# BadChad, a moment of your time, if you can spare it **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 18, 2006, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/badchad-a-moment-of-your-time-if-you-can-spare-it/373158 "2006-09-18T12:14:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 34
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2006, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/badchad-a-moment-of-your-time-if-you-can-spare-it/373158/661 "2006-09-21T14:28:34Z")
[QUOTE=badchad] [definition, only because he gives fundies a hard time, but wouldn’t dream of criticizing your personal irrationality. The same goes for **Diogenes the Cynic**. You don’t mind debating him because he picks on others and not you. . [/QUOTE] What “personal irrationality” are you fucking babbling about? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2006, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/badchad-a-moment-of-your-time-if-you-can-spare-it/373158/662 "2006-09-21T14:31:30Z")
[QUOTE=Malacandra] I’m happy with fair and legitimate questions, but I was trying, apparently with less than total success, to dismiss the appeal to ridicule; a fairly modest aim, I thought at the time. [/QUOTE] What thread do you think you are in? Appeal to ridicule has been the one-note samba in very heavy rotation. [QUOTE=pseudotriton] I was punished, and not for the first time, last evening, if you deity-worshippers want to see His justice in action, and it was an edifying punishment. I was riding the subway home through some very impoverished neighborhoods, and as happens once a week, some empty-headed evangelist mistook the packed subway car for a pulpit at which he was invited to hold forth, and hold forth he did, more stupidly than most subway evangelists, and I’ve heard most of 'em, in that he was repating himself a lot and not bothering to quote from scripture, which sometimes amuses me to note how out-of-context most subway preachers wrench your holy book, but just blathering on and on and on about how heaven awaits all of us sinners if we will only embrace God almighty yyybbb. [/QUOTE] So if some jerk had been playing “The Hall of the Mountan King” dialed to eleven on his boombox, would symphonic music have been to blame? ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2006, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/badchad-a-moment-of-your-time-if-you-can-spare-it/373158/663 "2006-09-21T14:32:26Z")
[QUOTE=badchad] It sounds like you are arguing that little girls being raped and murdered is a small sacrifice to allow your life to have meaning. Also it seems you are arguing that the presence of evil makes the world a preferable state, than what awaits a few of you in heaven, where everything is supposed to be peachy all the time. If god can make us tolerate eternal bliss in heaven he should be able to do it on earth. If god can’t make us tolerate eternal bliss in heaven, well, then you better start sinning. [/QUOTE] If we have the ability to make our own choices (which I believe we do), then some people are going to choose to rape and murder. That’s human nature. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2006, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/badchad-a-moment-of-your-time-if-you-can-spare-it/373158/664 "2006-09-21T14:33:51Z")
[QUOTE=Jodi] God is definitionally outside the realm of proof. He is not subject to proof by any means available to us as humans (and, of course, all other means, if any, are unknown to us). … the ultimate goal is be closer to God, to _know_ that you are, and to have gotten there by choice. [/QUOTE] And in these two snippets, we return to a rhetorical trick that I object to: you keeping claiming that you _know_ something (italics yours) that you also claim is not susceptible to proof. This amounts to special pleading on your part, since there is no other basis for knowledge other than that which can be proven, and you are reserving the use of “knowledge” in this exceptional sense to privilege the view that belief in God is different and better above other beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2006, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/badchad-a-moment-of-your-time-if-you-can-spare-it/373158/665 "2006-09-21T14:35:41Z")
[QUOTE=DrDeth] What “personal irrationality” are you fucking babbling about? 😕 [/QUOTE] For the record, I think your personal irrationality sucks. It is not nearly personal enough, and, in your weaker moments, approaches lucidity. And it’s ugly too. So there. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2006, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/badchad-a-moment-of-your-time-if-you-can-spare-it/373158/666 "2006-09-21T14:35:49Z")
