another free will question

[no evidence no belief]

The typical theist argument is that God gave people free will, and is not responsible for people's choice to do evil with their free will.

I think that's a simplistic argument.

Our free will allows men to insert the penis in the anus of children, and unfortunately men use their free will to make that choice very often, creating tremendous physical, mental and emotional damage in the child and society as a whole.

Our free will would also allow men to forcibly insert a finger all the way inside a child's ear, causing loss of hearing, internal bleeding, possible death and all sorts of physical, mental and emotional damage in the child and society as a whole. But somehow we almost never do that.

Why is it that the same free will that gives us the ability to do any evil equally, somehow results in thousands of anal rapes, but virtually zero forced ear fingerings?

It seems to me that there is more than free will at play here.

I would argue that separate from our free will, which is a wonderful thing, we have instinctive urges built into our nervous, hormonal, lymphatic and genital systems.

I would argue that these urges are poorly designed. Getting an erection when seeing a child bending over is NOT a question of free will. It's an entirely subconscious process. Of course one can use his free will to decide not to ACT on his sexual impulses, but if our nervous, hormonal, lymphatic and genital systems was designed in such a way that men only got sexually excited at the sight of adults, then they could STILL use their free will to commit all sorts of child abuse. But I would argue that if our body was designed better, the instances of child abuse involving penetration of their anus would be no more common than child abuse involving the penetration of their ears.


Let me put it another way. Some children are unfortunately HIV positive. Most pedophiles who know what HIV is, would avoid raping an HIV positive child. They still can use their free will to choose to rape the child anyway, but in most cases they will not.

Can we agree that God is NOT limiting the free will of pedophiles by causing some children to have AIDS?

Now, what if some new disease appeared which affected ALL CHILDREN, and it didn't cause any harm to them, but caused instant death to anybody who raped them? Would that curb the free will of pedophiles to any greater degree than HIV in children curbs their free will?

I argue that it would not. Does the fact that raping porcupines is really painful curb the free will of people into bestiality?


In conclusion, it is logically inescapable that widespread pedophilia is NOT an unavoidable byproduct of free will. God would have the power to let us have the cake and eat it too. God would have the power to give us free will AND make anal rape as common as ear rape.

Questions for debate: Why did God design our biological impulses so poorly that they often misfire and result in child rape?

If he has the power to bring anal rape occurrences to the same level as ear rapes WITHOUT limiting free will in any way, why doesn't he?

[Dantalion]

[Replying to post 33 by ttruscott]

NENB's reply + this:

We are not asking PROOF.
We are asking some methodology you use whether or not you know God is speaking in your mind. This should be a really big deal to you.
I'll copy my reply from another post:

How do you you that what you experience is God ?
How can there NOT be a simple answer to this ?
I mean, it seems like the most important thing ever to know right ?

But no, you answer with a 'well how can you know anything' style.
Srry my friend but that is a cop out.
We're not asking for infallible testing or proof (I don't think God exists so to me what you think we are asking is impossible).

But you have to have SOME methodology right ??
SOME way for you to go 'this is God in my mind right' and 'no this is just me'.
You can't be serious if you're claiming that you can't be any more specific than 'well I just know'.

Example: my girl and I just broke up, leaving me quite depressed, I'm jealous and suspicious and angry in general now, which I normally am not.
But when a thought pops in my mind I know the difference between 'this is a rational thought' and 'this is my mind going nuts because my emotional state is messed up'.
You use simple logic and critical thinking to differentiate.
All we ask is that you give us SOME idea of how you know what God is and isn't in your mind.
And to be honest, this should be a big deal to you, as in, if you really have NO way of knowing, this really should alarm you and should kickstart some kind of critical thinking process.

[Jarte]

[Replying to post 40 by no evidence no belief]

Really animals can identify right and wrong?

I always thought that when they murdered, raped, and hurt that they were doing it because they were animals. I always saw the wolf eat the rabbit with no regret and thought it was because he was an animal. I saw the dolphin eat the tuna and steal others food and have not thought they had recognized sin because they were animals.

When did you make the realization? What evidence do you have to support that? What consequences do these animal societies have for there wrong actions?

I always assumed(maybe incorrectly) that the right and wrong animals learned was based upon our positive and negative reinforcements or our emotional response to their actions.

I literally can not believe you can honestly say that animals can tell the difference between right and wrong. They are creatures of instinct not creatures of thought.

Knowledge of right and wrong would be evident through a creatures natural regret toward an action. Where in nature is this response?

The only time I ver observe such a response from an animal is when they are in the company of a human. A deer does not mourn the death of its companion nor does a snake think twice about eating a birds eggs. No animals exhibit enough cranial capacity to have knowledge of right and wrong.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 40 by no evidence no belief]

Really animals can identify right and wrong?

I always thought that when they murdered, raped, and hurt that they were doing it because they were animals. I always saw the wolf eat the rabbit with no regret and thought it was because he was an animal. I saw the dolphin eat the tuna and steal others food and have not thought they had recognized sin because they were animals.

