Topic: Cog vs Cop: re omnipotence and 'omni' in general. (Read 3864 times)

cimics · « **on:** October 27, 2006, 07:11:18 AM »

Quote

]But I would submit that neither are we talking about 'freedom2', which, by your definition, is the ability to make a choice "free from outside constraining-type influences."

You provide one example of such an outside constraining-type influence when you cite the holding of a gun to someone's head. Another example is that of a parent who forces a child to visit the dentist when the child is adamant about not making that visit. Still another is the constraint of physical law: once we jump from the roof of a 7-story building, none of us is 'free' to change our minds and return to the rooftop.

None of these examples, however, nor any other examples of 'outside constraining-type influences' are like our situation here. Here we are talking only about the providing of evidence to support a proposition and there is no amount of evidence that can force or compel any of us to make a decision to believe in a particular proposition in the same way that the above 'outside constraining-type influences' can force us into a particular behavior.

In the case of deciding whether to believe a proposition based solely on evidence, we are always free in the sense of 'freedom1' AND in the sense of 'freedom2' to believe or not to believe. A gun to the head or a parent's grip on a small child's arm is an 'outside constraining-type influence.' Strong evidence, even overwhelmingly strong evidence, is not.

This is because beliefs do not have to be rational. An excellent example of this is provided by the disbelief literally tens of millions of Americans have in the notion of common descent with modification. The evidence for this idea is overwhelming. It is so overwhelming, in fact, that even most of the few scientists who are ID proponents, like Michael Behe and Michael Denton, believe this notion to be true. Yet many Americans CHOOSE to disbelieve that common descent with modification is true. If powerful evidence operated as an 'outside constraining-type influence' in the way that a parent's grip on a small child's arm does, such disbelief wouldn't be possible.

This means that your claim that God doesn't provide strong or even overwhelming evidence for His existence because He doesn't want to affect our 'free will' in the sense of your 'freedom2' is meritless.

Ever witness what happens on a highway where people often drive over the speed limit when a cop is in plain view? Almost nobody drives over the speed limit. The cop's presence is enough to make people feel constrained not to do what they might otherwise do. The same phenomenon when a child behaves while a parent is present when the child might not otherwise have behaved. The presence of an authority figure can be a constraining-type influence even if the authority figure issues no threats or commands at the time. God is the ultimate authority figure.

Copernicus · « **Reply #1 on:** October 27, 2006, 12:25:28 PM »

Quote from: cimics

Ever witness what happens on a highway where people often drive over the speed limit when a cop is in plain view? Almost nobody drives over the speed limit. The cop's presence is enough to make people feel constrained not to do what they might otherwise do. The same phenomenon when a child behaves while a parent is present when the child might not otherwise have behaved. The presence of an authority figure can be a constraining-type influence even if the authority figure issues no threats or commands at the time. God is the ultimate authority figure.

Cimics, you seem to be saying that the Celestial Cop should not sit in plain view, because he might unduly influence our behavior. On the other hand, doesn't God want us to believe in him and use that belief to motivate our good behavior? I honestly can't make any sense of your position. The cop on the highway does not in any way compromise our freedom of choice. His presence simply reminds us that there are bad consequences to making bad choices. Besides letting miscreants get away with bad behavior, God also lets miscreants victimize innocents. All in the name of not influencing us too directly to choose to do good. He just leaves little hints of his presence around, and you think that this somehow preserves our "free will".

Cogito · « **Reply #2 on:** October 27, 2006, 06:09:40 PM »

Quote from: cimics

Ever witness what happens on a highway where people often drive over the speed limit when a cop is in plain view?

Yes. People drive slower.

Ever witness what happens in a world where people often do horrible things when a god appears in plain view?

They string him up on a cross.

The difference here is that people already know that cops exist and that accounts for the constraining effect that cops have on drivers' speed.

This is not so in the case of gods. The very thing to be established is whether they exist. And, as my counter-example points out, God, even if He's not omniscient, should have learned through past experience that not only will His appearance in the world not convince all that He is God but that it won't even convince a majority.

cimics · « **Reply #3 on:** October 31, 2006, 01:15:49 PM »

Copernicus --

Quote

Cimics, you seem to be saying that the Celestial Cop should not sit in plain view, because he might unduly influence our behavior.

Yes.

Quote

On the other hand, doesn't God want us to believe in him and use that belief to motivate our good behavior?

Yes.

Quote

I honestly can't make any sense of your position. The cop on the highway does not in any way compromise our freedom of choice. His presence simply reminds us that there are bad consequences to making bad choices.

[sarcasm]Oh, and I suppose the people who slow down when they see a cop obey the law simply because the cop's presence has reminded them of their social duty.[/sarcasm]

No, it's because they are afraid of getting a ticket. The cop's presence is an effective threat. An implied one, but effective nevertheless.

Quote

Besides letting miscreants get away with bad behavior, God also lets miscreants victimize innocents. All in the name of not influencing us too directly to choose to do good. He just leaves little hints of his presence around, and you think that this somehow preserves our "free will".

