Thanks u/Plemethrock
We can have a discussion on whether or not free will exists. Discuss if every action we do is already predetermined by how our brain is wired, with the environment around us being the inputs.
We can also have a discussion on whether or not humans have souls and analyze the evidence for and against us just being our bodies
(I made an error and had to repost, apologies)
Still avoiding the hypotheticals, going to the extreme (that we can only have exactly what we have or a tyrant God who stamps out all traces of free will), and backtracking on the purported scientific evidence that animals were created for a world without death.
What I'm getting out of this is you have less interest in debating than asserting your worldview, which is fine when it comes to religion. Basically the answers to all questions that were not collapsed into easily dispatched charicatures of themselves is: "there is no way to actually understand this, but we know it's true because we've been told it's true". That doesn't fly for me, so I feel any chance of this conversation being productive has ended. I appreciate the respectful engagement, and while I don't appreciate my points becoming repeatedly simplified, I understand that happens in discussion
Wait, I'm pretty sure I answered here:
Here's a real life example: Who do you think is more virtuous: a chad who has easy access to many attractive women and still doesn't give in to lust but marries and remains faithful to his wife or an incel who never had any options and does the same things without getting tempted?
I mean, I'm pretty sure you know the answer and you're just being stubborn. The answer to your hypothetical is easy - God wants to test us and see if we're worthy. This is why life is hard, why we have moral culpability (what kind of a God would judge a man who has been determined to sin and not repent?) and why we're not on autopilot mode (determinism).
So, why does Chad deal with much more temptation in his life than the incel? Certainly there are many who've fallen into temptation who wouldn't have had they simply not been in a given situation. Should we not be made to face the totality of all situations if reaching virtuosity is the true goal of this system? Why does this system of virtue and sin exist in the first place? That can't be put onto man's actions because it was God who put the prohibition on the fruit, thereby making it a forbidden action. It simply could have never been created. Was that system all put into place so God can test beings despite already knowing what each is going to do?
You did not answer any of my hypotheticals, you again simplified it to "why is life hard? God wants to test us". But my hypotheticals were nuanced and in multiple directions. If what you posit is correct, why aren't things harder? Why can't we insist upon our will and break the laws of physics, surely that would be a better way to test a person's virtue or lack thereof, to go back to your own example, make everyone a universal gigachad and see what they do.
You CONTINUE to simplify and avoid the difficult questions, as well as avoiding providing proof of previous claims such as science showing us animals were originally designed to function better without death. I tried to give a peaceful offramp to this conversation but then you pulled out the typical holier-than-thou "you know I'm right but you're too stubborn to admit it" schtick that people who are stuck up regarding their religion always pull out. So please, either provide evidence for claims you yourself made earlier and actually try to answer the nuanced, multi-faceted questions that have been asked of you WITHOUT reducing them to the strawman you are accustomed to knocking down, or just let this go. You're not doing either of us any favors in your purposeful obtusiveness
Dude... Talk about avoiding hypotheticals. You literally answered with a question.
The point was to demonstrate that giving a choice between doing what's right and what's wrong allows for virtue to be exhibited. If God made the world so that no such choice was possible it would lead to a less virtuous world.
God doesn't do stuff out of lack or necessity - He has all the knowledge and all that he needed before the creation. On the contrary - He did it out of abundance of love. Everything He does is for the good of the creation. The "tests" He put are for the betterment of man, so that man can transcend his nature and become like Him.
I answered. It's just that there's no pleasing you because asking "but why are things that way and not another way" is sophistry and childlike questions. This can go on literally forever. Here, I'll try too: Why did God made me so I have to breathe to live when he could've made me not go through the trouble of breathing? Or why can't I grow wings right now just by thinking about it?
The thing is I offered explanations as to why God did things a certain way, but it doesn't matter much. What matters is that He did it that way for a reason. It doesn't have to make sense to us and ultimately it can't because we're limited in our knowledge and reason and can't comprehend the purpose and function of all things. We know what has been revealed by Him and what our senses and reason can tell us but that leaves a lot of unknowns.
Wtf are you on about? When did I say that science showed us animals were originally designed to function better without death? When did you hear me appealing to science when talking about something that's supernatural and can't be empirically observed?
I'll mea culpa on the science thing because that was another user who jumped into the conversation earlier and I had not cared to pay enough attention to notice the difference.
What I won't mea culpa is the alleged "dodging" of the hypothetical. I asked many hypotheticals that encompassed that more than encompassed yours (and some non-hypotheticals like the mechanisms by which your worldview works), but you need to reduce it to argue your point and now feign indignation that I "dodged" the hypothetical, despite it being a simplification of questions you already chose to ignore. Hypotheticals that were asked to come to a deeper understanding, not ones orchestrated in their simplicity to win an argument. Or maybe you truly do feel indignant despite the hypocrisy, that wouldn't be atypical.
You believe what you believe and there is no need for evidence. Everything flows downstream from that. It's great for you personally, and I do really mean that, but it's useless in discussion. Whatever piece you may need to say I'm sure you will but there is no value left to be had in this exchange. So, you can enjoy the last word should you choose