**DIO** – [qupte]Free Will can’t logically exist regardless. Decisions have to be either determined or random. Something has to make you choose. If it’s determined, it’s not free. If it’s random, it’s meaningless. [/quote] This doesn’t make any sense. A “decision” by definition cannot be random. If it’s random, it wasn’t decided. “Decision” definitionally implies a decider, a determiner. So your statement “decisions are either determined or random” makes little sense. Decisions are _always_ determined, and decisions are _never_ random. “Something has to make you choose” isn’t an argument against free will, it’s just a restatement that free will doesn’t actually exist. If you assume that “something makes you choose,” then there is no free will. QED. But if you don’t accept the premise that “something has to make you choose,” then you also won’t accept the conclusion that free will logically cannot exist. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2006, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/badchad-a-moment-of-your-time-if-you-can-spare-it/373158/667 "2006-09-21T14:52:33Z")
[QUOTE=Malacandra] **Diogenes** , I expected you at least to see the point: that I was not attempting to say merely that the belief of millions of people in God rendered their belief true or credible - only different in character from childish fantasising or affecting to “believe” in made-up ridiculous concepts. I was not beginning to attempt any form of theology, merely calling for a spot of good manners - and characterising me as “flailing my arms in indignation” is less than your best argument, too. We can discuss belief in Zeus any time someone cares to bring some Zeusian theology to the table. We can discuss belief in Manbearpigs any time someone advances an argument as to why they aren’t a “colourless green ideas sleep furiously” construct. Pixies I’m prepared to leave as an exercise for the student. I’m happy with fair and legitimate questions, but I was trying, apparently with less than total success, to dismiss the appeal to ridicule; a fairly modest aim, I thought at the time. [/QUOTE] I agree that the analogies should be used with a rhetorical purpose rather than just for gratuitous mockery. “I believe X” is not something I’m likely to take issue with and I feel no particular compulsion to try to talk people out of being theists. It’s only when people either want to convince me to believe the same thing or make the mistake of claiming they can _prove_ their beliefs to be true that I bring out the pixies. **badchad** asked me why I haven’t endeavored to “eat **tomndebb’s** lunch” by challenging him about his religious belefs. The answer is pretty simple, because I don’t recall Tom ever claiming to be able to prove his beliefs are true or tring to proselytize anybody. It’s not like I’ve never argued with him about anything, I can remember at least one fairly recent debate regarding the translation/interpretation of a passage from Mark, and to some degree it involved issues regarding the historical credibility of that Gospel, but since Tom was limiting his end of the discussion to the specific historical and linguistic issues involved with that passage there as no reason for me to hijack that thread into a demand for him to defend his beliefs. If he were ever to assert something like “God wrote it, therefore it’s true,” then my army of leprechauns and Cthulhus would immediately be mobilized. Otherwise, it’s just off topic, distracting and self-defeating. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2006, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/badchad-a-moment-of-your-time-if-you-can-spare-it/373158/668 "2006-09-21T15:00:01Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] If [**Tomndebb**] were ever to assert something like “God wrote it, therefore it’s true,” then my army of leprechauns and Cthulhus would immediately be mobilized. Otherwise, it’s just off topic, distracting and self-defeating. [/QUOTE] Heretic. There is only ONE Cthulu. And when he arises, he shall eat YOUR lunch. And also you. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2006, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/badchad-a-moment-of-your-time-if-you-can-spare-it/373158/669 "2006-09-21T15:01:51Z")
[QUOTE=Jodi] **DIO** – [qupte]Free Will can’t logically exist regardless. Decisions have to be either determined or random. Something has to make you choose. If it’s determined, it’s not free. If it’s random, it’s meaningless. [/quote] This doesn’t make any sense. A “decision” by definition cannot be random. If it’s random, it wasn’t decided. “Decision” definitionally implies a decider, a determiner. So your statement “decisions are either determined or random” makes little sense. Decisions are _always_ determined, and decisions are _never_ random. “Something has to make you choose” isn’t an argument against free will, it’s just a restatement that free will doesn’t actually exist. If you assume that “something makes you choose,” then there is no free will. QED. But if you don’t accept the premise that “something has to make you choose,” then you also won’t accept the conclusion that free will logically cannot exist. [/QUOTE] It’s not a premise which can logically be rejected. Something has to cause the choice. If nothing causes the choice – if nothing makes you “decide” – then all actions are random. If something does cause the choice, then no choice is “free.” You can’t have an undetermined will. Something has to get you off the mark. You already have to BE wrong to CHOOSE wrong and that initial stae of "being wrong’ can’t be “chosen” without getting into an infinite _regression_ of choices. Ultimately, there still has to be an unchosen determinant (or else it’s random). ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2006, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/badchad-a-moment-of-your-time-if-you-can-spare-it/373158/670 "2006-09-21T15:03:46Z")
[QUOTE=Skald the Rhymer] Heretic. There is only ONE Cthulu. And when he arises, he shall eat YOUR lunch. And also you. [/QUOTE] I originally wrote “Great Old Ones” but I wasn’t sure if enough people would know that reference…plus “Cthulhus” just sounded cooler. 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2006, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/badchad-a-moment-of-your-time-if-you-can-spare-it/373158/671 "2006-09-21T15:07:22Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] I originally wrote “Great Old Ones” but I wasn’t sure if enough people would know that reference [/quote] 😕 Dude. Look around. You’re in NERD CENTRAL. We’re the freaking HALL OF NERDS. And we’ve been making the “Cthulu will eat you first” jest in the Pit ever since Jack Chick did us the favor of inspiring it, lo those many years ago. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2006, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/badchad-a-moment-of-your-time-if-you-can-spare-it/373158/672 "2006-09-21T15:08:25Z")
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber] And in these two snippets, we return to a rhetorical trick that I object to: you keeping claiming that you _know_ something (italics yours) that you also claim is not susceptible to proof. [/quote] I can’t tell if you’re being disingenuous or stupid. Could it be only by chance that you snipped on the conditional rider on the second sentence of mine that you quoted? What I said of course, is “ **If instead** the ultimate goal is be closer to God, to know that you are, and to have gotten there by choice, then the “happy sheep” universe is miles worse than this one.” I didn’t claim to “know” this myself, though I certainly believe it. And I used the word “know” in this phrase to mean “to be self-aware,” to not only come closer to God and to be aware that you are doing so. This is a common usage of the word “know” which, contrary to your bizarre repeated assumption, means something other than “to have absolute, unassailable proof for.” Since I have already repeated disavowed any ability or intention to “prove” God it is nothing less than intellectually dishonest for you to apply your definition of “know=prove” to anything I say in this regard. So just to be clear: I do not define the word “know” as narrowly and fussily as you. I do not use the word “know” only in line with your own personal definition. and I have no intention of adopting your own personal defintion as the only one I will use, or even the one I will use most of the time. If you insist on reading meanings into my posts that manifestly are not there by applying your own personal definitions of the words I use, I can’t stop you. But it seems to me to be both facile and dishonest for you to then take offense at what you yourself insist I must have said. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2006, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/badchad-a-moment-of-your-time-if-you-can-spare-it/373158/673 "2006-09-21T15:14:21Z")
[QUOTE=Jodi] _I’m_ not trying to prove the existence of God, and I don’t know why you would be sure “some of those scholars are”. God is definitionally outside the realm of proof. He is not subject to proof by any means available to us as humans (and, of course, all other means, if any, are unknown to us). So, no, Biblical scholars and theologians are not trying to hammer the expansive round peg of what God is into the tiny square hole of what is provable. “Proof” of God only matters to those who don’t believe in Him and want to take the lack of (acceptable to them) proof for Him as evidence of His nonexistence. Believers start from the POV that not everything must be provable to exist. So what is to you the be-all-end-all is to us largely irrelevant and no scholar, believer or atheist, who understands this is wasting their time trying to prove the unprovable. [/quote] I didn’t say “you” were. I said some scholars are. I’ve seen stuff on TV and in books to that effect. Biblical scholars who aren’t believers come to mind. Scientists who study the origins of the universe