He has left more than "little hints," but aside from that, you've pretty much got it down. So, what are you confused about?

Cogito --

Quote

Yes. People drive slower.

Ever witness what happens in a world where people often do horrible things when a god appears in plain view?

They string him up on a cross.

Which shows to what great lengths God would really have to go to ensure that skeptics believe in Him, and those great lengths would seriously undermine free will.

Quote

The difference here is that people already know that cops exist and that accounts for the constraining effect that cops have on drivers' speed.

This is not so in the case of gods. The very thing to be established is whether they exist. And, as my counter-example points out, God, even if He's not omniscient, should have learned through past experience that not only will His appearance in the world not convince all that He is God but that it won't even convince a majority.

What He would have to do would not be worth the cost. I suspect that the discussion will now evolve into how much is enough, but on that count, you are really in no position to judge.

Cogito · « **Reply #4 on:** October 31, 2006, 05:25:34 PM »

Quote from: cimics

Which shows to what great lengths God would really have to go to ensure that skeptics believe in Him, and those great lengths would seriously undermine free will.

What this then also shows is that, as I wrote earlier, a god could provide MUCH stronger evidence for his existence than the virtually zero evidence that the Christian God provides and still undermine free will less than does a human cop parked beside the highway.

Your response here seems to concede the point that the evidence necessary to establish a rational belief in the existence of a god who DESIRES to be known by all people is nowhere to be found. It's possible to have faith that such a god exists just as it is possible to have faith that the moon is composed of green cheese or to have faith that any other false claim is actually true; but it is not possible to claim that belief in the existence of the Christian God is rational based on the complete lack of evidence that we have before us.

Quote

Cogito: And, as my counter-example points out, God, even if He's not omniscient, should have learned through past experience that not only will His appearance in the world not convince all that He is God but that it won't even convince a majority.

cimics: What He would have to do would not be worth the cost.

Whether it is 'worth the cost' to God, you are not in a position to judge. If you mean, 'worth the cost to humans,' then you are mistaken. Without question, it is worth any cost to humans.

Nevertheless we both agree that God would have to do MUCH more than to simply appear in the world at least once every generation similar to the manner in which Christians allege that He appeared in the first century to undermine free will in any significant way.

cimics · « **Reply #5 on:** November 01, 2006, 09:38:09 AM »

Quote

Your response here seems to concede the point that the evidence necessary to establish a rational belief in the existence of a god who DESIRES to be known by all people is nowhere to be found. It's possible to have faith that such a god exists just as it is possible to have faith that the moon is composed of green cheese or to have faith that any other false claim is actually true; but it is not possible to claim that belief in the existence of the Christian God is rational based on the complete lack of evidence that we have before us.

I would disagree that there is "a complete lack of evidence." There is quite a bit of evidence for God's existence. You are now just quibbling about how much evidence is enough.

Quote

What this then also shows is that, as I wrote earlier, a god could provide MUCH stronger evidence for his existence than the virtually zero evidence that the Christian God provides and still undermine free will less than does a human cop parked beside the highway. . . .

Nevertheless we both agree that God would have to do MUCH more than to simply appear in the world at least once every generation similar to the manner in which Christians allege that He appeared in the first century to undermine free will in any significant way.

So once in a generation wouldn't be enough to convince you, which means, what's the point? You would simply find a way to rationalize it away, just as you rationalize away the fact that you stare the supernatural in the face every single waking moment of your life. To get your attention God would have to do something that completely eviscerates your free will. A lot of other people, on the other hand, would feel their free will constrained knowing that God was appearing once every generation. Again, it all comes down to how much is enough, and again, you are in no position to judge that.

Quote

Whether it is 'worth the cost' to God, you are not in a position to judge. If you mean, 'worth the cost to humans,' then you are mistaken. Without question, it is worth any cost to humans.

Whether humans think it is worth the cost is not the question. The question is whether it is worth the cost to God.

Copernicus · « **Reply #6 on:** November 01, 2006, 03:02:24 PM »

Quote from: cimics

I honestly can't make any sense of your position. The cop on the highway does not in any way compromise our freedom of choice. His presence simply reminds us that there are bad consequences to making bad choices.

[sarcasm]Oh, and I suppose the people who slow down when they see a cop obey the law simply because the cop's presence has reminded them of their social duty.[/sarcasm]

No, it's because they are afraid of getting a ticket. The cop's presence is an effective threat. An implied one, but effective nevertheless.

Isn't this what I said? The cop reminds us that there can be bad consequences when we CHOOSE to break the law. That's a good thing, since the traffic laws are to the common benefit. You seem troubled by the fact that God would do the same thing. I honestly can't make sense of your position because you also maintain that God wants us to slow down. He just doesn't sit on the side of the road because he doesn't want us to really know that he's there to lower the boom when we do misbehave? That strikes me as a bit irrational. Are you claiming that God is irrational?

Quote

He has left more than "little hints," but aside from that, you've pretty much got it down. So, what are you confused about?

