A question for open-minded Christians

[Jodi]

NIGHTIME –

Actually you are misunderstanding me, because I have repeatedly said that god is NOT forcing it to be done.

But, of course, He is. He is foreclosing every option except one. This is what occurs when you theorize – as you have – that people choosing the other option would not be created. They do not exist. They have never existed. So let me ask you this: If you theorize a world in which every person chooses A instead of B, because no other type of person is created, when, precisely, do you think they “choose” A? They could never choose B. If they would choose B, they would not be created. Think of the creation of a person as being the point of origin. After that, they must make their choice. But their choice is already a foregone conclusion since before that – before their creation – their “choice” was made for them – because if they didn’t “choose” it, they would not be created. They have no free choice but to do A, because by their very creation they are marked as people who will do A – must do A – since doing A is a prerequisite for their very creation.

You are the one who always says that god is forcing people to choose him, when my scenario suggests no such thing.

In this scenario, God is not “forcing people to choose him;” their is no choice at all. There is NO CHOICE. There is only one viable option, because only people doing that option are even created. This is not a question of forced choice; this is a question of NO choice. The universe of possible choices is narrowed to ONE, because “choosing” that path is a literal prerequisite for your very creation. That is not choice.

God is not doing anything to the people he predicts will believe in him; they are EXACTLY the same as they are now.

Manifestly, they are not. They are created specifically to make that choice (which is actually not a choice, because no other option exists). People created today presumably do not have a belief in God as a prerequisite for their very existence. How can you say that a person who does not exist unless s/he will believe in God is the same as a person who exists either way?

I do not understand how you come to the conclusion that god is forcing them to do anything. They are not changed by god, not compelled by god, there is simply nothing different about them that should lead you to deny their free will.

Do you not understand that a person created to believe in God is different from a person who is not created to believe in God? The key thing, which you apparently are not grasping, is that only believers are created, and if you do not believe, you are not created. Therefore no created thing has a choice about believing; s/he will believe because that is a condition of his/her very existence.

You have already acknowledged that free will is an individual attribute, so if they are unchanged why do you think they suddenly lose their free will?

Because the exercise of free will involves making a choice, and a choice in turn implies two or more viable options. For the person whose very existence is premised on believing, there is no option not to believe.

You are the only one theorizing a world in which there is only one choice. Just because god knows you will do a certain thing does NOT mean he is taking away all other options.

It is the condition that YOU placed on this hypthetical that takes away the other options. That is: Only believers exist in the first place. Non-belief = no existence. Surely we can agree that we are talking about people in existence, yes? Those people have no choice but to choose Door A, because if they chose Door B, they would not even exist. God has made the choice for them by making their belief a condition of their very existence.

As an example, do you believe in god? If so, are you completely incapable of conceiving that there was another choice you could make?

Do you understand that the key fact you are leaving out of your own hypothetical is that non-believers are never created? Surely we can agree that in this world (unlike your hypothetical one), both believers and non-believers are created (exist), and therefore both may freely choose whether to believe or not. It was not a condition of my existence that I believe; was it a condition of yours? In your hypothetical, only believers are even created; it is a condition of their existence that they believe.

As for your example, assume god knows that everyone will eventually choose black. This does not mean we never had the option of choosing white!

Of course it does, because anyone who would exercise the option to choose white is not created – never existed. The only “choice” for those in existence is black. Choosing black is a precondition for their very existence.

In fact at any given time more people might choose white than black.

Not if those choosing white are never created at all. There is no “given time” in which anyone is going to do anything but choose black. Because they are the only ones existing.

Everyone can see the choice, and everyone makes the choice at different times for different reasons. God knows that at some point each of us will choose black, because he can see the future, but I frankly don’t see why you think there are no options.

And I frankly don’t see why you think there is any option, when only people “choosing” one path are even created, and when “choosing” that path is a precondition for their very existence.

I am becoming increasingly confused as to the origin of your claim that god is removing every other choice but one.

No one making any other choice is even ever created. “Choosing” that path is a precondition for your very existence; if you don’t do it, you never were, and never would be. Let me ask you this: If I create a robot who will only turn to the left (even though it has the ability to turn to the right), because I program it to only turn left, and so it can do no other but go left – at what point does that robot “choose” not to go right?

