I don't understand why we're trying to apply human incentives to spirits? I mean...if there are indeed spirits (which I doubt) they would certainly experience their reality much differently from the way we experience ours. The other thing is that...you've inserted one idea of Heaven (bliss) which may or may not be what Heaven would actually be like. So there are a lot of assumptions here, don't you think?
This goes for God as well. To try and understand God's motivation seems to me to be a huge waste of time.
Instead of disproving the Bible, why don't we just ask "what external effect does God seem to have on this world?" My answer is: none, the belief in God, an internal human event is what has the effect and usually not a desirable one, in my opinion.
JustinTime:There is nothing that God "must" do. If he is omnipotent, all states are available to him directly with no action.
The "must" actually results from the limitations of man, and if God desires to communicate with man, which He must if he desires to help man, then he must come down to man's level - theology of the incarnation.
JustinTime:Any concept that involves God communicating or otherwise acting to bring about some result is nonsensical. As Mises said, the state of perfection must necessarily be complete, final, and unchanging.
The result is involving the fate of mankind, it does not change God, who is complete, final, and unchanging.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
you are setting limits on god. recognise.
also you suppose that God might 'desire' some state of affairs, but you must admit that there is no possibility of you or the writers of the scriptures to know gods desires, since the very concept of desire could not apply to a perfect God.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Also, depending on which Bible you read (Old or New Testament), you might get an entirely different idea of what God means by "eternal life."
I mean....Christians seem to think it's some kind of life in a big poofy cloud or something. They would achieve this reward by following in the path of Jesus...and then I guess would basically hang out with Jesus and God in a cloud or something, I don't even know.
Jews...as far as I understand it, think of eternal life as something very much akin to our lives now except it would be extended indefinitely by the grace of God for keeping the covenant here on Earth.
I don't believe in any of this but what I'm trying to say is that assigning incentives to spirits is a dicey game because depending on which religion you consult, you may get an entirely different idea of what heaven would be like.
laminustacitus: The "must" actually results from the limitations of man, and if God desires to communicate with man, which He must if he desires to help man, then he must come down to man's level - theology of the incarnation.
You're missing the point, and I don't know how I can be any more clear. You are still speaking in terms of an omnipotent God who acts - who creates universes in a less-than-perfect state and then acts to bring about results. You are using Christian theology as a defense, and yet Mises's argument assualts the very concept of an omnipotent, acting agent. I am tempted to argue your side for you so you at least see what would be required to defend your faith.
Knight_of_BAAWA,
I need a clarification: are you suggesting that Christianity implies fatalism, or are you actually saying that we live in a deterministic universe?
Talk about the non-existence of God you may as well talk about the non-existence of me. Can anybody provide refutations of my first post?
And Bawaa- if the world is entirely deterministic how can you possibly hold anyone accountable for their actions and consequently for NAP violations?
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
Physiocrat: Talk about the non-existence of God you may as well talk about the non-existence of me.
Talk about the non-existence of God you may as well talk about the non-existence of me.
In the interest of keeping this thread somewhat on topic (Mises's argument against omnipotent actors) and not letting it devolve into a theist-atheist debate, I will merely point out that the above is a statement of Reformed epistomology as popularized by Alvin Plantinga. There is a large quantity of work dealing with this issue, including criticisms by both theists and atheists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_epistemology
Physiocrat: Can anybody provide refutations of my first post?
Can anybody provide refutations of my first post?
I believe I provided a criticism of Long's argument; unfortunately I am not sure I followed the rest of your argument. Can you restate it for my benefit?
laminustacitus:Knight_of_BAAWA, I need a clarification: are you suggesting that Christianity implies fatalism, or are you actually saying that we live in a deterministic universe?
Physiocrat:Talk about the non-existence of God you may as well talk about the non-existence of me.
Physiocrat:Can anybody provide refutations of my first post?
Physiocrat:And Bawaa- if the world is entirely deterministic how can you possibly hold anyone accountable for their actions and consequently for NAP violations?
Knight_of_BAAWA: laminustacitus:Knight_of_BAAWA, I need a clarification: are you suggesting that Christianity implies fatalism, or are you actually saying that we live in a deterministic universe?I'm saying that christianity implies that humans (and the christian god) have no free will. It's a problem of the omni- attributes, you see.
And now you enter into the realm of sheer ingorance. Please, do yourself a favor, and actually read up on your Christian theology before you form such opinions of it. Christianity is one of the most stalward defenders of the moral agency of man ever to be seen in history, period. In fact, Christanity without free will is absurd.
perhaps I have an odd sense of humour, but some of this is uber-funny.
laminustacitus:And now you enter into the realm of sheer ingorance.
