god given free will and kidnapping

[sthitapragya]

"Taking away," it might be; but it will be quite different from "never having allowed any freedom," I would say.

Here I disagree. In the case of God's laws, they existed since before we did. So I was straddled with them at birth. Which means I have not been allowed any freedom at all.

The Determinist thinks that, literally, every time you twitch an eyebrow, it's either God (Theist version) or Natural Laws (Atheist version) that have caused it to happen. There is never any human free will at all, even on small matters, and even for a second. "Intervention" there is said to be total.

All atheists are not determinists. I for one am still unsure on whether we have any free will or not. It is a complicated issue and I don't have any answer to that yet.

That would be quite different from, say, the freedom given to a parent to a child or a student by a teacher, even if some "intervention" were to be the result. The child or student would have every opportunity to put on his best effort, and to make choices for himself. He could even choose to disregard or insult the parent or teacher. In fact, the child or student could even select what reaction he wanted the parent of teacher to have, provided the parent or teacher was himself consistent with his promises. So there would be lots of "freedom" in such cases.

Lots of freedom is not really freedom. Even some slaves probably had lots of freedom. So did we Indians under British rule.

But "freedom" never entails "absence of consequences," does it? Not even in this world. in this world, every action produces consequences. The question of our freedom is only, "What consequences are you prepared to accept?"

In this world every action produces consequences. And that should be enough. You do wrong things, more likely than not, society will punish you for it. So God punishing people after that is really just additional unnecessary punishment. But that is not the issue. The fact is God does not allow any freedom. We might have free will but we are not free. Whether God has some justification for it is besides the point. The British too had justification for it. So did slave owners.

[Immanuel Can]

In the case of God's laws, they existed since before we did. So I was straddled with them at birth. Which means I have not been allowed any freedom at all.

But you didn't have to obey them, did you? Or have you been a better man than I, and obeyed them naturally?

All atheists are not determinists. I for one am still unsure on whether we have any free will or not. It is a complicated issue and I don't have any answer to that yet.

I did not say "all," just as I did not say that all Theists are Determinists (Calvinists). Naturalists and Materialists logically have to be Determinists. Others may believe as they wish.

Lots of freedom is not really freedom. Even some slaves probably had lots of freedom. So did we Indians under British rule.

Is your standard, then, that only absolute absence of consequences constitutes "freedom"? If so, no being has had freedom since the dawn of time, save perhaps the Supreme Being.

But I think that most people will disagree with your definition. When the Americans "fought for freedom," I don't think they imagined that overthrowing the British would free them from all consequences or even from all rules. And still, they thought it was genuine "freedom." Likewise the "freedom riders" in the post-slavery US South; they claimed to be fighting for "freedom." I doubt they would have quit if someone had told them that the rights to vote, be educated and have equal job opportunities were not really "freedom" since they'd still have consequences and live with laws.

For most people, freedom comes in "lots," perhaps, but never in "unlimited quantities." There are always limits to what we are free to do. Still, people live and die for their freedom, or for the freedom of others.

So normal usage of the word, and ordinary human experience does not fit your suggested definition, I think.

[sthitapragya]

In the case of God's laws, they existed since before we did. So I was straddled with them at birth. Which means I have not been allowed any freedom at all.

But you didn't have to obey them, did you? Or have you been a better man than I, and obeyed them naturally?

I "obey" them because I used the same common sense you did. You credit God with your morals.I do it because it makes sense to me. I would not have followed them otherwise because I have no fear of Godly consequence.

Lots of freedom is not really freedom. Even some slaves probably had lots of freedom. So did we Indians under British rule.

Is your standard, then, that only absolute absence of consequences constitutes "freedom"? If so, no being has had freedom since the dawn of time, save perhaps the Supreme Being.

Nope. I understand that a certain code of conduct is necessary for society to function. I agree with and follow the code of conduct of my country. I voluntarily choose to give up some of my freedom in exchange for stability and security. My freedom is not taken away from me. And that is the difference.

