5:25PM - November 25, 1998 (625 of 685 messages)
knowledge is power

yayahya:

...

6) " If you are appropriate for cruelty, He will be cruel for you" - and this is the crux of the complete paradox of all religions of this sort. You claim that God rewards actions as he pleases. But you also claim that God creates humans as he pleases, and God guides actions as he pleases. If God does not wish me to find him, I will not find him. But should I be consigned to eternal torture because of this rather arbitrary decision? How can God judge a creature which is created and guided by his own hand - when "justice" is only sensibly applied to creatures with free will? There is no paradox here, unless you also wish to postulate that God is in any sense a "nice guy". If you do postulate this, you're in a right old logical pickle. If you don't, your God may be big and scary, but he's certainly not worthy of "thanksgiving" "praise" or "worship". So you have a choice: worship a logical fallacy, or worship a cruel tyrant.

Yayahya

  5:37PM - November 29, 1998 (636 of 685 messages)

There is no god other than Allah

Dear Leibniz,

My replies to your arguments are as follows:

...

6."So you have a choice: worship a logical fallacy, or worship a cruel tyrant."

Dear Friend,

There is neither logical fallacy, nor a cruel tyrant.

6.1.There is no logical fallacy:

Suppose that a thief who wants to steal your valuables kills you because of your resistence and takes whatever you have. A few moths later he is caught, and brought in front of the judge. There, he claims not to be punished, and he argues: "Look, I committed this crime because I had not enough money to buy the Land Rover I wanted so much. And if he had not resisted and gave his money and valuables to me, I would not kill him. Also, if I was bred in a morally healty environment, I would not be such a thief nor a killer. All these had influence on my will; thus I decided to commit these crimes without having free will, and I must not be responsible of them"

He is right then according to you, and must be forgiven. Because he has no free will.

But in fact, he could choose not to commit the crimes. And this possibility is what makes him responsible. And therefore, in all penalty laws, the crime is to be punished, this is universal. In a religious perspective, that what God has decided for us is unknown, and does not impose upon us any act; we are free to choose what to do; as we see fit. We have free will; if our will is the result of God's will, God's will be explicit in the result of our acts.

6.2. Nor a cruel tyrant.

A cruel tyrant is he who imposes THINGS upon people who do not want them. But God does not impose upon you anything that you do not want. You want disbelief in God; you hate God; even when you will taste the Hell and the fire; your desires will not change, if you could return to this life, you would be the same according to Koran. If you are ultimately among God's enemies, this means that you have never been in a pure state; you carry the stamp of disbelief on your forehead; you are a friend of Satan. There is no need to impose anything upon you. And, what is good according to you is disbelief; even if its result is Hell. And God gives you what you want.

Friendly.

Leibniz28

  6:03AM - December 14, 1998 (641 of 685 messages)
knowledge is power

yayahya:

...

6.1) "There is no logical fallacy". There is a clear logical fallacy. Your argument centres around the possibility of free will. But God determines your actions, your choices. So we can have no free will. If I control your mind and make you commit a terrible crime, am I justified in punishing you?? God controls your mind - he created you in the full knowledge of every action you would take - you don't have the capacity to go against God's will, even if you are not aware of the future he has mapped out for you. Thus God is directly responsible for every human action - and punishing humans is thus inherently unjust.

6.2) You notion of a God who punishes people who want to be punished is mildly humorous if you stand back at it. Either I want to be punished (in which case the "punishment" rather fails doesn't it!) or god's a tyrant. Either way, he's not deserving of my respect, let alone my worship.

David

Yayahya

  12:18PM - December 16, 1998 (642 of 685 messages)

"To Him submits whoever is in the heavens and the earth, WILLINGLY OR UNWILLINGLY, and to Him shall they be returned. "

(Quran:Ch.3/v.83)

...

6.1"Thus God is directly responsible for every human action - and punishing humans is thus inherently unjust."

God is not responsible for human action. Because, he establishes the justice either in this world or in the hereafter.

If you make an ultimate consideration and say that this is God who at least permits bad actions, you must also have a comprehensive and ultimate approach; and say, as God compensates for bad acts as well as good ones, there is no net deficiency. The justice is established in the end; BY GOD. Now, on the contrary to your suggestion, if there was no hereafter, (no punishment as you call it) in this case, God would be faulty, unjust; because, the injustices in this world would not be compensated, wherefrom the disequilibrium which meant injustice would appear.