Again: I know that you're emotionally attached to your death-cult. I get that. I also get that most christians believe they have free will with their omniscient creator-of-everything god. I happen to know that the two can't be reconciled, no matter how much you wish. So please don't play the smug apologist who thinks that no atheist could ever know anything about your death-cult--it won't work on me. Save it for teenagers who don't like being dragged out of bed every Sunday morning, but don't even try that on me.
Interesting stuff, haven't gotten to Human Action yet so I have not encountered Mises version of this problem. I think the implications are pretty damning.
“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken
Something worth considering is that the common conception of God as "omni-everything" isn't biblical. In some ways He's quite limited, actually. As a limitation of His being a perfectly harmonious being, He can't perform an evil act, He can't break the law of non-contradiction, etc. There are some biblical passages which might be construed as belying this, but they're typically passages of ancient Hebrew poetry; this genre, and ancient near eastern culture in general, was known for describing natural end results as agency-caused, "hardening the heart" of Pharoah, for instance.
Knight_of_BAAWA: laminustacitus:And now you enter into the realm of sheer ingorance.Nope, and for you to even suggest that christianity without free will is absurd means that you think the Calvinists aren't christian.
I would indeed argue that they are not. But I suppose thats neither here nor there, as it all relates to Catholicism vs. the various reformers, and far beyond the topic.
IIRC laminustacitus is Catholic like myself, so when debating with Christian 'theists' do not automatically assume that they accept independent Bible theory (IE protestantism).
sicsempertyrannis:I would indeed argue that they are not. But I suppose thats neither here nor there, as it all relates to Catholicism vs. the various reformers, and far beyond the topic. IIRC laminustacitus is Catholic like myself, so when debating with Christian 'theists' do not automatically assume that they accept independent Bible theory (IE protestantism).
I think the answer to the OP is yes. Action and the perfect paradise are incompatible. And as a result, perfect paradise is inconcievable.
Knight_of_BAAWA: I didn't. But thanks for automatically assuming I did. btw, did you have anything that addressed my point?
I didn't. But thanks for automatically assuming I did. btw, did you have anything that addressed my point?
Well, you could have fooled me. You used Calvinism as a means to invalidate the Bible, and I am saying Calvinism (the, as you say, implication of no free will) is most certainly not universally accepted. Calvinism is essentially God playing Russian roulette with people's souls and centrally planning their lives. Whats the point of the Ten Commandments then, if God pre-ordains everything, including mortal sin? Calvinism is self defeating. But as it related to your point, it seems like a case of cherry picking your Bible theories to make your point easier.
Knight_of_BAAWA: I also get that most christians believe they have free will with their omniscient creator-of-everything god. I happen to know that the two can't be reconciled, no matter how much you wish. So please don't play the smug apologist who thinks that no atheist could ever know anything about your death-cult--it won't work on me.
Please know what you're talking about before you try to break apart two mellenia of Christian theology, you are now venturing into an area where you are factually wrong, and where only the sheer arrogant would ever dare venture. Christianity, and free will are not only compatible, but they are also complements. In fact, it is a easy point to grasp: free moral agents redeemed by God's grace who have the choice, if they so desire, to abandon God's convenent.
I don't mind if you are against Christianity, but you are speaking pure drivel in the above, and it elucidates that you have not got the faintest clue as Christian theology.
laminustacitus:Please know what you're talking about
laminustacitus:Christianity, and free will are not only compatible
Now you can either stop being ignorantly arrogant or I can continue to bust your chops. Your choice. I suggest choosing the former, though. Much better for you that way.
Knight_of_BAAWA: laminustacitus:Please know what you're talking aboutI do. Stop thinking that only christians can understand christianity. Stop being so arrogant as to believe that, because believe me: I understand you peurile death-cult better than you do. So when you decide to stop being ignorantly arrogant, let me know. Ok? laminustacitus:Christianity, and free will are not only compatibleThe calvinists say they're not, as did Paul (especially in Romans and Ephesians). Oh, and Augustine (a catholic), too, in his writings against pelagianism (yes, the Council of Orange rejected the "some are predestined" for damnation idea, but all the rest they pretty much kept). And yes, I know you're catholic. The "You're Not A Real Christian" arguments between the various sects make me laugh, as really--you all believe in the same basic ideas (jesus died for your sins and belief in him will redeem you at death and give you everlasting life). At least you've (mostly) stopped killing each other over who has the right interpretation or beliefs. Now you can either stop being ignorantly arrogant or I can continue to bust your chops. Your choice. I suggest choosing the former, though. Much better for you that way.
