Intelligent Design vs. Free Will

originally posted by: polyath
Is a supposedly benevolent being practicing willful ignorance even a plausible scenario?

Who said they had to elicit any emotions, benevolent or otherwise? They only need to be a passive observer to run counter to your point.

originally posted by: polyath
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Is a supposedly benevolent being practicing willful ignorance even a plausible scenario?

Yes.

All the death, rape, murder, birth defects etc. in the world proves that.

ETA: Why does an intelligent designer have to be involved after the creation?

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: polyath
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Is a supposedly benevolent being practicing willful ignorance even a plausible scenario?

Yes.

All the death, rape, murder, birth defects etc. in the world proves that.

ETA: Why does an intelligent designer have to be involved after the creation?

why does a parent have to be involved after conception?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: polyath
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Is a supposedly benevolent being practicing willful ignorance even a plausible scenario?

Yes.

All the death, rape, murder, birth defects etc. in the world proves that.

ETA: Why does an intelligent designer have to be involved after the creation?

why does a parent have to be involved after conception?

I keep fish. Parents are generally moved out of the tank after the eggs have hatched or live births have happened.

So, the parents don't have to.

If you're on about humans, then that's just about vulnerability.

ETA: A human parent doesn't intelligently design a baby.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Watching and omniscience aren't the same thing.

Once again, you are using a finite example (humans) to make a point about something infinite (god). It simply doesn't work.


When we set something in motion, we cannot know the outcome with certainty...but then again, we are not omniscient.

Now, could God willfully be ignorant of what would happen? This is like asking if God could make a rock impossible for Him to lift. The answer to both is He wouldn't - the question is false and inapplicable.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: polyath
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Is a supposedly benevolent being practicing willful ignorance even a plausible scenario?

Yes.

All the death, rape, murder, birth defects etc. in the world proves that.

ETA: Why does an intelligent designer have to be involved after the creation?

Omnipresence

originally posted by: polyath
a reply to: TerryDon79

Watching and omniscience aren't the same thing.

Once again, you are using a finite example (humans) to make a point about something infinite (god). It simply doesn't work.


When we set something in motion, we cannot know the outcome with certainty...but then again, we are not omniscient.

Now, could God willfully be ignorant of what would happen? This is like asking if God could make a rock impossible for Him to lift. The answer to both is He wouldn't - the question is false and inapplicable.

Why?

If God is as described by millions, then it can do what it likes. If it wants to create the start and leave the rest up to chance, then why not?

originally posted by: polyath

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: polyath
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Is a supposedly benevolent being practicing willful ignorance even a plausible scenario?

Yes.

All the death, rape, murder, birth defects etc. in the world proves that.

ETA: Why does an intelligent designer have to be involved after the creation?

Omnipresence

Omnipresence doesn't mean it has to interact. It just means it's everywhere.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
If God is as described by millions, then it can do what it likes. If it wants to create the start and leave the rest up to chance, then why not?

Because that does not fit the narrow definition required to justify the Original Post.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: TerryDon79
If God is as described by millions, then it can do what it likes. If it wants to create the start and leave the rest up to chance, then why not?

Because that does not fit the narrow definition required to justify the Original Post.

A VERY narrow definition. I don't think I've seen it defined to such a point as being contradictory before.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

These are all metaphysical debate points but the point I am trying to make, and I believe Terry as well, is that these are not mutually exclusive scenarios.

That fact hasn't eluded me.

To purposefully avoid influencing the program by outside observation?

The whole universe, or just the human condition? Obviously, the universe itself doesn't have free will. Once the pool cue hits the ball, the chain reaction is set in motion, and the balls have no "free will" in the matter. The result is calculable.

Does a tree have free will? Do birds and foxes have free will?

So, if the "creator/designer" of the universe is taking a hands off position when it comes to humanity, in my opinion, that would imply that humanity is an experiment and that the designer/creator doesn't know the outcome of his imperfect human experiment.

a reply to: windword

Very valid points and something I don't believe anyone has an answer to.

Are we an experiment?
Is God just sitting back and seeing what happens?
Does God know what will happen even if there's free will?

And many more questions that philosophers have been trying to answer for a very long time.

I don't think this thread will come close to the answers though for many reasons.

We don't know what God is.
We don't know God exists.
We don't know if God is interacting or watching.

And so on. Too many unknowns to come to a conclusion.

originally posted by: windword
The whole universe, or just the human condition?

Good question. I am not able to answer that as I am not one to presuppose the mind of God and tell you definitively what the big picture actually is.

Obviously, the universe itself doesn't have free will. Once the pool cue hits the ball, the chain reaction is set in motion, and the balls have no "free will" in the matter. The result is calculable.

The balls are, unlike humans, unable to influence their environment.

So, if the "creator/designer" of the universe is taking a hands off position when it comes to humanity, in my opinion, that would imply that humanity is an experiment and that the designer/creator doesn't know the outcome of his imperfect human experiment.

Possible. It would make for an interesting experiment.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: windword
The whole universe, or just the human condition?

Good question. I am not able to answer that as I am not one to presuppose the mind of God and tell you definitively what the big picture actually is.

Obviously, the universe itself doesn't have free will. Once the pool cue hits the ball, the chain reaction is set in motion, and the balls have no "free will" in the matter. The result is calculable.

The balls are, unlike humans, unable to influence their environment.

So, if the "creator/designer" of the universe is taking a hands off position when it comes to humanity, in my opinion, that would imply that humanity is an experiment and that the designer/creator doesn't know the outcome of his imperfect human experiment.

Possible. It would make for an interesting experiment.

but isnt presupposition how you came to acknowledge your deity?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
but isnt presupposition how you came to acknowledge your deity?

Nope. My spirituality does not require me to presuppose what God may or may not be thinking.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: TzarChasm
but isnt presupposition how you came to acknowledge your deity?

Nope. My spirituality does not require me to presuppose what God may or may not be thinking.

it does require you to presuppose that your god does anything at all.

Gotta say I've never heard of intelligent design being associated with destiny. I think the OP has misunderstood the implications of ID. Have I predetermined the future of the sea monkeys I just put in the water?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
it does require you to presuppose that your god does anything at all.

It does? News to me.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: TzarChasm
it does require you to presuppose that your god does anything at all.

It does? News to me.

it shouldnt be.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Well, it is. I am not a subscriber to organized religion so me personal viewpoint on God is not exactly going to meet many people's expectations with the topics we are discussing.