Now, if God was charged the injustices in this world, and was asked for recompense; a thief who had stolen someone's good, would not have to give this good back. And God would be obliged to give this good back. But He has not stolen it; He did not need it. He CREATED it.

A person who was killed by another, would he ask the death of God for He made the killer kill him? You would perhaps; but mankind decided that the very killer is responsible. I think so too; because, God has no benefit in killing anyone; because He is Himself who gave that life. But the pain of the sufferer is countered by the pleasure of the criminal. It is not countered by God's pleasure; as He needs nothing, He increases nothing Himself.

Yayahya

  12:26PM - December 16, 1998 (644 of 685 messages)

If Allah do touch thee with hurt, there is none can remove it but He: if He do design some benefit for thee, there is none can keep back His favour: He causeth it to reach whomsoever of His servants He pleaseth. And He is the Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Quran:Ch.10/v.107

(cntd)

Also, the very mechanisms of will (or free will) is well known for me. And in Islam, God always acts indirectly; and in this world, there is equilibrium between cause and result, as between anything else. And if the result of anything is bad, then it has a bad source too; a WORLDLY (non-divine) source for a worldly result. There is no need for a third party. And as there is equilibrium, and as everywhere this is God who acts, there is no ultimate injustice to charge upon God. Only, if all injustices are recompensed.

God stamps hearts for disbelief; makes blind the eyes with unseen curtains; makes disbelievers go astray by the Satan and his friends; helps people find the truth by the Quran, ... Then your heart beats for disbelief; your eyes see not; you go astray, ... And you steal something perhaps, from someone. You become bad. But when what you have stolen is given back, the justice becomes established; your very free will being punished. But how can we know that you are bad? We know this when this is recompensed by an unwanted thing. But then, your acts are recompensed; and there is nothing to blame God. There is no need for anything or anybody else to provide justice.

Then, and punishing humans is not inherently unjust. Punishing for you means perhaps something containing a sense of hate; but in The Quranic context, the word used is to "Recompense"; which means to establish the equilibrium for the sides of good and bad acts.

"You notion of a God who punishes people who want to be punished is mildly humorous if you stand back at it. Either I want to be punished (in which case the "punishment" rather fails doesn't it!) or god's a tyrant."

I did not say that anyone wants to be punished. But as always, you did not understand what I meant, due to the lack a global understanding of facts.

6.2.Would you like your dog (if you have one)? Would you like what is inside its bowels? Anyway, I suggest that you like your dog with what is inside its bowels; as a whole; and your dislike of what is inside its bowels persists. Just as you like the disbelief, with the hell inside its womb. And thus, God is not a tyrant, although he gave you the disbelief and the hell; because, you like them as a whole. You like taking the risk; you will prefer them, if you were returned to this life. Clearly, that you prefer disbelief together with hell, does not mean that hell is something desirable for you.

However, i fail to understand how you pull the trigger while pointing the pistol towards your brain and still say; why I am dead, while this is God who makes me pull the trigger; is this just? No friend; what you say is unjust.

Certainly your search for free will is in vain; because will or free will is obvious, there is no need for search; every action of man happens according to its causes; and there is nobody who can change or interrupt this process. The result is the appropriate one for the will owner; for it is what is objectively to be expected; because it happens that way.

And God is able to give you (free) will, and He has given it.

"Either way, he's not deserving of my respect, let alone my worship."

He deserves not your respects; neither mine. Because you are unable to deprive Him from anything; neither I. And you must avow that if He exists, your respect would mean very little -if anything- for Him; as it is also created by Him.

But you need His Mercy.

Friendly.

Leibniz28

  4:53AM - December 18, 1998 (646 of 685 messages)
knowledge is power

yayahya:

...

Let me ask you several questions: Firstly, is God omnipotent and omniscient? By which I mean, Is there anything which God cannot do? Is there anything which God does not know? If you answer "no" to both these question, then the debate over definitions is finished, for all I require of my definitions in my argument is that these properties are asserted of God. Given these properties, Free Will is impossible (cf many arguments previously on this board), and thus your religion (which claims men have free will) is proven false. That is my argument, which you have not yet answered.

6.1) You write: "God is not responsible for human action". But this is obviously the case. God created humans in the full knowledge of every action every human would take (this is inherent in God's definition as omniscient ) and determined exactly what choices would be made by every human (also a result of this). Thus free will is impossible, and no being without free will is capable of responsibility.