But do arguments about various sects of anarchy make you laugh, or freedom, or objective morality, or the "your not a real libertarian" arguments between the various libertarian sects? Many people in similar groups want the same thing, and the disagreements can be highly intense, this isn't just a phenomenon that manifests in religion. I am 100% atheist, but I can still see the point and reasons of arguments with various religous sects, morality sects, "rights" sects, and other mystic type arguments.
And to call someone a "Catholic" who lived in the 300's is a bit off key I think. And the Catholics certainly think Augustine does not contridict their theory of free will. If you agree with the Catholics interpretations on his writings or not is entirley your affair, but they certainly truly believe that he does not at all violate the Catholic theory of free will. That being said I wonder if you could find a Christain dogma prior to St. Augustine who denied that men cooperate with "God's grace", and that their salvation is conditional upon their acceptance or rejection of "God's grace".
As for St. Paul believing in determinism, that is very debatable to say the least. If you think you have a slam dunk argument in support of it, by all means tell me. And if you are refering to Romans 8: 7-9 I can assure you it has been addressed by the Orthodox ,and most likely Catholic community, as something being taken out of context. For example: one can easily find that God's grace is chosen by the will of God (Acts 13:48; Rom. 9:11, 16; 1 Cor. 1:26-29; Jn. 1:13), ut unless you assert that the Scriptures can err (which a christain can't do obviously), you must understand these Scriptures in the light of all other scriptures which show that Grace is resistible (Acts 7:51), and that grace is available to all (John 1:9; 3:16). Is it a "correct" line of thinking or not? I could give a flying fig. But it is an argument that is certainly not foreign to various christain sects if you wish to be intellectually honest. And that is just a crude beginer level argument, it goes much deeper than anything I know about (or care to) I would bet.
And when I use the word Christain for this post, I am refering to the dogma established at the 1st council of Nicea.
Another thing to be careful of, and I obviously don't know if you are guilty of this or not, is to not except the "main line" or "pop history/philosophy" view of Christianity that about 99% of people do (super intellectual atheists and hardcore xtians of all kind do it all the time). If you are willing to accept or at least be open to the revisionist style of libertarian history/philosophy I would suggest you open yourself up to more ancient revisionism too. I am of the opinion that most people today have the ancient world seriously mangled in their heads, particularly on religion (and not just xtianity).
JustinTime: Physiocrat: Talk about the non-existence of God you may as well talk about the non-existence of me. In the interest of keeping this thread somewhat on topic (Mises's argument against omnipotent actors) and not letting it devolve into a theist-atheist debate, I will merely point out that the above is a statement of Reformed epistomology as popularized by Alvin Plantinga. There is a large quantity of work dealing with this issue, including criticisms by both theists and atheists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_epistemology
Sorry, I wasn't meaning to get in to that; actually I'm not a huge fan of reformed epistemology anyway. I was just getting slightly annoyed that everyone seemed to be ignoring my posts, hence the non-existence of me line.
JustinTime: What an intriguing topic. This train of thought is one of the primary reasons I became an atheist after being raised in a Christian home. Long before I read Human Action and was able to properly formulate the argument, it occurred to me that God could have created Heaven directly. When I discussed this with fellow Christians, they essentially used Long's argument - "the means (Y) are as important as the end (X)". I did not find this convincing since the means Y include suffering and other evils that God, if he were supremely good, would have avoided. I had accidentally stumbed upon the "problem of evil". Mises's argument adds another level of sophistication and was the nail in the coffin when it came to my faith.
What an intriguing topic. This train of thought is one of the primary reasons I became an atheist after being raised in a Christian home.
Long before I read Human Action and was able to properly formulate the argument, it occurred to me that God could have created Heaven directly. When I discussed this with fellow Christians, they essentially used Long's argument - "the means (Y) are as important as the end (X)". I did not find this convincing since the means Y include suffering and other evils that God, if he were supremely good, would have avoided. I had accidentally stumbed upon the "problem of evil".
Mises's argument adds another level of sophistication and was the nail in the coffin when it came to my faith.
JustinTime: I believe I provided a criticism of Long's argument; unfortunately I am not sure I followed the rest of your argument. Can you restate it for my benefit?
Let's have another try.
So your objection to an acting God is not that in acting he contradicts his nature but that because there is evil in the world God cannot exist because he would have avoided it?
To clarify though God's means Y has the possibility of including suffering; it is not necessary. If it was necessary then God would have ordained evil and would not be God. So we come back my original question: is it better to create a world of robotic humans who have to serve God and there is no evil or a world of free humans who can serve God or can commit evil? Further without God what criterion are you using for good and evil and why?