But I think that most people will disagree with your definition. When the Americans "fought for freedom," I don't think they imagined that overthrowing the British would free them from all consequences or even from all rules. And still, they thought it was genuine "freedom." Likewise the "freedom riders" in the post-slavery US South; they claimed to be fighting for "freedom." I doubt they would have quit if someone had told them that the rights to vote, be educated and have equal job opportunities were not really "freedom" since they'd still have consequences and live with laws.

Same answer as above. Everyone chooses to volunteer their freedom away for stability and security. That is how societies function.

For most people, freedom comes in "lots," perhaps, but never in "unlimited quantities." There are always limits to what we are free to do. Still, people live and die for their freedom, or for the freedom of others.

So normal usage of the word, and ordinary human experience does not fit your suggested definition, I think.

Same answer as above. Everyone chooses to volunteer their freedom away for stability and security. That is how societies function. And most people understand that.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I would say this is a question about choice, rather than free will.

Choice and free will are synonymous. One has the choice, the free will, to do anything they want, despite the consequences. That someone stacks the deck, does not necessarily force one to deviate from their resolve, unless they choose to allow it. Their free will is only abandoned by them alone. If people choose to believe in a god, and choose to believe he shall smite them for making the wrong choice, while at the same time insisting he's giving them free will, then he's no god, instead a devil, a demon!

[Immanuel Can]

I "obey" them because I used the same common sense you did. You credit God with your morals.I do it because it makes sense to me. I would not have followed them otherwise because I have no fear of Godly consequence.

That's precisely my point. You had "free will." You chose to do what you wanted to yourself. That makes it impossible for you to make the argument that having any consequences would limit your "freedom."

But I think that most people will disagree with your definition. When the Americans "fought for freedom," I don't think they imagined that overthrowing the British would free them from all consequences or even from all rules. And still, they thought it was genuine "freedom." Likewise the "freedom riders" in the post-slavery US South; they claimed to be fighting for "freedom." I doubt they would have quit if someone had told them that the rights to vote, be educated and have equal job opportunities were not really "freedom" since they'd still have consequences and live with laws.

Same answer as above. Everyone chooses to volunteer their freedom away for stability and security. That is how societies function.

Actually, the case is the opposite. The "freedom riders," for example, were fighting against security, and were deliberately destabilizing their society. They were undermining the normal "functioning" of the post-slavery South. And I think they were right to do so: it was a bad social system.

But you've missed the point. They thought they were fighting for "freedom," but this "freedom" was not the idea that they would have no restraints, obligations or consequences. Still they were quite convinced they would achieve "freedom." So what I'm really questioning is your conception of 'freedom" as "unconditional choice.' Nobody since the dawn of time has ever had that. And yet we all believe in "freedom."

I'm just saying your definition of "freedom" is implausibly demanding, if you entail with it that it cannot coexist with any restrictions, obligations, duties, responsibilities or consequences. Nobody uses your definition except you, I think.

And if that's true, then God can allow genuine "freedom" to people without having also to allow them unrestrained license or exemption from Judgment. The sort of reasonable balance of "freedoms" and "responsibilities" or "consequences" conceived by the "freedom riders" would illustrate "freedom" adequately as a concept. It would not need to be conceived as a no-strings-attached kind of "freedom."

[Immanuel Can]

Choice and free will are synonymous. One has the choice, the free will, to do anything they want, despite the consequences.

That seems right to me.

If people choose to believe in a god, and choose to believe he shall smite them for making the wrong choice, while at the same time insisting he's giving them free will, then he's no god, instead a devil, a demon!

Not a great argument. Let's illustrate by just changing the terms:

"If a child knows that his parent shall punish her for making the wrong choice, while at the same time insisting he's giving her free will, then he's no parent, instead a devil, a demon!"

Or, "If a citizen knows that a criminal-court judge will sentence him to life in prison for making a particular wrong choice, while at the same time allowing that citizen free will, that judge is no judge, instead a devil, a demon!"

I'm not seeing it....

[Hobbes' Choice]

Where are you getting the idea that God is 'omni-' anything from?

