn't we say that evil is the absence of good vice versa? As long as people can imagine God's goodness and have seen that evil and pain do exist will they be able deepen their understanding. (have I answered the wrong question?)

Redafro wrote:And I would add, who have the experience of Betterment in each circumstance in which they (freely?) will to make God the God of that circumstance, but who mostly fail at Betterment when they fail to do so, and through this exercise come to a fuller understanding of the Goodness of God.

Can you rephrase this? Maybe I should just come back to this later.

Redafro wrote:A big question in all this is the question of freedom.

Definitely, if there was a definite "yes" to whether true freedom existed then all questions would have an answer.

Redafro wrote:how do I handle a supposedly good God who would create a person for a purpose, however beneficial to others, that will eventually lead to that person's eternal pain

Where does eternal pain come in? The pain of a lifetime maybe, but eternal? Aren't we talking about people who have a purpose and have fulfilled it? Or have I misunderstood what you are saying?

Redafro wrote:discovering truth

Sometimes it's surprisingly difficult to understand events and why and how they occur despite what we have experienced; sometimes we just need have faith that what may be a cloudy lens may give to a crystal clear image. (am I only speaking for myself?)





I really have no idea as to whether anything I said made any sense whatsoever or if I even understood your questions. I'll come back to this later when I feel fresher.

@Redafro:
You bring up interesting points. Your points 1 and 2 about God and compatibilism remind me of thoughts I wrestled with some years ago:

- If God wants me to choose him, why did he create me (and a bunch of other people) as sceptics and scientific thinkers, who rely on hard evidence and logic, and then refuses to show any tangible proof of himself? Because it makes it look like he actually doesn't want me to choose him.

- If God loves people so much and wants us to love him back, why did he create hell? Just in case we don't love him back after all? I find it hard to trust and love a being who certainly doesn't trust me or my judgement. The whole concept of heaven and hell also makes the whole "free will" thing almost impossible: You are totally free to choose, but if you choose the "wrong" option it's eternal damnation for you. Yep, totally free choice. I think it's unfair to give beings free will and then punish them for the choices they make.

- The whole idea that God created man to worship him. What kind of being decides to make himself an inferior race of minions to control, instead of beings that are his equals, that he could have meaningful relationships with? That kind of creature doesn't deserve worship. Pity, perhaps.

Thanks for the replies, I'll try to use them to clarify what I'm saying and add to the story.

So, the most logical explanation I have been able to come up with is something like this:

God is infinite in power and complete in knowledge. He values all that is perfect, reforms all he can (limited by his consistency, values, ethics, and goals), and destroys or punishes (?) that which is evil. Consistency (cause and effect, logic... and perhaps things like love and beauty as well) and power emanate from his being rather than being forces of nature which he is dependent on. They are part of who he is.

His goal in creating humanity is to create the circumstances under which individuals may arise who will choose to commit to him base on their desire or need to do so, and who will have the experience of fighting spiritual evil and suffering in all its forms and will win through (whatever that looks like) because of their love for God. This is important because the goal is not mere belief, not cold calculated probabilistic conclusions, but a relational love commitment that flows from the whole of a person. Therefor, the proof of God for the committed person is not some observational data, but an experience of God's effect on their character and experiences as a whole.

I don't have time to add to this right now. RL stuff is kicking my buttocks. But I'll try to get back to this soon.

Ok, I want to try to go at this from a different angle. The above is leading towards a discussion of book sized proportions.

The Abacus wrote:The whole idea of freedom is that there are many possibilities as to what is chosen. What if there is a decision between a number of equally-advantageous choices? Wouldn’t the final decision be a result of free will?

It's an interesting idea. I'll play with it more, but I'm not sure we actually have meaningful decisions that are like this. The choice between rocky road and moose track ice cream may be equally-advantageous, but it has almost no ultimate meaning. Choosing between good and evil on the other hand might seem equally-advantageous in the moment, but not ultimately.

The Abacus wrote:Sure you can say that there may be variables involved, but not if the decision is between opposites (does that even make any sense?). Every choice made counts (even if seemingly unimportant at the time that it was made) and will determine what choices will be faced with later. The outcome is random and therefore cannot be determined.

Yeah, I don't know what you mean by variables, but randomness is not necessarily freedom. But it might lead to freedom as the path of our character diverges from what it would have been without random effects. The question is, however, is it even possible to have random events which are truly random to God. Most random events to us are random because we cannot be aware of all the variables involved. But couldn't God? It seems only if he were to CHOOSE to not know, and is that a valid choice for God to make?

The Abacus wrote:Didn't we say that evil is the absence of good vice versa? As long as people can imagine God's goodness and have seen that evil and pain do exist will they be able deepen their understanding. (have I answered the wrong question?)

Not sure what you mean. It doesn't make much sense simply to define good and evil as absences of each other. I claim good is complete, perfect, and beneficial, and evil is flawed, incomplete, and ultimately destructive.

The Abacus wrote:

Redafro wrote:And I would add, who have the experience of Betterment in each circumstance in which they (freely?) will to make God the God of that circumstance, but who mostly fail at Betterment when they fail to do so, and through this exercise come to a fuller understanding of the Goodness of God.

Can you rephrase this? Maybe I should just come back to this later.

The idea here is that each day we have a choice to do life from our own understanding and strength, or to consciously acknowledge that we will do it imperfectly on our own and so turn to God for incite and strength for each day. Oh wait! Betterment? Is that what is unclear? Yes, that is a term I use with a very specific meaning. It is a term I use to try to define the greatest good. It's a definition I've been working on for a long time.

Betterment: the greatest possible degree of happiness, joy, length of life, and personal growth for all mankind relative to opportunities and resources through universalizing the value of all individual humans in the autonomy of their individual choice of value systems (independence) without ignoring the interdependence of human nature.

