Iluvatar made Melkor evil?

[Rían]

Originally posted by MasterMothra
[B]heheh, if i were a betting man, i would go with legolas, rian.
great siggy SGH. do you approve of mine?

Well, he would be a shoo-in, except I'm very partial to dark hair. What a tough decision ... I think about it day and night... *GAG* ACK!! UGH!!
Where is your sig from? Did you make it up?

the illusion of free will, and how it applies to tolkien is a great topic of discussion. until you realise one thing: "there are no legos!"

Could you please elaborate on what you mean by that? I don't understand what you're trying to say (the lego part) (unless that was just a joke about the legos - obviously, the concept still applies)

[Wayfarer]

I think it's from the matrix. 'There is no spoon.'

[Rían]

oh, ok - I never saw that movie. I'll have to ask my (dark-haired) husband about it

On a rabbit trail - can you imagine Elven legos? I bet they would be marvelous! And probably a lot prettier colors, too. Even our "here and now" legos are loads of fun, though. You should see some of the towers we build!

[MasterMothra]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the illusion of free will, and how it applies to tolkien is a great topic of discussion. until you realise one thing: "there are no legos!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

yes that was just a little humor spinoff of the matrix

theres no need to get angry wayfarer(j/k, from gandalf in lotr)

my statements regarding the illusion of free will is just an opinion. most humans also think they have "control" of their lives, which i too think is just an illusion. there are certain factors that can cause free will to be non existant: being murdered is not a choice many of us would likely make, sometimes outside factors decide the course of history. gandalf says that bilbo was chosen to find the ring, and that frodo was also chosen to have it.that would mean that outside forces decided a matter before there was even a choice.
if an omnipotent god such as illuvatar knows what what path one will take before it is actually offered, does that individual actually have free will? can he change the path that is already known by eru? if he cannot, then he has no free will. if he can then eru is not an omnipotent god since the individual has chosen a path different from the one eru perceived before the event actually happened. therefore, can free will exists in the presence of an omnipotent being? i think not, but that is merely an opinion.

i forgot, my sig is part of a quote in unfinished tales. it is sauron speaking to ar-pharazon.

[Nilore]

Iluvatar said to let evil be in the world.
Where's the fun in having a world evil?

After all, most stories are based on Good vs Evil. Aren't they?

Nilore

[Rían]

Originally posted by MasterMothra
my statements regarding the illusion of free will is just an opinion. most humans also think they have "control" of their lives, which i too think is just an illusion. there are certain factors that can cause free will to be non existant: being murdered is not a choice many of us would likely make, sometimes outside factors decide the course of history. gandalf says that bilbo was chosen to find the ring, and that frodo was also chosen to have it.that would mean that outside forces decided a matter before there was even a choice.

You seem to think in terms of all or nothing - do you really think that since a person can get murdered against their will that it logically follows that they have no free will at all? To me, your argument makes absolutely no sense. Now I would say that although sometimes you are subject, against your own will, to someone else's free will choices, that you certainly still have free will yourself and are responsible for your choices. In your example, do you think we should punish the murderer? Why should we, if he had no choice in the matter?

if an omnipotent god such as illuvatar knows what what path one will take before it is actually offered, does that individual actually have free will? can he change the path that is already known by eru? if he cannot, then he has no free will. if he can then eru is not an omnipotent god since the individual has chosen a path different from the one eru perceived before the event actually happened. therefore, can free will exists in the presence of an omnipotent being? i think not, but that is merely an opinion.

Well, I hardly know what to say to this that I have not already said in the previous pages of this thread. I suppose another example that might help illustrate how omniscience and free will are compatible would be how I "know" my kids - I know their particular tendencies - their weaknesses and strengths. In certain situations, I "know" what they will do - however, that does not take away their free will choice (and sometimes I am v. pleasantly surprised! ) Now the creator/creation relationship is so far above the parent/child relationship that it is entirely reasonable to say that God "knows" what will happen, but we as his creations have free choice. Do you truly disagree with this, or not understand this, or are you trying to "make things interesting" just for "fun"?

i forgot, my sig is part of a quote in unfinished tales. it is sauron speaking to ar-pharazon.

And lies that contain an element of truth are the most effective - Sauron was no dunce. The "freedom" that he promised may have been freedom from one thing, but enslavement to a far worse.