sometimes do, as well. To say that “God is definitionally outside the realm of proof” sounds much more like an agnostic statement. I would have to ask you why you _believe_ in god if he is outside the realm of proof. To me, it sounds more like “I’d like to believe it’s true.” > [@](#): > > If the “negative consequences” are removed, the options are not the same, the determination you make in deciding what to do is not the same, and your will is manifestly less “free.” If there’s no “bad” choice, then choice becomes irrelevant. It doesn’t matter what you do, because your choice doesn’t have any real consequence because nothing bad will happen to you ever, no matter what you choose. “Choice” becomes at most a matter of preference – would you like chocolate ice cream, or vanilla ice cream? Either way you’re having ice cream and your “choice” doesnt matter in any substantive sense. Ice cream every day, all day long – pretty soon you yourself won’t care, because your “choice” doesn’t _matter_. > > If we assume a physical world that God created and set in motion but largely allows to unfold on its own, then removing the consequences of actions is clearly incompatible with the natural unfolding of the universe. Picking the choice for you, so you always choose the good one, or the safe one, is also incompatible with free will. I’m not sure what the argument is here – that God should _not_ have given us free will, and instead created us as happy sheep? If He was most concerned with our temporal happiness, surely He would have. The general answer to this is that God did not want sheep, He wanted thinking people who come to Him by choice and and after finding their own way – IMO a way that is by no means limited to Christianity since, as the Buddhists say, there are many paths up the mountain. He created a natural world with natural laws to run it, and He put people on the earth with the urge to ask questions and the mental tools to figure things out and the ability to choose. But if there is no choice but “happy” then “happy” means nothing – happy as opposed to what? “Happy” is just something that _is_, like the air, and we are neither appreciative of it or even _aware_ of it, because it is an inevitable state of being. > > If instead the ultimate goal is be closer to God, to _know_ that you are, and to have gotten there by choice, then the “happy sheep” universe is miles _worse_ than this one, not any better. And under this formula, “to be happy” means something; happiness is a state that can be felt and appreciated. Personally, I would not _want_ a life without free will, not even if it came with a guarantee of perpetual thoughtless “absence of negative stimuli”. I’d far rather take my chances with the life I have. Since that is my personal preference, I have some trouble understanding the argument that God is bad because He gave us free will and allows us to exercise it. That seems to me a great gift in comparison to the alternative. All of that is based on us “knowing” that there was any other way. God would not have to give us an awareness of any other way to be. It would be literally care-free, with god as the child playing with toys (us). I still don’t even know why a god would create anything. There’s no reason for us to be created, other than for god’s amusement. I guess it boils down to whether or not there is a purpose for us being here. I don’t believe there is, in the biggest sense of the concept. We can choose to _make_ a purpose for ourselves during our time here, but it, like god, is a construct of our own doing. It’s a roll of the dice, per se, that we’re here to begin with. When the sun burns out and we’re all gone, the universe will have neither benefitted nor suffered for our participation. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2006, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/badchad-a-moment-of-your-time-if-you-can-spare-it/373158/674 "2006-09-21T15:15:40Z")
Damn it! That’s what I get for multitasking. Can someone please fix that coding? ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2006, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/badchad-a-moment-of-your-time-if-you-can-spare-it/373158/675 "2006-09-21T15:16:15Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > But the “options” aren’t removed. Only the negative consequences. We would not need to learn moral responsibility because there would be no reason to do anything bad. Everything would be peaches ‘n’ cream. We would, in fact, exist in eternal bliss with god without having to endure hardship. And we wouldn’t care that there was no moral lesson because greed, sloth, and neighbor coveting, etc. would be nonexistent. Just to check, **Kalhoun** , does this mean: [ul]I can’t imagine taking a flamethrower to my local primary school [li]I can imagine it, but God prevents me from attempting to act on it[/li][li]I can attempt to act on it, but God won’t let the flamethrower light[/li][li]I can torch the school and everyone in it, but nothing and nobody burns[/li][li]I can torch the school and everyone in it, but God fixes everyone and everything up a moment later and no-one is even conscious of having suffered for an instant?