When did you make the realization? What evidence do you have to support that? What consequences do these animal societies have for there wrong actions?

I always assumed(maybe incorrectly) that the right and wrong animals learned was based upon our positive and negative reinforcements or our emotional response to their actions.

I literally can not believe you can honestly say that animals can tell the difference between right and wrong. They are creatures of instinct not creatures of thought.

Knowledge of right and wrong would be evident through a creatures natural regret toward an action. Where in nature is this response?

The only time I ver observe such a response from an animal is when they are in the company of a human. A deer does not mourn the death of its companion nor does a snake think twice about eating a birds eggs. No animals exhibit enough cranial capacity to have knowledge of right and wrong.

http://www.madisonmonkeys.com/masserman.pdf
A majority of rhesus monkeys will consistently suffer hunger rather than secure food at the expense of electroshock to a conspecific.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 40 by no evidence no belief]

Really animals can identify right and wrong?

I always thought that when they murdered, raped, and hurt that they were doing it because they were animals. I always saw the wolf eat the rabbit with no regret and thought it was because he was an animal. I saw the dolphin eat the tuna and steal others food and have not thought they had recognized sin because they were animals.

When did you make the realization? What evidence do you have to support that? What consequences do these animal societies have for there wrong actions?

I always assumed(maybe incorrectly) that the right and wrong animals learned was based upon our positive and negative reinforcements or our emotional response to their actions.

I literally can not believe you can honestly say that animals can tell the difference between right and wrong. They are creatures of instinct not creatures of thought.

Knowledge of right and wrong would be evident through a creatures natural regret toward an action. Where in nature is this response?

The only time I ver observe such a response from an animal is when they are in the company of a human. A deer does not mourn the death of its companion nor does a snake think twice about eating a birds eggs. No animals exhibit enough cranial capacity to have knowledge of right and wrong.

You might look around the web and around this site. This issue has been discussed at length. The evidence is overwhelming that animals have a sense of fairness and reciprocity. Elephants certainly seem to mourn their dead.

But you are WAY off the subject of this subtopic. Please search this forum for your issue. It has been discussed ad naseum here. Your POV makes you appear profoundly ignorant of the subject matter.

[Morphine]

[Replying to post 40 by no evidence no belief]

Really animals can identify right and wrong?

I always thought that when they murdered, raped, and hurt that they were doing it because they were animals. I always saw the wolf eat the rabbit with no regret and thought it was because he was an animal. I saw the dolphin eat the tuna and steal others food and have not thought they had recognized sin because they were animals.

When did you make the realization? What evidence do you have to support that? What consequences do these animal societies have for there wrong actions?

I always assumed(maybe incorrectly) that the right and wrong animals learned was based upon our positive and negative reinforcements or our emotional response to their actions.

I literally can not believe you can honestly say that animals can tell the difference between right and wrong. They are creatures of instinct not creatures of thought.

Knowledge of right and wrong would be evident through a creatures natural regret toward an action. Where in nature is this response?

The only time I ver observe such a response from an animal is when they are in the company of a human. A deer does not mourn the death of its companion nor does a snake think twice about eating a birds eggs. No animals exhibit enough cranial capacity to have knowledge of right and wrong.

You didn't watch much animal planet did you? Understandable. First, we as people don't give it a second thought when it comes to eating other species. Why should they?
Either way, you can google it. What's right and wrong to us is different to them. Similar to how people in different areas or many years ago, think its ok to cut someone's hand off for being a thief. They had a sense of right or wrong. Their standards were just lower.

[Danmark]

is one site that has interesting information on the subject.

Or peruse the threads on this forum on morality and animals

[ttruscott]

...

What is the geographical location of the Garden of Eden?

I don't know. Who cares?

Ooo Ooo, does that mean if I ask a science question about string theory or the red shit in astronomy you can't answer all science is bogus?

Peace, Ted

[1213]

...
Now, what if some new disease appeared which affected ALL CHILDREN, and it didn't cause any harm to them, but caused instant death to anybody who raped them? Would that curb the free will of pedophiles to any greater degree than HIV in children curbs their free will?
...
If he has the power to bring anal rape occurrences to the same level as ear rapes WITHOUT limiting free will in any way, why doesn't he?

Even if it would cause death, same people would want to do so. Maybe they could resist the temptation more easily, but then they probably would invent something like condom to give them opportunity to do as they want.

And I think the worst thing is that some people want to do evil things. Fear of punishment may prevent many bad actions, but it doesn’t make people “clean� inside. Evil people could still want evil things. And that I think is the real problem. And as long as evil unrighteous people have this life they will live according to their evil desires. If it is made difficult, they invent another way to fulfill their evil desires.

Your suggestion is only one way to deny or prevent something. It is ok, but people can make other way to do bad things. Eventually it would lead to situation, where all bad people are cast to place where no life is. And I believe that is just what God does one day.