6.2) "God is not a tyrant, although he gave you disbelief and hell; because you like them as a whole." - This is particularly strange. I don't choose disbelief because "I like it". I do not believe because my mind has shown me that belief is false, ungrounded in evidence, and contrary to logic. I don't prefer disbelief and take my chances with hell. I reject the "reality" of hell. Should I die and find myself proven wrong, I would believe, for none but an idiot (or an indoctrinated religious person!) stick to beliefs in the face of massively overwhelming evidence.

Yayahya

  3:15PM - December 19, 1998 (648 of 685 messages)

There is no god other than Allah

Dear Leibniz,

...

You say: "Let me ask you several questions: Firstly, is God omnipotent and omniscient? By which I mean, Is there anything which God cannot do? Is there anything which God does not know? If you answer "no" to both these question, then the debate over definitions is finished, for all I require of my definitions in my argument is that these properties are asserted of God. Given these properties, Free Will is impossible (cf many arguments previously on this board), and thus your religion (which claims men have free will) is proven false. That is my argument, which you have not yet answered."

Which I have not yet answered?

OK My friend, below I will try to recapitulate:

1. As you have seen in the quotations from The Quran in my previous comments (642...), God is Omnipotent; and we encounter nothing that He did not fix beforehand. Also, He knew, knows and will know what we shall do; whether we go to hell or paradise; whether we shall love Him or hate. All these are very very clear in The Quran; and there is no place to comment. There are also verses as: If God directs someone, nobody can make him go astray; and nobody can direct whom He wrongs. Or as: You can not want unless God wants.

Therefore, I do not discuss whether we do have free will or not (as you understand free will). According to The Quran, it is very very clear that in the ultimate sense, we do not have absolute free will; or any chaotic or random willing process. Everything happens according to God's will ultimately.

2. You wrote in 6.1) " "God is not responsible for human action". But this is obviously the case. God created humans in the full knowledge of every action every human would take (this is inherent in God's definition as omniscient ) and determined exactly what choices would be made by every human (also a result of this). Thus free will is impossible, and no being without free will is capable of responsibility."

Now, here is your basic mistake; and your statement "No being without free will is capable of responsibility." shows that you have no notion/background of criminology, criminal and general law.

In criminology, responsibility is never based on free will. If one knows what he is doing, he will be responsible; while the "legislative", "practical" and "non-conformity" to law conditions are also satisfied. The latter conditions have nothing to do with free will. And the responsibility is very natural; because of causality about which no criminologue has doubts.

I do not have any doubt either; because, every 'will' must have one or more causes; and can be explained by them; quite reasonably and naturally.

Otherwise, if criminology looked for free will for responsibility, no criminal could be punished and there would be no reason for criminology. Because, any criminal could explain not only his will, but also all other aspects of the crime totally with satisfactory reasons.

So much for men's responsibility.

The second point is the responsibility of God.

I think you will not refuse that for responsibility, there is a need for a superior and executive power over the responsible. And a more important condition for responsibility is that the action which is the source of responsibility must be a crime.

When our subject is God, we can say neither that there is a power superior to Him, nor that any of His action can be considered as a crime.

There is no power over Him; this is obvious; and nobody can ask any reason for what He did: First reason for His non-responsibility.

But more important is that any of His deeds can never be classified as crime. Because, as I said a few lines above, one of the conditions for crime is the legislative condition. Namely, a crime must be defined in the codes/law.

Now, there can be no article/code/act which can impose upon God anything; especially which orders that He can not choose the actions of His Servants. Nor can anybody decide whether His decisions or acts are bad or good. Because, nobody other than Him knows precisely and fully what are His goals and what are the results of His deeds.

Probably you need more explanations. Therefore I want to give a simple example:

Probably, a citizen who spies against your state is to be punished according to your criminal law. Now, suppose that one of your enemy governments, hires one of your citizens for spying against your government. Upon perception, the citizen will be subject to investigations and judgement; but the officers of the other country who made him spy, will not be subject to these. But why? If they were not, this man would not spy! Simply because, hiring spies against enemy states may be expected, and considered normal, justified; but spying against one's own state is neither normal nor good.

On the other hand, if you hire a killer to kill an enemy of yourself; both you and the killer will be punished.