[/li][/ul] Please let me know if this misrepresents your argument. > [@badchad](#): > > I have no reason to attribute actual claims to an imaginary being. That’s more of a Christian thing. There we go again asserting as fact that God is imaginary. > [@badchad](#): > > What you seem to be missing is that the MSP is drummed up whenever a Christian is so dense as to say “you can’t prove my deity doesn’t exist” and is actually proud they said something with merit. The point of the MSP, werewolf, vampire, Zeus etc., is to show that it’s problematic to prove that any imaginary beings don’t exist. Try it if you don’t think so. BTW, I threw Zeus in there so you can give him all the popular attributes of Greek mythology and beliefs of existence by what used to be a lot of people. So disprove him away, or admit that your god has no better claim to existence than Zeus does. Really? My inability to disprove B would imply that A and B have equal truth values? Who made up that rule? But if you like, you can ask “Do you believe in Zeus? If not, why not?”. > [@badchad](#): > > Ahhhh, no. What’s disrespectful about saying you can’t disprove the existence of other imaginary beings or gods. If I wanted to be disrespectful (but still truthful) I’d just call your Jesus a genocidal murderous cunt, again. There’s nothing disrespectful about saying that you can’t disprove the existence of imaginary beings. There’s a touch of question-begging in saying _other_ imaginary beings, as it implies that the question of whether God is an imaginary being is already settled, whereas we both know that wiser heads than ours have spent much time and trouble on the subject. There’s plenty disrespectful about deliberately bracketing a sincerely-believed-in God with figures of ridicule. And if it gives you emotional comfort to call Jesus a genocidal murderous cunt, don’t let me stop you; but I can’t imagine what utilitarian purpose it serves. Also, while saying “That’s not a knife, _this_ is a knife!” makes for a good comedy moment in a Paul Hogan film, the mere fact that X is offensive doesn’t make Y respectful, does it? [Quote=badchad] > [@Malacandra](#): > > So you are predestined to be vehement and, in the sight of many, flat-out obnoxious? What part of yes don’t you understand? [/quote] I understand perfectly, thanks, but as your philosophical point of view - that your every word and action is predetermined by circumstance - strikes me as a little unusual, I see no harm in asking for a little clarification. > [@badchad](#): > > Oh and before I respond further would you mind telling me if you’re the kind of Christian who thinks the bible is the word of god, or the kind who thinks the bible is the frequently errant word of man? Certainly, if you don’t mind telling me what the question has to do with my questions to you concerning predestination, or whether you mean to get around to answering them. I’m the kind of Christian who thinks the Bible is the word of God, but not the kind to whom absolute literality and inerrancy are an article of faith. There are quite a few of us about. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2006, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/badchad-a-moment-of-your-time-if-you-can-spare-it/373158/676 "2006-09-21T15:20:03Z")
Or just don’t bother, **Kalhoun**. The debate had moved on by the time I got the feckin’ thing posted. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2006, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/badchad-a-moment-of-your-time-if-you-can-spare-it/373158/677 "2006-09-21T15:37:48Z")
[QUOTE=Jodi] I can’t tell if you’re being disingenuous or stupid. [/QUOTE] I thought you were on record as favoring civil discourse. Oh, you must have meant everyone else should be civil–you, of course, are exempt from your self-righteous calls for civility. Your specialized definition of “knowledge” I also assume applies to others, as in “The vast majority of humans now living know Jesus Christ has nothing to do with God, and they know him to be a mortal and minor prophet at best and know him to be a fraud and quite possibly non-existent at worst.” As a sign of your acknowledgement of respect for others’ views, would you mind very much adopting the sentence in quotes as your sig line? Thank you very much, **Jodi**. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2006, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/badchad-a-moment-of-your-time-if-you-can-spare-it/373158/678 "2006-09-21T15:37:57Z")