Where are you getting the idea about God?

From God.

Where are you getting this idea that 'if' there is a God it is omni?

What has he told you about himself, and what makes you think he is telling you the truth?

[sthitapragya]

That's precisely my point. You had "free will." You chose to do what you wanted to yourself. That makes it impossible for you to make the argument that having any consequences would limit your "freedom."

A new slave fresh from the ship comes to a plantation. Someone forgets to chain him. He thinks, "oh, okay, I can go now". He starts walking off the plantation. Someone sees him, catches him and beats the crap out of him. The slave had no idea that he would be punished. He just didn't know he had no freedom.

I am working on the assumption that God does not exist. That is why I have no fear of consequences. If, however, it turns out that your God exists, he will punish me. If He exists, I really had no freedom. I was mistaken in believing I had it.

Same answer as above. Everyone chooses to volunteer their freedom away for stability and security. That is how societies function.

But you've missed the point. They thought they were fighting for "freedom," but this "freedom" was not the idea that they would have no restraints, obligations or consequences. Still they were quite convinced they would achieve "freedom." So what I'm really questioning is your conception of 'freedom" as "unconditional choice.' Nobody since the dawn of time has ever had that. And yet we all believe in "freedom."

I'm just saying your definition of "freedom" is implausibly demanding, if you entail with it that it cannot coexist with any restrictions, obligations, duties, responsibilities or consequences. Nobody uses your definition except you, I think.

And if that's true, then God can allow genuine "freedom" to people without having also to allow them unrestrained license or exemption from Judgment. The sort of reasonable balance of "freedoms" and "responsibilities" or "consequences" conceived by the "freedom riders" would illustrate "freedom" adequately as a concept. It would not need to be conceived as a no-strings-attached kind of "freedom."

That is because you are misrepresenting my definition of freedom. Freedom means having the ability make choices without consequence including the ability to choose to give away my freedom and bear the consequences.

The choice is of freedom with security and stability. For security and stability and to avoid complete lawlessness which would come with full and absolute freedom, we choose to give away part of our freedom. It is a choice we make voluntarily. That is still freedom.

God does not give any such choice. I did not volunteer my freedom to him. I volunteered it to the laws of the land. I did not even choose to be born. But because I was born without a choice, he implemented his laws on me against my wishes. I have no freedom, if God exists.

[attofishpi]

Where are you getting the idea about God?

From God.

Where are you getting this idea that 'if' there is a God it is omni?

What has he told you about himself, and what makes you think he is telling you the truth?

It has made me fully aware beyond a shadow of doubt that it exists. It has told me very little about itself - one thing however was that Jesus is the Christ.

From 19yrs of experience of 'it' i concur that it is 'omni-' however - it doesnt know all of the future - as it or the sage indicated to me two days ago.

[Hobbes' Choice]

It has made me fully aware beyond a shadow of doubt that it exists. It has told me very little about itself - one thing however was that Jesus is the Christ.

From 19yrs of experience of 'it' i concur that it is 'omni-' however - it doesnt know all of the future - as it or the sage indicated to me two days ago.

Yeah well we all know you are bat-shit crazy.

[Immanuel Can]

Okay, then: if I understand your view correctly, your supposition is that if there are ultimate consequences, then there cannot be freedom. But it seems to me you also think there are consequences for everything a person does...you've said so yourself, several times now, in connection with how you hope to derive subjective morality.

I do not see any way for you to reconcile those two positions. It looks like your concept of "freedom," when combined with your claim that natural consequences follow from every action, simply makes any "freedom" impossible -- regardless of whether or not a Supreme Being exists. That is, unless, as I suspect, your definition of freedom is itself the problem.

[sthitapragya]

Okay, then: if I understand your view correctly, your supposition is that if there are ultimate consequences, then there cannot be freedom. But it seems to me you also think there are consequences for everything a person does...you've said so yourself, several times now, in connection with how you hope to derive subjective morality.