These examples show that there may be cases where a person who urges another to commit a crime may be utterly faultless, and justified. While in general, a person who causes another commit a crime, must be punished too.

The case with God is the special one. While His special position annihilates His responsibility; the will power we have, makes us responsible for our deeds, and a causal pretext similar to what you suggest has no base. Visit a criminal court or judge,if you are not yet convinced.

Another thing which annihilates the responsibility of God, is that He establishes the equilibrium ultimately. There is no responsibility for Him; because, at the end (in His perspective always) there will be (is) no source of responsibility; As, those who have stolen any things will give them back, and those whose goods were stolen will be satisfied.

You say: "I would believe, for none but an idiot (or an indoctrinated religious person!) stick to beliefs in the face of massively overwhelming evidence."

Once more you contradict yourself: Overwhelming evidence keeps shining much more brightly than The Sun, and you do not believe and you said that this is because God does not make you believe, if He exists. Now you say if there will be an overwhelming evidence you would believe; without any reference to God's Omnipotence and His decree for you.

This is unbelievers' contradictory and confused state of mind. Will you eternally and really believe if you will be put in the hell, if God does not want you to? Please answer: Will you?

Leibniz28

  5:36AM - January 05, 1999 (653 of 685 messages)
knowledge is power

yayahya:

...

re: properties of God

Since you answer "no" to both the questions I asked, I don't understand why you ever questioned my definitions of "omniscient" and "omnipotent". I am glad that you accept the impossibility of Free Will. As such, your assertion that individuals have free will (in many previous posts, seemingly the core of your argument) plainly contradicts your beliefs.

Responsibility without free will is an odd notion, and one which you are clearly having problems imagining. In fact, the notion is ridiculous - you might as well give "responsibility" to rocks and trees. Your arguments from criminalogical practice are irrelevant - judicial systems are social control mechanisms, not reflections of philosophical results, and most can be traced back to notions of free will through religious sentiment (e.g. European/US systems are based on Christian thought in past centuries, and all assume free will.) In fact, it should be obvious that responsibility lies in the ability to make free choices - free will.

You say many strange things about responsibility (all plucked from thin air, of course), but the most strange of all must be that God can have no responsibility because he is God. Responsibility does not require that we be responsible to someone. Hence a mad dictator is responsible for the crimes of his regime, even though there is noone more powerful than him in the country. This would be the case even if that dictator ruled every living thing in existence. Your examples of spying and hiring a killer are irrelevant quirks of the legal system, and have no bearing on a philosophical discussion.

The question you ask is not as telling as you seem to think. It is a conditional hypothetical, and as such, IF God exists, and he wills me to hate him and go to hell for ever and ever, then of course I will. Big deal - God doesn't exist, and not even you would presume to tell me whether it is I or you (or both or none) who would go to hell if he did exist.

Yayahya

  3:07PM - January 09, 1999 (658 of 685 messages)

There is no god other than Allah.

Dear Leibniz,

...

You say: "Since you answer "no" to both the questions I asked, I don't understand why you ever questioned my definitions of "omniscient" and "omnipotent"."

I have explained why I questioned them in my earlier posts; however, I repeat a little: For example, by omnipotence you understand to be able even to kill himself; or to eat something; or perhaps to cry. But God does not eat; does not make cry; does not kill himself. I do not say "can" not kill Himself; because, if we discuss logic; "can" has a meaning and must be used for logically consistent things; As God is eternal; his death is illogical; therefore, "must be able to die" is not meaningful logically.

The same is true for omniscience: By omniscience you understand also the annihilation of free will; However, His Omniscience does not have any effect on the mechanisms of free will and responsibility: They have their own mechanisms: For example; we know that if we do not have oxygen long enough, we die. Then we get oxygen. God does not compel us to be deprived from oxygen. So, if someone deliberately creates conditions for not getting oxygen, he can not say God made me want it, and He is responsible for my death. (Please explain if you do not think so.) You say: "I am glad that you accept the impossibility of Free Will. As such, your assertion that individuals have free will (in many previous posts, seemingly the core of your argument) plainly contradicts your beliefs."

I did not say that free will is impossible. What I said is "According to The Quran, it is very very clear that in the ultimate sense, we do not have absolute free will; or any chaotic or random willing process. Everything happens according to God's will ultimately." According to this; we do not have "absolute free will" which is the special will of God. What I said earlier is true. In other words: We have free will; but of course this is not like the will of God.