I have made no such claim, and in fact have said that this is not the case, but you continually use this premise of your own creation to argue against my conclusions which come from entirely different premises.

Except, of course, they don’t. It is the part about “not creating anyone who wouldn’t go left” that forecloses for every existing person the choice of going right. They can’t go right! Their very existence is premised on going left! It is indisputably your premise that “God would just not create nonbelievers,” and that is the crux of the problem. Again, it is not the foreknowledge that creates the problem, but the foreclosing of choice implicit in (inherent in) creating people who will only do one thing and not the other. He created them to do that thing, and only that thing. They had no choice in the matter. He made the choice for them.

You now agree with me that a single person who can go left or right, even if god knows which way he or she will go, has free will. So what if you duplicated that person? Would they no longer have free will? If they are an exact duplicate of someone with free will, why do you suddenly deny their free will?

Sigh. They are not exact duplicates. In the first scenario, you have a person whose very existence is not conditioned on going left or right. He or she has free will to do either. In the first scenario, you have a person whose very existence is conditioned on only going right. Since they exist, they must go right; if they would go left, they would not exist. There is no choice there, and those people are not the same.

Now we have a group of people who all choose the same thing out of their own free will, despite your nebulous suggestions that god is somehow compelling them now that there are more of them.

I never said this. Period. I don’t know where you got it, but I know I never said it.

What number of people leads you to believe that free will is no more? And why, when you have already agreed that free will is an individual attribute, does it even matter what the rest of the people choose?

One person can have a choice. One person can have no choice. One billion people can each have a choice. One billion people can each have no choice at all. The number of people has exactly nothing to do with it. What matters is whether God has only created people (one person or a billion people) who will do (must do) a given thing – and make no mistake, they must do it, or they would not exist. For those people, there is no “choice;” their very existence is premised on them doing the thing.

Your arguments are not even consistent anymore. Now you are saying that it IS the fact that nobody is created to choose something different than you that makes you have no free will.

I never said this. NEVER. It is the fact that each individual person has no choice – that each individual person’s very existence is premised on going left instead of right – that reduces the choices down to one for that individual person. If every person in the world has full and free choice, but you (and only you) are created to go only left, never right, then everyone else in the world has the choice of going left or right. You do not. Period.

In other words, Person A’s free will depends on Person B choosing something different.

I very clearly never said this. And at this point I’m giving up on the argument, because not only are you not seeing the larger point I’m trying to make, you’re misinterpreting and misconstruing what I did say. I sense that your misunderstanding of me is in good faith, and (again) I am willing to believe that the fault is mine for not explaining it well enough, but nevertheless I am becoming frustrated with my failure to make myself understood.

World (1) contains Jodi, who chooses to believe in god. It also contains Frog, who chooses not to believe in god.

World (2) contains Jodi, who chooses to believe in god. It does not contain Frog.

Jodi is exactly the same in both worlds. Nothing has been imprinted or compelled. They are the same person. The only difference is that one does not have the company of Frog.

Incorrect – still – because in World (2) we know that Jodi had to choose God as a prerequisite for her existence. Everyone in World 2 must choose God – because you said so, and it’s your hypothetical. This is the key way in which World (2) is different from World (1). How do you reconcile your statement that Jodi is the same in World (1) and World (2), when in World (1) she might choose not to believe in God (and therefore has that choice), while in World (2) she never could? Those worlds are the same to you?

Therefore, when you say that Jodi (1) has free will, but Jodi (2) does not, you are saying that simply because Frog does not exist to choose something different than Jodi, Jodi no longer has free will and is no longer making a choice.

Incorrect. It is not the presence or absence of Frog that makes the difference, but the fact that belief is a prerequisite for existence in World (2), but is not in World (1). Those worlds are not the same, could never be the same. You say “they are exactly the same,” as if that’s a foregone conclusion, but they are not. In one world, believers and nonbelievers are created, so belief is a function of choice. In the other world, only believers are created, so belief is not a function of choice.

Why exactly do you think Jodi (2) lacks free will?

Because her “choice” is a condition of her very existence; if she doesn’t “choose” that, she doesn’t exist at all.