[QUOTE=Malacandra] Or just don’t bother, **Kalhoun**. The debate had moved on by the time I got the feckin’ thing posted. [/QUOTE] No, wait! 🙂 I respectfully ask **Kalhoun** answer that question (assuming you meant the first one in post #675). I find the list of options you provided to be interesting ones. What is the answer to this, and where does free will begin or end? ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2006, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/badchad-a-moment-of-your-time-if-you-can-spare-it/373158/679 "2006-09-21T15:45:26Z")
[QUOTE=Malacandra] Just to check, **Kalhoun** , does this mean: [ul]I can’t imagine taking a flamethrower to my local primary school [li]I can imagine it, but God prevents me from attempting to act on it[/li][li]I can attempt to act on it, but God won’t let the flamethrower light[/li][li]I can torch the school and everyone in it, but nothing and nobody burns[/li][li]I can torch the school and everyone in it, but God fixes everyone and everything up a moment later and no-one is even conscious of having suffered for an instant?[/li][/ul] Please let me know if this misrepresents your argument. [/QUOTE] Yes, it is a misrepresentation, though I’m sure not intentional. My take is that: **I can imagine it, but God prevents me from attempting to act on it** - I would never imagine it because there would be no anger or mental illness **I can attempt to act on it, but God won’t let the flamethrower light** **I can torch the school and everyone in it, but nothing and nobody burns** \*\*I can torch the school and everyone in it, but God fixes everyone and everything up a moment later and no-one is even conscious of having suffered for an instant \*\* - I wouldn’t attempt it because there would be no motivator other than entertainment. But since there could be no negative consequence, it wouldn’t matter, so it wouldn’t cross my mind. I guess the short version is that I don’t understand the purpose for man (or earth, or the universe) to have been _created_ in the first place. There’s no need for us to care about anything, to think, to react, to worry. We would be less like biological beings and more like a toy box full of muppets. The possibility of a god vs. The Cosmic Fluke™, in my mind, makes us even less necessary than if we just sort of blasted our way into existence. If god is the boss, why have us? If, on the other hand, we could not help but to exist because of a series of chemical reactions, at least there’s a reason behind it. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2006, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/badchad-a-moment-of-your-time-if-you-can-spare-it/373158/680 "2006-09-21T15:54:15Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] Free Will can’t logically exist regardless. Decisions have to be either determined or random. Something has to make you choose. If it’s determined, it’s not free. If it’s random, it’s meaningless. [/QUOTE] No, that’s like saying the quality of an object is either objective or it’s subjective, and that if its objective the quality observed has nothing to do with the observer whereas if its subjective the quality observed has nothing to do with the object. Which is not merely an analogy, but a related issue, btw. And both of them intrinsic to the whole god & prayer & etc topic. The problem with determinism vs free will as commonly constituted is such constructs tend to erroneously treat the context in which the individual operates as if it were not reciprocally affected by the activities of the individual when the individual’s choices are made in (determined by) the context. It’s partly an error of … oh bloody hell, error of construction, error of aggregation, what’s the damn term I’m looking for? — where, insofar as the entire context “world” is not made to be what it is _solely_ as a consequence of the activity of the _one_ individual whose free will or lack thereof is being thought about, the notion that the indivdual causes (determines) the context “world” is dismissed and we end up with the argument that the individual’s actions behaviors and thoughts are determined by the individual’s history and location in space time culture and etc. And that’s wrong. At every split-second moment in time the context “world” is conjured into being by the interaction of zillions of component particles (including our individual). There is neither free will nor determination, and there are both of them, or, rather, the truth of the situation can only be grasped when you see the entirety of reality as being simultaneously comprised by both just as the area of a rectangle depends on both its width and its length. That is to say, not additive but multiplicative, such that not one point or pixel or square picometer can be said to exist only as a consequence of length or only as a result of its width. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/badchad-a-moment-of-your-time-if-you-can-spare-it/373158.md?page=33) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/badchad-a-moment-of-your-time-if-you-can-spare-it/373158.md?page=35)