I do not know what you understand by free will concept. Perhaps you understand nothing.

What I understand by it is roughly: The general ability to know the consequences of one's actions.

Therefore; if you go towards the school, you know that you will reach it; if you go towards the theatre; you know that you will reach the theatre. In the same way; you know that if Islamic God exists, and you reject Him; you will reach the hell; that if He exists and you love Him, you will be loved by Him. Then if you go towards the theatre and reach it; you can not say "God made me want to go towards the theatre; but I had to reach the school. This is not fair" as you can not say " God made me want to reject Him; but I had to receive His Love; this is not fair".

In fact, making this critique of free will, you become lost. Because, you suppose that you can use the widest knowledge of God against Him. If you can judge it and oppose it, either you must not be subdued to it or it includes the knowledge that you are wrong. If you can not, you are already submitted to it.

You say: Responsibility without free will is an odd notion, and one which you are clearly having problems imagining. In fact, the notion is ridiculous - you might as well give "responsibility" to rocks and trees.

Now I want to ask you:

What is the sources of responsibility according to you? Please tell me this. Especially if we imagine a man who deliberately eats a poisonous meat and consequently dies. Is he responsible for his death? If he is, what are the reasons for it; if he is not who is responsible; if nobody is responsible, why does he face the result of his action?

You say: "Your arguments from criminalogical practice are irrelevant - judicial systems are social control mechanisms, not reflections of philosophical results, and most can be traced back to notions of free will through religious sentiment (e.g. European/US systems are based on Christian thought in past centuries, and all assume free will.) In fact, it should be obvious that responsibility lies in the ability to make free choices - free will."

I ask: Exactly, what is responsibility for you? Explain also: If responsibility is something that exists according to you without God; how the existance of God effects or annihilates it? What disables God from creating it? And if it is something that does not exist; how are you using it (something that does not exist) against God? You say very ignorantly that judicial systems are not reflections of philosophical results. Probably you never read any book on criminology. Otherwise you could see that there ares tomes and tomes dealing with responsibility and the intention stage of crimes. Your ignorance on christianity is noteworthy: christian thought can never be said being based on free will (at least so clearly as to influence criminology); in christianity as in Islam, the will of God is essential.

You say: "You say many strange things about responsibility (all plucked from thin air, of course), but the most strange of all must be that God can have no responsibility because he is God. Responsibility does not require that we be responsible to someone. Hence a mad dictator is responsible for the crimes of his regime, even though there is noone more powerful than him in the country. This would be the case even if that dictator ruled every living thing in existence."

According to what this mad dictator would be responsible; and who will decide this responsibility? Especially if he claims to be just! (Something he does not have to claim.) If you say the opinions of mankind or history will bear witness for his responsibility; this statement will not be true for God: Because; according to you also, anyone's decision will be again the result of His Will; and the validity of these decisions will collapse; because God knows that they are wrong.

You say: "Your examples of spying and hiring a killer are irrelevant quirks of the legal system, and have no bearing on a philosophical discussion."

You must know that philosophy is not limited to only what you want. Criminology has a philosophical side. Personality in crime and punishment which is clearly seen in my examples, is a universally accepted concept. That you did not philosophize on this subject does not mean that nobody else did not.

You say: "The question you ask is not as telling as you seem to think. It is a conditional hypothetical, and as such, IF God exists, and he wills me to hate him and go to hell for ever and ever, then of course I will. Big deal - God doesn't exist, and not even you would presume to tell me whether it is I or you (or both or none) who would go to hell if he did exist."

Do you mean that even in Hell and even if told that this is because of your disbelief, you will not believe in God?

In this case; you will be preferring [hell + disbelief] instead of [paradise + belief]; and your argument that God was unjust against you will lose its ground. If you say "I will believe"; then, because of the effect of hell on your will, you will have to accept that evidences are also efficient in the formation of will.

Leibniz28

yayahya

...

Re: your Oxygen example.

If I choose to kill myself (this is what your example boils down to) then it is my responsibility. But could I have chosen not to? You reject "absolute" free will, but I contend that there is no distinction that can be made between "absolute" and "ordinary" free will. If a choice is free, it is absolutely free. God knowingly created a world where I commit suicide; hence God caused me to commit suicide. I was not even in existence when my fate was sealed by God's decision. In what sense is that suicide my responsibility? None at all.