And I’m done with this. I mean no insult or disrespect, but the conversation is starting to piss me off, and I’ve learned from long experience here that that’s the point at which the wisest course for me is to just disengage. If someone else wants to take a shot at explaining this to either you or me, I will leave them to it, but it’s pretty clear that both of us are failing entirely to make ourselves understood to the other, and I don’t see this turning into anything other than a continuing exercise in frustration. And I don’t behave very well in those situations, so I’ll take a pass.

[Meatros]

I’m not going to try to debate here but I did want to say that I think Jodi is making the better points. I.E. I understand what she is trying to say, Nightime’s premise as well as David’s premise are flawed and don’t make a lot of sense, IMO.

[David_God_of_Frogs]

I should point out that, in example 2, Nighttime never said what God’s selection process was. God could be not creating person B because they’re ugly, or for any number of reasons besides their religious beliefs, and everyone would still believe in God, and have free will.

[Jodi]

DAVID –

I should point out that, in example 2, Nighttime never said what God’s selection process was. God could be not creating person B because they’re ugly, or for any number of reasons besides their religious beliefs, and everyone would still believe in God, and have free will.

Actually, NIGHTIME did say what the selection process was. He or she said:

As I have already said, God could simply predict which free willed people would eventually convert to christianity and create only those people.

Implicit in this statement is cause and effect – God “sees” who would choose A and only creates those who choose A. Choosing A therefore becomes a prerequisite – in this hypothetical the prerequisite – for their existence. This is extremely important; it is key, in fact. As I have said (until blue in the face), it is not foreknowledge of a choice freely made that forecloses real choice (it clearly does not), but rather making existence contingent on doing [whatever]. If your very existence depends on you doing [whatever], and you exist (which you must), then you have no choice but to do [whatever].

Furthermore, I think it’s disengenuous to posit that God could remove, say, blue-eyed people from the world by failing to create them in the first place, and – surprise! they just happen to be all the non-believers as well! What a co-inky-dink! No, there is implicit motivation is His hypothetical action: He wants everyone to believe in Him, so He only creates people who will do so. I don’t think that point is even open to argument. The question is, if He has done so (only created those who will believe in Him), whether the created ones believe by “choice,” when not believing was never (could never be) an option.

[Newton_meter]

Let me get this straight. The claim is that the following statements can be simultaneously satisfied:

1. God creates a universe with only people who believe in God
2. People in this universe have free will to choose whether to believe in God

For the sake of argument, let’s posit that a person in this universe (this works even if there is only one person in the entire universe, Nightime) might choose not to believe in God. Clearly, this is impossible, since it directly contradicts the first claim.

Therefore, it is impossible in this universe for anyone to ever choose to not believe in God. But this too is impossible, since the second claim states that we are each free to choose not to believe in God.

If God wants to guarantee that everyone follows him, he cannot possibly permit anyone to exercise the choice not to follow him. If God does not permit us to choose not to follow him, we clearly do not have the ability to choose not to follow him.

In a thread started by a “logical” argument for the rejection of Christianity, it’s astounding that anyone would cling to this point.

Maybe it would help if I phrased it thusly:

Consider the following statements. One of them is false. I leave you to decide which one:

1. God creates a universe where everyone is Christian
2. People in this universe could choose to be Christian
3. People in this universe could choose to be not Christian
4. God can create a universe where everyone is Christian, but people in this universe still have free will to choose whether to be a Christian or not

(If you choose anything besides 4) to be false, I also want to see see some reason why you are now rejecting your earlier assumptions and still trying to affirm the consequent.)

Putting 1) and 2) together, we can infer that everybody must “choose” to be Christian. Of course, this contradicts 3), and since 3) can’t be true and false at the same time, we must question the assumptions which led us to those conclusions. In this case the assumptions are conviently enumerated with a 4).

Go ahead and give up on this, Jodi, there’s no reason to worry too much about it anymore. I think you’ve quite clearly made your case. One logically consistent conclusion is that your opponents in this debate are not actually much interested in “logic” or “reason” at all, despite their protestations to the contrary.

kg m²/s²

[ianzin]

I’m not a christian, nor do I have any time for christianity. However, your argument is flawed.

“Putting 1) and 2) together, we can infer that everybody is Christian.”