I objected in my first post that acting does not imply uneasiness since action only demonstrates preference but cannot go any deeper into the nature of man: so choosing A and not B shows that you prefer A to B, but it does not follow that any uneasiness in man causes that action if we take free will seriously, since action is contingent on the will and the will is free: purposeful but uncaused. I.E. neither determined nor random.
The principle of Free Will First Principle -- I make decisions. Contrary -- I make no decisions; I am a robot on autopilot. Absurdity -- if I make no decisions, I did not decide to believe the statement "I make no decisions; I am a robot on autopilot." If I did not decide to believe it, I did not decide to believe it on the basis of the fact that it is true. I cannot judge it to be true or false, because judgment is a type of decision. I cannot judge any statement to be true or false. Since I cannot judge any statement to be true or false, there is no truth.
Source
I hope this clears up my position.
the will being uncaused is a nonsense and unecessary.
and how can perfect beings have 'preferences' let alone 'act' on them?. you are in the habit of anthropomorphising.
is 'creation' an 'action',you can't suppose that god created anything, since the word creation can't beunderstood outside of the realm of what humans can understand, and you put your god beyond that. its your own trap.
it annoys the hell out of me that theists can hold the two following positions simultaneously :
1) god is ineffable and beyond our understanding and comprehension.
2) I understand and comprehend stuff about god.
which is it??!?!?!
(note the 1st claim is itself internally contradictary because it is a statement that i understand that god is beyond understanding)
i think i'm in love.
Dondoolee:But do arguments about various sects of anarchy make you laugh, or freedom, or objective morality, or the "your not a real libertarian" arguments between the various libertarian sects?
Dondoolee:And to call someone a "Catholic" who lived in the 300's is a bit off key I think.
Dondoolee: And the Catholics certainly think Augustine does not contridict their theory of free will.
Dondoolee:As for St. Paul believing in determinism, that is very debatable to say the least.
Dondoolee: If you think you have a slam dunk argument in support of it, by all means tell me. And if you are refering to Romans 8: 7-9 I can assure you it has been addressed by the Orthodox
So--did you have anything that wasn't crap apologetics?
Physiocrat:So your objection to an acting God is not that in acting he contradicts his nature but that because there is evil in the world God cannot exist because he would have avoided it?
Physiocrat:To clarify though God's means Y has the possibility of including suffering; it is not necessary. If it was necessary then God would have ordained evil and would not be God. So we come back my original question: is it better to create a world of robotic humans who have to serve God and there is no evil or a world of free humans who can serve God or can commit evil?
Physiocrat:Further without God what criterion are you using for good and evil and why?
Oh please. Go read Euthyphro.
Physiocrat:The principle of Free Will First Principle -- I make decisions. Contrary -- I make no decisions; I am a robot on autopilot. Absurdity -- if I make no decisions, I did not decide to believe the statement "I make no decisions; I am a robot on autopilot."
And you can't judge anything as true or false per se; you can only say what you were programmed to. Such is where the omniscient creator of everything gets you. NMFP. Your mess; clean it up. But be honest with yourself when you do.
nirgrahamUK:(note the 1st claim is itself internally contradictary because it is a statement that i understand that god is beyond understanding)
Wrong. It is possible to find limitations of human knowledge.
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
I never said its impossible to find limitations to human knowledge. so...?
perhaps my language was not specific enough. i understand about god, that i cant understand anything about god
Knight_of_BAAWA: Dondoolee:But do arguments about various sects of anarchy make you laugh, or freedom, or objective morality, or the "your not a real libertarian" arguments between the various libertarian sects?Some, yes. Dondoolee:And to call someone a "Catholic" who lived in the 300's is a bit off key I think.Not when the catholics claim him. Dondoolee: And the Catholics certainly think Augustine does not contridict their theory of free will.Because they haven't actually read what he wrote, and his doctrines were "moderated" by various councils. Dondoolee:As for St. Paul believing in determinism, that is very debatable to say the least.Inasmuch as it's debatable that a molecule of water is 2 atoms of hydrogen and 1 atom of oxygen. Dondoolee: If you think you have a slam dunk argument in support of it, by all means tell me. And if you are refering to Romans 8: 7-9 I can assure you it has been addressed by the OrthodoxYes, it has. But that's like creationists "addressing" evolution. And no--the quotes aren't out of context. I know the apologists love to cry and say that they are, but the quotes are in-context. So--did you have anything that wasn't crap apologetics?