[Wayfarer]

Mothra (didn't godzilla kill mothra?) , I think what you're saying is really about control, which is different from free will. Free will is the ability to make a choice, but you don't always have the ability to carry through. You can decide whether or not you want to leap of a building, but you can't suddenly decide to fly!

Now, if someone decides to kill you, that is within free will. But wether or not he succeeds is another matter. He might fail through stupidity, or he might be caught. The inability to carry through on a decision does not negate free will.

To correct you on a trifling point-Omnipotence is the power to do anything, omniscience is the power to know everything.

Foresight does not invalidate free will. I can predict a number of things, without forcing them to happen. But that's not nescessarily the case when you're talking about an omniscient being.

I do not know what illuvatar is like in this respect, but I do know the christian God does not 'forsee' things that will happen. He does not 'forsee' anything-he sees it, as it's happening.

I confess this is mind boggling. But there are a few reasons which I believe it to be so.

First, god is omnipresent. I believe that this means he exists simultaneously at every point in space and time. Therefore, the decisions you make, the things that lead up to them, and the eventual outcome are all happening 'now' for him. There is no past or future for an omniscient being, only an everpresent present.

This leads up to my second point: omniscience. God does not 'know' things in the way humans do, that is, remember them. He sees everything, always. And so the same eye that watches me type this is watching you read it, even though it hasn't even been posted. Or perhaps you could say, he is watching you read it, but also seeing me type it, even though by the time it's there for you to read I'll be off the computer.

In conclusiopn, I would say that Eru does not know the choices that are going to be made, he sees the choices that have already been made.

Do you understand?

[Rían]

BTW, MM, I have seen a change in your posts lately that I am glad to see - at first, I detected a slight prejudice in you, which I think is common in those who have a preference for the darker side of things - you seemed to think that people who are more interested in the "goodness" of Tolkien's world - or, more accurately, people that see and esteem the value in that goodness - tend to be rather naive and brainless. I hope you don't think that way now (if indeed you did before). True "goodness" is not a silly, la-de-dah-type thing, but something that is strong and beautiful and powerful and noble.

A v. interesting verse in the Bible is when Jesus says for his followers to "be shrewd as serpents, and innocent as doves" (Matthew 10:16). (and I bring up the Bible and Christianity, BTW, only as an example of a group of people who esteem goodness, even though we often fail at achieving it). It is morally wrong for Christians to not use their brains to the best of their ability - to be shrewd in the good sense. However, we are also to remain innocent - it isn't right for me to murder someone, for example, because I want to understand everything I possibly can (and of course, then I would not understand NOT being a murderer!) Also, one does not have to be immersed in evil to understand it well enough to combat it, or even to be shrewd, for that matter - goodness can understand evil, but evil cannot understand goodness - "and the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it." (John 1:5). I think that is VERY evident in Tolkien's work, esp. Sauron's mistakes in LoTR when he judged the Fellowship by how he, personally, would act - not too shrewd on his part, BTW. You see, evil is only goodness corrupted - it is not equal with goodness, it is less.

And I sure hope that you see by now that the posters in this particular thread are not v. concerned about the relative hotness of Legolas and Aragorn!

[Wayfarer]

BtB: Rian, I never noticed the Diacratics in your signature before. That's brilliant! you don't mind if I snitch, do you?

[Rían]

Absolutely not! Help yourself Is your keyboard as uncooperative as mine? Most people's keyboards work with the alt-number combos; mine doesn't. To me, Tolkien's names are visually beautiful, as well, so I like to see (and use) the diacritical marks.

[MasterMothra]

yikes, why is everyone so angry, i told you it was just an opinion? first off, i guess that i need to say that i DO NOT believe in GOD, nor do i believe that the god in the bible ever existed. i'm not saying that a god doesn not exist, just that i do not myself believe one to exist. therefore, i do not believe what is in the bible. so the bible carries little weight in discussions i am part of.
it is because of this i beleive that free will exists in our world. i believe we should punish criminals for immoral acts, because i believe the criminal has free will, and chose to commit the act without merit. not because of any divine law.
now about children, i do know a little about them myself rian. the way i raise them has nothing to do with any god.

to mr wayfarer,

Omnipotence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Omnipotence (lit. all power) is the power to do absolutely anything. This trait is usually attributed only to God. Theists hold that examples of God's omnipotence includes Creation and miracles. In most monotheistic religions, God is described as omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and all-loving (omni-benevolent?)