This does not follow from your premises 1 and 2. Omnipotent means there is no limit to god’s power. It does not mean he always uses all of the power that he could. God can use less than all of his power if he so chooses.

[Nightime]

Jodi:

Nothing has been done to the people that exist to make them different than they are now. Think about why you have not been able to form a statement explaining what has been done to them.

Newton:

1. God creates a universe with only people who believe in God

2. People in this universe have free will to choose whether to believe in God

(1) should read “God creates a universe in which everyone will eventually believe in god.” I didn’t say people were born christians, only that they would eventually choose to be.

For the sake of argument, let’s posit that a person in this universe (this works even if there is only one person in the entire universe, Nightime) might choose not to believe in God. Clearly, this is impossible, since it directly contradicts the first claim.

The flaw in your argument (and Jodi’s, for that matter) is that it is nonsensical to speak of someone who “might choose” something when you are looking at the situation from god’s point of view. God can see their final choice just as easily as he can see anything else. At no time is god wondering what you will choose. Not in our current world, not in any world.

To illustrate this point, imagine that you are standing at K’s death bed. As K dies he tells you that he believes in god. Now, is it possible that K might choose not to believe in god? Of course not, he just died. But that does not mean that K did not make the choice of his own free will. This is god’s point of view. He has seen us born, and he has seen us die. So you see it makes no sense to say anyone “might” do anything to god, because he has already seen their choice.

Therefore, it is impossible in this universe for anyone to ever choose to not believe in God. But this too is impossible, since the second claim states that we are each free to choose not to believe in God.

No, therefore nobody in this universe did choose to not believe in god. Past tense. The strange thing is that your argument has the exact same flaw that David, God of Frog’s argument has. Just because we have the option of doing something does not imply that we must do it. The ability to choose not to believe in god does NOT mean that anyone has to make that choice. Maybe a quote from Jodi will explain this better than I can:

It is illogical to assume that just because an omnipotent God chooses not to do something (make everyone Christian) He therefore cannot do something.

It is also illogical to assume that just because a person chooses not to do something (disbelieve in god) he therefore cannot do something.

In a thread started by a “logical” argument for the rejection of Christianity, it’s astounding that anyone would cling to this point.

I am not at all arguing against christianity, and the OP argument is wrong. I am trying to explain that the preservation of free will is not the reason we are not all believers. I have already posted two reasons why we are not all believers earlier in the thread.

Consider the following statements. One of them is false. I leave you to decide which one:

1. God creates a universe where everyone is Christian
2. People in this universe could choose to be Christian
3. People in this universe could choose to be not Christian
4. God can create a universe where everyone is Christian, but people in this universe still have free will to choose whether to be a Christian or not

(If you choose anything besides 4) to be false, I also want to see see some reason why you are now rejecting your earlier assumptions and still trying to affirm the consequent.)

(1) should say that god creates a universe where everyone eventually chooses to be christian.

Your use of the word “could” is troubling, because there is no “could” to god. He already knows what the final choice will be. Also, the ability to choose not to be christian does not imply that anyone will actually make that choice. I am astounded that you are making the same mistake the argument against christianity made. Perhaps another quote from Jodi will help?

Logic flaw the first: Why does one of them have to be false? Because you say so? If you set up the question and then require the person you are addressing to function only within your artificial framework, then you are compelling the response that you want.

You have set up an artificial framework that makes no sense. Basically it is as if you said to god “if people have the ability to choose not to be christian, then people could choose not to be christian.” To which the reply is “But they didn’t.” Just because they have the ability to disbelieve does not mean they choose to, and just because god knows their final choice does not mean he compelled it.

Putting 1) and 2) together, we can infer that everybody must “choose” to be Christian. Of course, this contradicts 3), and since 3) can’t be true and false at the same time, we must question the assumptions which led us to those conclusions. In this case the assumptions are conviently enumerated with a 4).

Your 4 point phrasing was extremely flawed so I don’t know where to begin explaining why the conclusions that follow from it are wrong. You are confusing knowing things with causing them.
Maybe if I phrase your argument from god’s point of view:

1. god created a universe, everyone eventually was christian.
2. people in this universe chose to be christian.
3. people in this universe chose not to be christian.
4. god created a universe in which everyone eventually was christian, but people in this universe had free will to choose whether to be christian or not.