We disagree about the "little hints" issue, but let's move on. I'm confused about the apparent contradiction in God's motives and behavior. Metaphorically speaking, you accept the claim that God wants our awareness of him to prevent us from speeding, but you also accept the claim that he doesn't want our awareness of his existence to prevent us from choosing to speed. What's up with that?

cimics · « **Reply #7 on:** November 09, 2006, 01:46:57 PM »

Quote

I honestly can't make any sense of your position. The cop on the highway does not in any way compromise our freedom of choice. His presence simply reminds us that there are bad consequences to making bad choices.

[sarcasm]Oh, and I suppose the people who slow down when they see a cop obey the law simply because the cop's presence has reminded them of their social duty.[/sarcasm]

No, it's because they are afraid of getting a ticket. The cop's presence is an effective threat. An implied one, but effective nevertheless.

Isn't this what I said? The cop reminds us that there can be bad consequences when we CHOOSE to break the law.

It's more than a reminder. It's an immediate threat of sanction. That infringes on freedom2.

Quote

That's a good thing, since the traffic laws are to the common benefit. You seem troubled by the fact that God would do the same thing.

Because God's purposes are not always the same as our purposes. His purpose isn't just to make us behave but to develop people who freely choose to love Him and be good. The visible cop's influence is temporary and does not change the type of people those currently non-speeding drivers are (who would speed if the cop were not visible).

Quote

I honestly can't make sense of your position because you also maintain that God wants us to slow down. He just doesn't sit on the side of the road because he doesn't want us to really know that he's there to lower the boom when we do misbehave? That strikes me as a bit irrational. Are you claiming that God is irrational?

We disagree about the "little hints" issue, but let's move on. I'm confused about the apparent contradiction in God's motives and behavior. Metaphorically speaking, you accept the claim that God wants our awareness of him to prevent us from speeding, but you also accept the claim that he doesn't want our awareness of his existence to prevent us from choosing to speed. What's up with that?

There is nothing irrational about it. He wants us to choose without feeling like we were constrained to choose. The child who minds only when his parent is around is not nearly as desirable as the child who minds regardless of his parent's presence. That is true even though the latter child may appreciate that, at some point, failure to mind has consequences. God isn't just about how we behave but about who we are.

Copernicus · « **Reply #8 on:** November 10, 2006, 02:17:26 PM »

Quote from: cimics

Isn't this what I said? The cop reminds us that there can be bad consequences when we CHOOSE to break the law.

It's more than a reminder. It's an immediate threat of sanction. That infringes on freedom2.

First of all, your concept of freedom2 is meaningless, since God is allegedly responsible for all the circumstances that we exist in. Since he supposedly knew in advance all choices we would make, given the circumstances he created, it is logically impossible for him not to infringe freedom2. Secondly, you seem to have completely missed (or blown off) my point that God is supposed to want us to believe in him and to use that belief to modify our behavior. Metaphorically speaking, we all have guns pointed at our heads all the time--circumstances that fate (created by God) deals out to us. What seems crazy is that God leaves no solid clues to his existence, so we are supposed to see an invisible cop on the side of the highway all the time. The majority of humans on this planet tend to worship false gods or obey false religions. They may see a cop there, but not the one who is really there.

Quote

That's a good thing, since the traffic laws are to the common benefit. You seem troubled by the fact that God would do the same thing.

Because God's purposes are not always the same as our purposes. His purpose isn't just to make us behave but to develop people who freely choose to love Him and be good. The visible cop's influence is temporary and does not change the type of people those currently non-speeding drivers are (who would speed if the cop were not visible).

Huh?

How does God "develop people who freely choose to love him and be good" without influencing their behavior? What are the 10 Commandments, if not an attempt to influence our behavior? And what is all the talk about eternal d--nation that Christians are always going on about? (I realize that there are now some Christians who believe that God will "save" us all regardless of how we behave, but this is not the belief of the vast majority of Christians.) We are supposed to conclude that God exists and then "freely" choose to obey him because we don't really know for certain that he exists? This makes sense to you?

Quote

There is nothing irrational about it. He wants us to choose without feeling like we were constrained to choose. The child who minds only when his parent is around is not nearly as desirable as the child who minds regardless of his parent's presence. That is true even though the latter child may appreciate that, at some point, failure to mind has consequences. God isn't just about how we behave but about who we are.

Look, you aren't being the slightest bit rational about this. If God REALLY wanted us to choose without feeling we were constrained to choose, then he would want us all to be atheists, since our behavior would then be totally unconstrained by belief in his existence and he would REALLY know that we weren't being unduly influenced. Yet the vast majority of Christians believe that atheism is a bad thing and that we should believe that God exists. This belief should influence us to go against our natural impulses to sin out of fear of the consequences of offending God. Indeed, many Christians feel so strongly about this that they want laws to reflect what they believe God's will to be. Catholics believe that they must perform "good works" to get into heaven, and Protestants believe that they must "accept Jesus" in order to get into heaven. (There are exceptions, but the generalizations are true.) You have created a god that doesn't seem to know what he wants.

Author Topic: Cog vs Cop: re omnipotence and 'omni' in general. (Read 3864 times)