Free will is not just the consequences of knowing one's actions. It is the ability to guide those actions in an absolute sense. If I create a robot which is capable of movement, and is programmed with the knowledge of what happens to all heavy objects when going over a cliff-edge, and I remotely control that robot over a cliff-edge, it is I, not the robot, who is responsible for the destruction of the robot, even though the robot moved its self, and knew the consequences of its actions.

You ask me what my notion of responsibility is. I answer that since we have no free will, we must be careful to define it in non-absolute terms. If we wish to pin actions on individuals, we use the term "responsible" although we concede that in an absolute sense there is no choice. As such, "responsibility" is not such an important word in talking about the world in an absolute sense - in philosophy or criminology, for example.

Re: criminology - one does not need to read books on criminology to know that most assume free will. As such, they are hardly applicable as evidence in a debate about the same.

When I talked about responsibility, I use it in the sense I describe above. Someone is responsible if they are the main cause for something. This does not require free will, or even responsibility to someone. It seems you wish to define terms I am using to make my argument incorrect. But it is my prerogative to define terms. So long as you can understand the usage, and they are used consistently, the results stand.

"Do you mean that even in Hell and even if told that this is because of your disbelief, you will not believe in God?" - This question, I repeat, is pointless. If God exists, and if God wills, I will disbelieve, no matter what evidence. This is nothing to do with my preferences or my personality now. For the question is whether God could warp my preferences so that I prefer hell and disbelief to heaven and belief. But this is God's fault, not mine. God (should he exist) could make the most noble saint prefer disbelief and hell to heaven and belief. You are completely removing the link between one's actions and one's reward/punishment - a ridiculous corruption of any notion of justice you could imagine, other than the purely arbitrary. But as I said before, this is a hypothetical, and since God does not exist, I fear not.

David

Yayahya

  11:59AM - January 12, 1999 (664 of 685 messages)

Verily this is no less than a Message to (all) the Worlds:

To whoever among you wills to go straight:

But ye shall not will except as Allah wills,- the Lord of the Worlds.

(Quran:Ch81v.27-29)

Dear Leibniz,

...

Before sending my comments about the following opinions of your post number 661, I would like to know your answer to this question:

Would you approve that God makes you commit a precise sin? (Of course supposing that God exists. And supposing that there is no hereafter)

Be well.

Leibniz28

yayahya:

...

I'm afraid you haven't phrased your question very well. It means nothing as it stands, but it might generously be interpreted a couple of ways:

1) Do I agree that God could make me commit a specific act which is sinful?

2) Could I approve of a God who makes me commit a specific sin?

In answer to the first version, of course - if God exists, then God is omnipotent. The point of my argument is that all actions are directly chosen by God, because of the foreknowledge God had of all such specific incidents at the moment of the creation.

In answer to the second, if God exists, then my approval is entirely up to God - for God chooses all of our actions, including such mental actions as approval. From an ethical point of view, I would approve of actions which fit my ethical framework - so that if God makes me commit a "sin" such as not wearing anything to cover my chest on a hot day in public, I don't care if it is a "sin" or not, because I believe it is no sin to expose one's chest. But my main objection to God is not what he makes people do (although this can be pretty horrific) but the way he tortures people who have no control over their own destinies as some sort of barbaric "justice".

I hope one of these answers was the answer you were looking for, otherwise, please rephrase the question.

David

Yayahya

  10:37AM - January 13, 1999 (666 of 685 messages)

Verily this is no less than a Message to (all) the Worlds:

To whoever among you wills to go straight:

But ye shall not will except as Allah wills,- the Lord of the Worlds.

(Quran:Ch81v.27-29)

Dear Leibniz,

...

I do not know why you added "could" in your both versions of my question. I should rephrase my question:

Do you approve that God makes you think as follows:

" I'm afraid you haven't phrased your question very well. It means nothing as it stands, but it might generously be interpreted a couple of ways:

1) Do I agree that God could make me commit a specific act which is sinful?

2) Could I approve of a God who makes me commit a specific sin?

In answer to the first version, of course - if God exists, then God is omnipotent. The point of my argument is that all actions are directly chosen by God, because of the foreknowledge God had of all such specific incidents at the moment of the creation.