1) The Catholics claim Peter, Paul, James, Clemens,Ignatious, etc and while I suppose you could call them "Catholic" if you look at it from a straight up Catholic perspective, they influenced and are celebrated as saints by more than just the Catholic Church. I will admit that the Catholics tend to hold Augustine in higher regard than the Orhtodox Christians or the Coptic Church, for example, but he is claimed by more than just the Catholic
2) And if I read the rest of your argument correctly you are saying that a) you are an atheist b) you disagree with Christianity c) you find various Christians sects arguing about various topics silly. However you are only accepting one argument (St Paul being a determinist, for example) acceptable to define your terms, correct? So you would refuse to accept the Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, or any of the other more ancient arguments which are still held in doctrine today by thier respective religions because you find one argument more convincing? You are certainly entitled to your opinion as to which Xtian argument is "more correct", but you are simply participating in these "silly little arguments" then, with your own views into what Christians worshiping Christ ought to believe.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Dondoolee:As for St. Paul believing in determinism, that is very debatable to say the least.Inasmuch as it's debatable that a molecule of water is 2 atoms of hydrogen and 1 atom of oxygen. Dondoolee: If you think you have a slam dunk argument in support of it, by all means tell me. And if you are refering to Romans 8: 7-9 I can assure you it has been addressed by the OrthodoxYes, it has. But that's like creationists "addressing" evolution. And no--the quotes aren't out of context. I know the apologists love to cry and say that they are, but the quotes are in-context. So--did you have anything that wasn't crap apologetics?
This is not an argument. And while I find the topic semi-interesting I don't think there is much point for either of us to debate/discuss it here, unless you really want to. I am a quite rusty on my theology, but I have been in a bit of an ancient mideast/ hellenic mood latley.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Oh, and Augustine (a catholic), too, in his writings against pelagianism (yes, the Council of Orange rejected the "some are predestined" for damnation idea, but all the rest they pretty much kept).
Just because man is damned without the assistance of divine grace, which is St. Augustine's assertion against Pelagianism, does not mean that man's behavior is determined, it merely states that divine grace is necessary for salvation, unlike Pelagius who stated that man can achieve salvation without divine grace. All that St. Augustine states is that man is, by his very nature, inclined to do evil, he does not state that man's behavior is already predetermined to do x, and y.
Knight_of_BAAWA:And yes, I know you're catholic. The "You're Not A Real Christian" arguments between the various sects make me laugh, as really--you all believe in the same basic ideas (jesus died for your sins and belief in him will redeem you at death and give you everlasting life). At least you've (mostly) stopped killing each other over who has the right interpretation or beliefs.
And is Milton Freidman a true libertarian? Is conservatism, as Reagan told Reason magazine, truly "libertarian" at its core? There are right doctrines, and there are wrong doctrines, that is the nature of every single ideology in the world.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Better or worse makes no difference; we simply are robots created by some deity, according to the idea that said deity created everything and knows everything.
This statement is utterly devoid of at least a basic comprehension of Christrian theology. I wonder how the Renaissance would have turned out, though, if that is what Christian theology really was.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Physiocrat:Further without God what criterion are you using for good and evil and why?*facepalm* Oh please. Go read Euthyphro.
Good, and evil are religious concepts, without God they are utterly meaningless.
Dondoolee:1) The Catholics claim Peter, Paul, James, Clemens,Ignatious, etc and while I suppose you could call them "Catholic" if you look at it from a straight up Catholic perspective, they influenced and are celebrated as saints by more than just the Catholic Church.
Dondoolee:2) And if I read the rest of your argument correctly you are saying that a) you are an atheist b) you disagree with Christianity c) you find various Christians sects arguing about various topics silly. However you are only accepting one argument (St Paul being a determinist, for example) acceptable to define your terms, correct?
laminustacitus:Just because man is damned without the assistance of divine grace, which is St. Augustine's assertion against Pelagianism
In the future, you'd be wise to not leave out such important bits.
laminustacitus:And is Milton Freidman a true libertarian?
laminustacitus:Is conservatism, as Reagan told Reason magazine, truly "libertarian" at its core?
laminustacitus:There are right doctrines, and there are wrong doctrines, that is the nature of every single ideology in the world.
laminustacitus:This statement is utterly devoid of at least a basic comprehension of Christrian theology.
Yes, I know you want to harmonize free will and your omniscient creator of everything. But that's like trying to harmonize liberty with slavery.
Knight_of_BAAWA:*facepalm* Oh please. Go read Euthyphro.
Physiocrat:Good, and evil are religious concepts, without God they are utterly meaningless.