The Abacus wrote:Where does eternal pain come in? The pain of a lifetime maybe, but eternal? Aren't we talking about people who have a purpose and have fulfilled it? Or have I misunderstood what you are saying?

Hell is what I'm talking about.

Isobel The Sorceress wrote:- If God wants me to choose him, why did he create me (and a bunch of other people) as sceptics and scientific thinkers, who rely on hard evidence and logic, and then refuses to show any tangible proof of himself? Because it makes it look like he actually doesn't want me to choose him.

I'm much more sympathetic to this kind of argument than I was before reaching this dilemma. I'm not sure of the answer, or even how to properly phrase the question. What I'm struggling with is whether it is a simple equation of "God made scientific skeptics and didn't provide them with proof," or if it is more complicated. Something like, "God left it up to mankind to discover scientific skepticism for themselves, as well as the metaphysical experience of God if they but have the humility to try." That last part might seem harsh about humility, but the point is a kind of "who are you to demand evidence of me instead of approaching me with love and desire?"

Isobel The Sorceress wrote:- If God loves people so much and wants us to love him back, why did he create hell? Just in case we don't love him back after all? I find it hard to trust and love a being who certainly doesn't trust me or my judgement. The whole concept of heaven and hell also makes the whole "free will" thing almost impossible: You are totally free to choose, but if you choose the "wrong" option it's eternal damnation for you. Yep, totally free choice. I think it's unfair to give beings free will and then punish them for the choices they make.

Yeah, that is my dilemma exactly, though it is hard for me to come at it with that much... venom, though I totally sympathies with your reaction. One of the best explanations I've been able to think of so far is that all good things come from God, thus being away from God WOULD be hell, whether there are flames or not. So, hell is what is inevitably left over when you reject God. It is only made by God in the sense that he made it possible to not be in Gods presence. If God is the source of all goodness, if the only reason we have pleasure is because it comes from him, then rejecting him is a rejection of that goodness too.

But that just goes back to my dilemma, yet here the dilemma becomes, "is it worth it to have the choice of rejecting God if it means even one person actually WILL reject God?" Hmmm... wow.... that is perhaps my new best iteration of the dilemma. HHHMMMMMM.... progress is happening...

Isobel The Sorceress wrote:- The whole idea that God created man to worship him. What kind of being decides to make himself an inferior race of minions to control, instead of beings that are his equals, that he could have meaningful relationships with? That kind of creature doesn't deserve worship. Pity, perhaps.

Well, I admit I can't elate to this one. The reason is that he is actually worthy of it. Lets say you actually are capable of making the greatest, most perfect movie ever. You would not merely expect people to praise it as the best movie ever, it would just be weird if they didn't, a kind of personal insult. Now, if God WASN'T this perfect being of love, then yeah, I would find it ugly to expect worship. But then, I wouldn't say that he created man JUST to worship him, but to enjoy him as the perfect movie... I mean being. Worship just flows out of us naturally in response to who he is.

Sorry if this was long. :/

Redafro wrote:The choice between rocky road and moose track ice cream may be equally-advantageous, but it has almost no ultimate meaning.

Well, essentially any decision made has SOME impact, for example choosing between first going a morning stroll to the park or to the supermarket. You could perhaps meet someone new that you wouldn't have met and then experience everything that follows – at least that's the idea.

Redafro wrote:I don't know what you mean by variables

Going back to her ice cream example, you may not be able to decide between two flavours so you may just let your subconscious pick one for you.

Redafro wrote:The question is, however, is it even possible to have random events which are truly random to God. Most random events to us are random because we cannot be aware of all the variables involved. But couldn't God?It seems only if he were to CHOOSE to not know, and is that a valid choice for God to make?

Well, what I'm talking about is an decision between two or more truly equal options. The result of the decision should be completely random and unpredictable – at least in theory. This is all assuming that truly equal options exist, which is something I have yet to find evidence of.

Redafro wrote:Not sure what you mean. It doesn't make much sense simply to define good and evil as absences of each other. I claim good is complete, perfect, and beneficial, and evil is flawed, incomplete, and ultimately destructive.

Then I think I misunderstood the question

Redafro wrote:how do I handle a supposedly good God who would create a person for a purpose, however beneficial to others, that will eventually lead to that person's eternal pain

Redafro wrote:Hell is what I'm talking about.

Ideally because that person chose their own faith?

Redafro wrote:The idea here is that each day we have a choice to do life from our own understanding and strength, or to consciously acknowledge that we will do it imperfectly on our own and so turn to God for incite and strength for each day. Oh wait! Betterment? Is that what is unclear? Yes, that is a term I use with a very specific meaning. It is a term I use to try to define the greatest good. It's a definition I've been working on for a long time.

Yes, but what is the question you were asking?

Redafro wrote:"who are you to demand evidence of me instead of approaching me with love and desire?"

That WAS said in the Bible

Redafro wrote:Yeah, that is my dilemma exactly, though it is hard for me to come at it with that much... venom, though I totally sympathies with your reaction. One of the best explanations I've been able to think of so far is that all good things come from God, thus being away from God WOULD be hell, whether there are flames or not. So, hell is what is inevitably left over when you reject God. It is only made by God in the sense that he made it possible to not be in Gods presence. If God is the source of all goodness, if the only reason we have pleasure is because it comes from him, then rejecting him is a rejection of that goodness too.

interesting, previously I had thought about it in the sense of the necessity of balance, but this makes more sense.

Redafro wrote:is it worth it to have the choice of rejecting God if it means even one person actually WILL reject God?

Ideally freedom would exist (I think – I'll need to reevaluate that), the only problem is that this means that people can pick the wrong choice.