So, which number is false? Obviously 3. But 3 is not part of my argument! 3 was never part of my assumptions, so it does not prove my argument wrong. I realize it is difficult to grasp the fact that god exists everywhere, in the future as much as the past and present. It does seem as though he is causing things, when in reality he only knows them.

Go ahead and give up on this, Jodi, there’s no reason to worry too much about it anymore. I think you’ve quite clearly made your case. One logically consistent conclusion is that your opponents in this debate are not actually much interested in “logic” or “reason” at all, despite their protestations to the contrary.

Think about this situation from god’s point of view. He is in the future, and sees which people choose to believe in him, and which people do not. We all agree they made those choices on their own. Now he gathers all the people who chose not to believe in him, and makes them cease to exist. Do the other people retroactively lose their free will? What if he makes them never have existed? Again, do the rest of the people retroactively lose their free will? Now, why did god actually have to make these people in the first place? Wouldn’t he already know that they would not believe in him? And what does any of this have to do with the individual free will of the people who did choose to believe in him?

It seems as though you have given up on logic and reason.

[Jodi]

Think about this situation from god’s point of view. He is in the future, and sees which people choose to believe in him, and which people do not. We all agree they made those choices on their own. Now he gathers all the people who chose not to believe in him, and makes them cease to exist. Do the other people retroactively lose their free will? What if he makes them never have existed? Again, do the rest of the people retroactively lose their free will?

NIGHTIME, you amaze me. You apparently see no difference between people who exist and are then removed after making their choice, and people who never exist at all, and people whose “choice” is fore-ordained. You may think I’ve given up on logic and reason, but I submit you never had much of either to give up on in the first place.

It is clear I cannot persuade you that you are wrong, and I assure you you cannot do so for me, so I have asked for help from the Peanut Gallery. I direct your attention [url="http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=117882"here. And you can thank your lucky stars I didn’t post it in the Pit.

[Jodi]

Fixed link.

[Newton_meter]

*Originally posted by Nightime *
**It seems as though you have given up on logic and reason. **

Good sweet lord. OK, I’m in your new world where everyone will “eventually” believe in God. Can I make the the choice to never believe in God?

If yes, then not everyone will eventually believe in God.

If no, then I do not have the choice to never believe in God.

[David_God_of_Frogs]

So can we agree that if God were to consider creating a universe with people A and B, as described by Nighttime, but decided not to create person B because she was ugly, then we would have a universe with people who had free will and all believed, albiet by means of “co-inky-dink”?

Can we also agree that, in terms of things observable from inside this universe, that there would be no difference between this situation and the one Nighttime described?

If we can, then that means that it is possible to create a universe in which everyone is Christian and has free will, there is just a really slim chance of it, and that there would be no observable difference between that one and the one Nighttime described, which you are arguing takes away people’s (religious) free will. To take this further, if God did actually decide to create a universe with only Christians, it would be theoretically indistinguishable (from the inside) from if he based his selection process on people’s looks and they just happened to be Christian.

Which of course begs the question, is free will an observable phenomenon? Could we think we have free will but actually not? A definition of “free will” might help.

[Jodi]

I see your point, DAVID, and it is the same as NEWTON made in the linked thread here. It is also, I think, what XENO is getting at (also in that thread), which I responded to as theorizing no choice at all.

I think clearly we could think we have free will but actually not have it: through predestination. NIGHTIME’s universe where everyone “chooses” to believe (except that they’re not choosing, of course, because they’re built to do it) would be a perfect example of people thinking they had free will but really not. Similarly, if you have an overwhelming desire to stay home, which you don’t identify as agraphobia, you might think you merely “choose” to stay home. But do you? And by extension, that does beg the question of how, under a universe where everything, past and present, is assumably known, could free will ever exist? And perhaps the answer is that it doesn’t. Not even when it seems that it does.

But that, in turn, defies everything we know about conscious volition on a human scale. So perhaps the answer is to recognize that “free will” as a concept may only be discussed in a rational world, where time spools out in a line and it is not possible to know everything at once? Because, really, how can we speak about making a “choice” if we can’t speak of the time before the choice was made (potential) and after the choice was made (decision)?

I’m cross-posting this to the other thread.