In answer to the second, if God exists, then my approval is entirely up to God - for God chooses all of our actions, including such mental actions as approval. From an ethical point of view, I would approve of actions which fit my ethical framework - so that if God makes me commit a "sin" such as not wearing anything to cover my chest on a hot day in public, I don't care if it is a "sin" or not, because I believe it is no sin to expose one's chest. But my main objection to God is not what he makes people do (although this can be pretty horrific) but the way he tortures people who have no control over their own destinies as some sort of barbaric "justice"."

Be well.

Leibniz28

  4:09AM - January 17, 1999 (671 of 685 messages)
knowledge is power

yayahya:

I accept that if God exists, God makes me think what I think. That is the whole point of my argument. As to whether I approve , I think I have made it pretty clear that I do not - firstly because there are a lot of harmful actions out there, and secondly because God punishes us for our actions, which is pretty barbaric given that he makes us do them.

Yayahya

  9:04AM - January 17, 1999 (672 of 685 messages)

Verily this is no less than a Message to (all) the Worlds:

To whoever among you wills to go straight:

But ye shall not will except as Allah wills,- the Lord of the Worlds.

(Quran:Ch81v.27-29)

Dear Leibniz,

If you do not approve WHAT God makes you think, why do you think SO? If you approve WHAT God makes you think, what do you protest? (I do not ask you what you think about the process, but whether you approve or not The opinions, wills you are given by God- this is only an example and could be any decision you are made take by God: If you do not approve any decision you take due to God, why do you take it; if you approve it, what do you protest?)

Be well.

Leibniz28

  11:14AM - January 17, 1999 (673 of 685 messages)
knowledge is power

yayahya:

Given that we are assuming that God exists, I cannot approve of a God who leads people into false belief. That does not mean that I regret my beliefs - I think that God does not exist, and that my beliefs are correct. However, I believe that my life at the moment is harmful to as few people/animals as possible, and have no regrets about my actions in this regard whether or not God exists. Why do I believe God does not exist? Because I have seen no good arguments/evidence for God's existence, and plenty of good arguments against. This is the case whether or not God actually exists. If God does exist then I have seen what I have and reacted as I have by God's choice. I don't think I am being irrational, given my experience, hence I don't regret my action of believing what I do. But given (your assumption) that my beliefs are false, I regret that this state of affairs has come about - what I don't like is that God has not given me the evidence, not that I have analysed the available evidence the way I have.

Forgive me if the above is a little unclear, but we are dealing in complicated hypotheticals, and I want to be accurate above all else.

David

Yayahya

  6:26AM - January 24, 1999 (676 of 685 messages)

Verily this is no less than a Message to (all) the Worlds:

To whoever among you wills to go straight:

But ye shall not will except as Allah wills,- the Lord of the Worlds.

(Quran:Ch81v.27-29)

Dear Leibniz,

Replies to the 661st post:

Re: If I choose to kill myself (this is what your example boils down to) then it is my responsibility. But could I have chosen not to? You reject "absolute" free will, but I contend that there is no distinction that can be made between "absolute" and "ordinary" free will. If a choice is free, it is absolutely free. God knowingly created a world where I commit suicide; hence God caused me to commit suicide. I was not even in existence when my fate was sealed by God's decision. In what sense is that suicide my responsibility? None at all.

I think you did not understand my question. You understood it as if I was considering a responsibility which arose because of your suicide; but I had said that if YOU deprive yourself from oxygen, you can not blame anyone for dying. Am I right? Or do you suggest that God should not make you die although you yourself deprived yourself from oxygen, as He made you want the deprivation of oxygen?

Re: Free will is not just the consequences of knowing one's actions. It is the ability to guide those actions in an absolute sense. If I create a robot which is capable of movement, and is programmed with the knowledge of what happens to all heavy objects when going over a cliff-edge, and I remotely control that robot over a cliff-edge, it is I, not the robot, who is responsible for the destruction of the robot, even though the robot moved its self, and knew the consequences of its actions.

Your robot example is not meaningful. Because, you loaded it with the knowledge of the result of going over a cliff-edge; but you did not load it with the ideal situation which can be compared with being destroyed: which may be the undestroyed existance at time t2. If you gave it the result of such an act, and the situation it must reach at t2, it could say that you were responsible; but with the data of your example, it will not say that you are responsible; because, there is not two different results one of which is unwanted and the other wanted. And if you had loaded it with the knowledge of the ideal situation and made it go over the cliff-edge; it could not be responsible; because as you loaded it with the ideal situation, it would want it, not to go over the cliff-edge.