Sad thing is that before it happens, many people have to suffer from evil people’s evil acts. But I believe that God recompense all suffering in eternal life. And luckily nothing of this world can really harm people’s spirit and body is only vessel for spirit.

This life is like lesson, where many evil things can happen, even murders although they can be punished with death. Idea is to learn good and evil. Those who love more good than evil can have eternal life without any evil.

In my opinion it is very sad thing, when people believe that they are just doing what their nature tells and not what they want themselves. I think people can choose how they satisfy their sexual needs and people’s own will determines how they responses to children or other things. And for example getting an erection depends very much of what person wants and how he thinks. In my opinion it is only excuse to tell that it is something that person can’t resist or that it happens against persons own will. I think pedophiles have just twisted way to think and therefore they want things that they shouldn’t want.

[ttruscott]

Good morning Dantalion,

[Replying to post 33 by ttruscott]

...

But you have to have SOME methodology right ??
SOME way for you to go 'this is God in my mind right' and 'no this is just me'.

...

Would you say you know how intuition works or do you just deny it all together?

in·tu·i·tion
n.
1.
a. The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes; immediate cognition. See Synonyms at reason.
b. Knowledge gained by the use of this faculty; a perceptive insight.
2. A sense of something not evident or deducible; an impression.

If you have no experience of intuition, let alone spiritual intuition, how can you understand my answer? How can I give an answer?

I can tell you the base for my faith if you like and then how I practically access my faith to make decisions, which may or may not make sense to you...

It starts with verses like: Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. The only problem is the answer to, "am I one of the 'you' mentioned here?

So I move ne to: Matthew 7:8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. which opens it up a bit unless my asking is inferior somehow.

I remember struggling with all this 30 years ago and finally just thinking, "HE says He will answer and HE says I will know HIS voice John 10:27 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and John 10:14 "I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me-- so

IF I am one of HIS elect and I am seeking HIS voice, based on these promises, I can relax and accept that it is HIS job to make HIS voice audible to me for me to 'hear' it.

Don't forget that I believe we existed in a non-physical spirit state pre-earth in a telepathic society so hearing other's voices was normal and learning who was who and perhaps even how to hide my voice could be learned.

The next step was in listening to the voice that sounded like my own but had new thoughts which taught me about the PCE theology I was just learning form a friend. I could have claimed those as my own inspiration and taught it under my own name but decided they were from outside me and in answer to my prayers and not my own creation. As my understanding of the wonderful nature of PCE theology came clearer and I realized that all my protestations over ordinary Christian theology were finally being answered, I grew more and more excited. Twenty five years later it all seems ordinary.

And one final thing that gives me great confidence in my faith even though to no one else, is that 4 or 5 times in the last 25 years or so, I've been sometimes in a group of people talking and arguing and thinking about religion and comparing notes...not all Christians either. Someone asks me a question and I give a short 2 or 3 sentence answer about my understanding but as I speak, I get a chill and though the whole room was buzzing a minute before, as soon as I started to speak, all went quiet and after I finished, there was silence until someone said something like, '"Those were the words of GOD." or "That was straight from the Spirit." Not everyone may have agreed with that since no one spoke against it and no one probably remembered what was said the next day but it was a real experience to me and fit my faith so it went into the "strong conviction" category of my brain.

So that is my answer:
1. It is GOD's problem, not mine. HE made the promises to answer me and keep the devils from answering.
2. It fits with our necessary pre-earth abilities if our pre-conception existence is true
3. I've had thoughts that could not be described as from my own intellect because they were much larger ? deeper ? insightful (hard to describe) and recognized by other people as 'other' to me.

<shrug>

Peace, Ted

[Jarte]

[Replying to post 43 by Clownboat]

That is training not right and wrong. A human is influencing their actions which I talked about.

You might look around the web and around this site. This issue has been discussed at length. The evidence is overwhelming that animals have a sense of fairness and reciprocity. Elephants certainly seem to mourn their dead.

But you are WAY off the subject of this subtopic. Please search this forum for your issue. It has been discussed ad naseum here. Your POV makes you appear profoundly ignorant of the subject matter.

Fairness is evolutionary advantageous and so it reciprocity I am arguing right and wrong and being capable of understanding consequences, logic, and reason. As for the elephant no matter the lost a dependent is responsibly justified.

And as for the subject I offered a preposition about the possibility of an allegorical interpretation of genesis and was attacked because apparently the evolutionary path of humans to a point where we could hold knowledge of good and evil was invalid.

You didn't watch much animal planet did you? Understandable. First, we as people don't give it a second thought when it comes to eating other species. Why should they?
Either way, you can google it. What's right and wrong to us is different to them. Similar to how people in different areas or many years ago, think its ok to cut someone's hand off for being a thief. They had a sense of right or wrong. Their standards were just lower.

PETA, we all believe stealing is wrong though but sin is not recognized by them.

Ultimately please view the past discussion. I didn't mean to go on this wild tangent and really was responding without research because I was not hear to argue this subject but rather defend a possible interpretation of the creation story.