mdk

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

um

I imagine that every instance of major technological progress, from the wheel to the cell phone, has been accompanied by the sentiment that life can now be a utopian paradise and governments are no longer necessary. Eventually that will be true. Wanna know how to spot it? We won't have governments anymore, because absolutely nobody would consent to that shit unless it were necessary.

Birds have democratic governments, their president is the Bald Eagle.

Fish are an anarchocapitalist dynastic meritocracy.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@mdk Adam ate of the fruit because Eve convinced him, and she ate of the fruit and convinced Adam because the Serpent convinced her, and they convinced Eve because they rebelled against God out of a desire to surpass them. All of that happened because God created everything while knowing it would develop as such.

@catchamber

I was kinda going for the other.... but I take your point.

You want an obvious example of God violating free will? Go look up all of the times God hardened Pharaoh's heart when Moses asked him to let the Hebrews go. You obviously know how God "responded" to those "choices". It's not necessary for me to mention this to prove my point, because all you need to agree is to understand the consequences of God's described qualities and actions.

Well that was Moses' interpretation anyway, but yeah. God certainly can interfere. That's neat and all, I'm just much more fascinated that for the most part, he doesn't.

If we have free will, the Judeo-Christian God isn't omnipotent, omniscient, and the creator of everything, because those two conditions are mutually exclusive. You may feel like you have free will, but that could just be their will controlling your sentiments.

Could.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@mdk My point has been consistent. The qualities and actions of the Judeo-Christian God are incompatible with the idea of free will. The qualities are omnipotence and omniscience, and the action is creating everything.

I am not opposed to the idea of God violating free will. However, I am opposed to the idea of God violating free will, then punishing their creations for doing exactly what they made them do. God sending people to Hell is unethical, because they had no choice but to sin, because God made them do it.

@catchamber

There's some unexpected depth in biblical allegories to address this. Specifically, you've presumably heard the story of Eve and the apple, right?

Well it wasn't (necessarily) an apple (sweet merciful christ why am I still talking about trees.......) It's described in Genesis as "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil," and God forbade Adam and Eve from eating it. Of course it was eaten anyway -- and you have to assume God knew that would happen, and allowed it to happen. But the depth here is applicable... we gained this knowledge through an act of free will, maybe the FIRST act of free will (maybe it's just another metaphor, Jesus was actually pretty big on those). From that moment on we're accountable for our knowledge -- we chose that accountability.

At least that's the story. Maybe food for thought.

ALTERNATIVELY -- let's think about the issue the other way around. Let's assume we have free will (I certainly feel like I do). Is the Judeo-Christian God wholly and completely incompatible with that?

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@mdk My criticisms with your previous analogies have been consistent. If you disagree, you should reread our entire exchange.

@catchamber

Well yeah, they've all been two-line quips that move the goalposts followed by "try again," there is a sort of consistency to that.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@mdk The analogy doesn't parallel the relationship between God and their creation, because God created everything. An accurate parallel would be a scenario where a gardener created a tree and its environment from nothing.

@catchamber

You're changing it up on me again. A minute ago this was about creation AND omniscience overriding free will, now it's supposed to be a God allegory.

Alright.

Treebert starts a class in his greenhouse, teaching people gardening. Treebert knows it all, I mean take it to whatever logical extreme you need in order to satisfy your *ahem* latest requirement. And in this greenhouse, he has total control over every environmental factor -- again, whatever logical extreme you need.

Instead of looking at the trees, let's look at the students.

Now, we've established that Treebert can nurture one hell of a tree, but these students, well, they're all types. Some of them have that green thumb, some don't. Treebert's advice to all of them is the same -- and it's, I mean, it's coming from Treebert, it's pretty good advice, the guy knows trees, he literally wrote the book and passed it out to all the class. The book tells you exactly what you need to do to help your tree grow. Each student gets genetically-engineered Treebert seeds, and they get to use his greenhouse gadgets to pretty much control their tree's environment (they're all in the same greenhouse, so there's some overlap with temp and whatnot), and they've got the guidebook that flat-out tells them how to do everything to grow a tree.

Do his students have "free will" in this scenario? Bear in mind, Treebert wrote the curriculum, wrote the book, and owns the greenhouse and the trees, and if he wanted to, he could step in and take over the gardening duties.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

<Snipped quote by mdk>
Omniscience alone doesn't infringe on another entity's free will, unless the omniscient being interacts with the other entity.

@catchamber

Okay, that's all I was trying to demonstrate with the previous analogy.

From the very beginning, I've said that an omnipotent and omniscient being creating everything makes it impossible for whatever that being creates to have free will.

Wellllllll does it though? If the gardener above was also a scientist who created the seed, how does that change the tree's life? That's still leaving omnipotence out of the equation..... okay. Let's say you encounter a tree in a garden, and it turns out it was planted by the groundbreaking tree biologist Treebert, who genetically engineered the seed and planted it. He's never pruned it, he's never messed with it really -- well when it was just a little baby tree, he put up some stakes to sorta guide it along its early growth in ways that he knew were healthy for it. But ever since then it's been growing on its own. He doesn't even water it anymore, because he knows it's getting enough from the rain. He could prune it, water it, shape it, etc.... but he doesn't. Treebert pretty much leaves the tree alone. Does the tree have, uh.... tree will? And if not, why is this different from the previous tree?

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@mdk We're talking about a hypothetical tree gardener that controls and knows everything about a tree and its environment. If you're not, then your analogy doesn't accurately describe the relationship between creation and its omnipotent and omniscient creator.

@catchamber

No, we're talking about whether or not knowledge precludes free will, unless you changed the convo on me.

@The Harbinger of Ferocity If I created you and your environment, all while knowing everything you will do in advance, how can you have the ability to freely make your own decisions?

@catchamber

If you wanna talk about CONTROL interfering with free will, that's a totally different conversation. I can probably still do it with gardens and trees though.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@mdk The tree doesn't do whatever it wants without being forced, because the gardener controls and knows everything about the tree and its environment.

@catchamber

Have you ever tried to control a tree?

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@mdk The gardener did force the tree to grow, because the apple tree has no choice but to respond to its environment in ways that the gardener can already predict and control. In the same fashion, a deity that created everything and knows everything forces us to act as they dictate, because they set us and our environment up in ways that would produce results they can predict and control.

@catchamber

It's a simplification to demonstrate a concept, which is this: the tree does anything the tree wants to do. Without exercising control over the tree, the gardener can benefit the tree without the tree's knowledge or comprehension. In what way does this infringe upon the tree's free will?

It's a part of a plan, yes, its ends are predictable and known, yes. None of that matters to the tree. The tree just trees, in the way that a person persons.

If the predictability of outcomes precludes free will, then you don't need an omnipotent being to destroy your free will. If that's true, there's no such thing as free will in, say, socialism, or a cancer ward. But I don't buy that.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@mdk The ability to make decisions that you were not forced to make.

@catchamber

The gardener didn't force the apple tree to grow apples. The apple tree simply grew apples, as the gardener knew it would.