Re: If we wish to pin actions on individuals, we use the term "responsible" although we concede that in an absolute sense there is no choice.

A contradictory and strange statement: If you concede that in an absolute sense there is no choice, why you use the term responsible to pin actions on individuals?

Re: As such, "responsibility" is not such an important word in talking about the world in an absolute sense - in philosophy or criminology, for example.

If responsibility is not such an important word, why do you use it for disproving God's existance?

Re: one does not need to read books on criminology to know that most assume free will. As such, they are hardly applicable as evidence in a debate about the same.

They assume it; and it works. We see that penalties have influence on the actions; and all precaution whatever is, will also be decreed by God. If you suggest the opposite; can you explain how it would work? How the annihilation of penalties due to lack of free will will work?

Re: When I talked about responsibility, I use it in the sense I describe above. Someone is responsible if they are the main cause for something. This does not require free will, or even responsibility to someone. It seems you wish to define terms I am using to make my argument incorrect. But it is my prerogative to define terms. So long as you can understand the usage, and they are used consistently, the results stand.

But you did not describe responsibility. It may be your prerogative to define terms; but you do not have any prerogative to define in such a discussion a bird as "a kind of existance"; you must be a little bit precise.

Re: "Do you mean that even in Hell and even if told that this is because of your disbelief, you will not believe in God?" - This question, I repeat, is pointless. ...

If you will disbelieve no matter what evidence (even hell); you can not say that there would be injustice if you are given "disbelief + hell"; because among the choices (a) belief + paradise (b) disbelief + hell; (b) is the preferred one for you; and you will have got what you preferred. Or do you -will you - say that you SHOULD prefer (a) belief + paradise?

Be well.

Yes, we humans can not do anything that God does not know, nor can we do anything He does not will. We do not face any harm nor any good without His Will and His Power. These are clearly told in The Quran, by God. We are told also that we are responsible for most of our actions and wills. So, is there a contradiction?

The question appears to be important whenever we do not make a clear definition of free will. But when the definition is done, the question becomes meaningless: Because, it will not depend upon God, that is to say it will be explained by things that are not God; wherefore, God can easily create free will's context. However, if someone wants to define it in a context where God is taken into account, by definition God will be existing.

Suppose that there is someone who is totally autonomous: Who is not created by God, whose actions are not known by God, whose actions are not decided by God, whose means are not controlled by Him. And that God demands something from him: "If you do A, you will get B; and if you do C, you will get D."

Here, let us suppose that he does C, and faces D, which has some unwanted aspects. In these conditions we can not say that there is an unfair situation in the terms of free will, as God has no knowledge about the result of this person's deciding procedure, and as God has no influence on his willing process, although different alternatives and their outcomes are determined by God.

Now, which elements present in the above situation do not exist for humans in the actual life? The Answer: None, all of these are also present in the actual life; that is why one who threw the glass on the ground can not blame God for its breaking; although God made him will to break the glass.

Indeed, if we approve that God makes us will W, how can we protest W or God; if we do not approve that God makes us will W, why do we will W or do we really will it?

Or can we say "Now I approve what I will; but I will not approve it if x or y happens"? No, we can not run away from responsibility that way, because there is potential knowledge. The lack of compulsion and the potential knowledge of outcomes are here the main reasons for our responsibility. If these reasons are not present we will not be responsible, this is clear too.

As long as we know the results of our actions, or as long as we can know them, we are responsible for our actions and wills.

Therefore, there is no problem between free will and responsibility. God has the power to give us free will, and enough knowledge for making us responsible, and forgive us if we do not have these.

______________________________________________________________

Will be updated.

---

For information about IQ see IIQ

Do you think that there is an alternative answer or that the answer have deficiencies? Do you know that there is a relevant web page? Do you have an additional question or a suggestion? If so, please e-mail to: yayahya@hotmail.com

---

RELEVANT PAGES

HOME: Islam, Quran, Muhammed

Are you a believer or an unbeliever or an agnostic or ...? Whatever you are, you will find it really interesting.

Important Questions Index Page

Prophets According to Islam

A board which include very obvious facts that prove the truthfulness of Prophets especially of Prophet Muhammed.

Evolution

A board which states the place of evolution in the Islamic point of view

---

THANK YOU FOR VISITING THE PAGE

---

This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page