I do not see any way for you to reconcile those two positions. It looks like your concept of "freedom," when combined with your claim that natural consequences follow from every action, simply makes any "freedom" impossible -- regardless of whether or not a Supreme Being exists. That is, unless, as I suspect, your definition of freedom is itself the problem.

Nope. my view is that consequences which fall under cause and effect are in the natural order of things. They are not a punishment. They are a consequence. They have nothing to do with freedom.
The penalty imposed by the law of the land is a result of my implicit agreement to preserve stability and provide security. I agreed to observe the laws of the land and volunteered my "freedom" away in exchange for security and stability. The law of the land and society do a lot toward protecting me, helping me and co-operating with me in a symbiotic environment where everyone can thrive.

God, however, imposes punishment by his choice because he is more powerful than me and because he can. He did not take my agreement. He gives me nothing in exchange. I see no purpose to God's punishment. His punishments are for sins which society already takes care of. He does nothing to help me. He does not provide stability nor security. He simply wants things from me, giving nothing back except punishment. The only other thing he promises is heaven, which is not a choice, because the other option is hell. Either you get rewarded or punished for eternity without giving me anything at all in return. I do not see him as an asset in anyway. Yet, I must fear him and his punishment. That is like a slave owner. I have no freedom if he exists.

[attofishpi]

It has made me fully aware beyond a shadow of doubt that it exists. It has told me very little about itself - one thing however was that Jesus is the Christ.

From 19yrs of experience of 'it' i concur that it is 'omni-' however - it doesnt know all of the future - as it or the sage indicated to me two days ago.

Yeah well we all know you are bat-shit crazy.

You think i am bat-shit crazy, but i KNOW ALL atheists are wrong.

[Hobbes' Choice]

It has made me fully aware beyond a shadow of doubt that it exists. It has told me very little about itself - one thing however was that Jesus is the Christ.

From 19yrs of experience of 'it' i concur that it is 'omni-' however - it doesnt know all of the future - as it or the sage indicated to me two days ago.

Yeah well we all know you are bat-shit crazy.

You think i am bat-shit crazy, but i KNOW ALL atheists are wrong.

QED. You are crazy

[Immanuel Can]

Okay, then: if I understand your view correctly, your supposition is that if there are ultimate consequences, then there cannot be freedom. But it seems to me you also think there are consequences for everything a person does...you've said so yourself, several times now, in connection with how you hope to derive subjective morality.

I do not see any way for you to reconcile those two positions. It looks like your concept of "freedom," when combined with your claim that natural consequences follow from every action, simply makes any "freedom" impossible -- regardless of whether or not a Supreme Being exists. That is, unless, as I suspect, your definition of freedom is itself the problem.

They are not a punishment. They are a consequence.

"Punishment" was your word. I neither used it nor believe it is apt. I was with you, on "consequence." It's quite enough if consequences are not good, either here or in eternity.

He did not take my agreement. He gives me nothing in exchange.

Well, I might ask, then, do you continue to breathe oxygen? Have you limbs? Does the sun still come up for you in the morning? Can your eyes see this message, and have you fingers to type a response? How they could you imagine God has done nothing for you? Surely we would be the most ungrateful of all creatures if we did not acknowledge even the basic blessings God has given us.

And if God gave you all these blessings, and many others, and in His goodness provided you with an Earth to live on and life to live, what would be unreasonable about saying that he expected you to use your opportunities wisely, kindly and rightly? In fact, would he not be negligent if He did not do so?

Moreover, what if He also provided a way so that you, even though you had made wrong or selfish or destructive decisions (supposing you had) you could be restored to a good relationship with Him and be blessed even more? And what if He, in fact, took the "punishment" due to you on Himself, so that the demands of justice were fully met in your case, but then freely offered you forgiveness and reconciliation?

Would you take it?

Or, on the other hand, would you shake your fist at God? And if you did, would you expect anything but that He would honour your "agreement" and let you go your own way?

Free will. You have it. How you use it is not constrained, though of course consequences always follow any decision we make. It's up to you what consequence you choose. Both are available.