"I do not know what illuvatar is like in this respect, but I do know the christian God does not 'forsee' things that will happen. He does not 'forsee' anything-he sees it, as it's happening."

i can only say that you must not have read "revelation" in the bible, because that book deals entirely on what the christian god tells john will happen in the future.

now to tolkien.
my opinion, and i stress MY OPINION(as i do not want to ruffle any feathers here), is that eru is omnipotent, ie-he knows what the future holds. these are my reasons:
namo- he forgets nothing; and he knows all things that shall be, save only those that lie still in the freedom of illuvatar. since namo can see the future, im sure eru can also.

do you understand?

[Rían]

Well, I'm certainly NOT angry at all, and I don't think any one else was recently, either. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree - just because we disagree, that doesn't mean I'm angry with you! I guess it is just so clear to me how omniscience and free will can co-exist that I don't understand how it's not clear to you. It seems like we're just saying the same things back and forth. It doesn't matter that you don't believe in the God of the Bible for the purposes of the discussion - what do you think of how I presented how free will and an all-knowing God (modeled after the God of the Bible) can co-exist? What part of it do you not agree with? Could you try once more (sorry, I'm just not getting it ) and slowly explain it to me? Can we try one more time? It's so hard to communicate thru a keyboard, I know...

And I'm NOT saying you don't know anything about raising a child! Of course I'm not saying that! Please don't even think I'm thinking that! You raise your children to the best of your ability according to your belief system, and I raise my children to the best of my ability according to my belief system. I'm just using a parent/child scenario as an illustration of the free will/knowledge issue that we are discussing here. I'm so sorry if I offended or hurt you, I really didn't intend to in any way. I do think that truthful discussion is a good thing, though, so I won't hide my opinions or represent them falsely to not offend someone. If my manner of presenting my ideas was offensive to you, though, I ask for your forgiveness.

and re omnipotence - the power to do absolutely anything - that's where the free will thing is so amazing! The God of the Bible, and Eru, both let their created beings have free will, although they could certainly force things their way. However, if they took away free will, then loving obedience is taken away as an option.

[Wayfarer]

Originally posted by MasterMothra
[Bi can only say that you must not have read "revelation" in the bible, because that book deals entirely on what the christian god tells john will happen in the future.[/B]

I'm afraid I used a bit of semanticism, let me correct.

God does know the future. But, since he is temporally omnipresent, he does not see it as 'the future' the way we do. We exist in the present 'now', we look back to the past and forward to the future. God exists in the eternal 'now', and for him all times are present.

God exists outside of time (or should I say that time exists inside God?). As a result, he can see the past, present and future all at once. He knows what choices will be made, because he has already seen them made.

is that eru is omnipotent, ie-he knows what the future holds. these are my reasons:
namo- he forgets nothing; and he knows all things that shall be, save only those that lie still in the freedom of illuvatar. since namo can see the future, im sure eru can also.

I quite agree, with one provision. Namo can see anything that has been preordained. Some things have not yet been decided. Since men are not subject to fate in middle earth, I think theat man'd free will falls under that category.

[MasterMothra]

hehe, poor rian, i am so sorry if i led you too believe i am offended. you have to be one of the nicest people i know, just wanted to let you know that. and you have not offended me in any way, shape or form. neither has anyone else here.
wayfarer, that pic, that hair, hehehe. i do read a lot of your posts because they are fun to read.

"As a result, he can see the past, present and future all at once. He knows what choices will be made, because he has already seen them made. "

heres the meat and potatos, so to speak. theres a path that god has already seen made, the question is; do we have the ability to change the path that god has seen, or are we bound by the path that god has already seen?

example: god sees the future and we make a right turn, is it possible for us to instead make a left turn? and if we can make a left turn, then god was wrong, thus he is not omnipotent . thus we have free will, because we are not bound by gods omnipotence.

anyway, i will have to give you some more answers later if thats ok. i must clean the kitchen, cooked some chicken parmisan for me and my daughter tonight. also my head hurts from studying windows 2000 server.

now back to the regulary scheduled program.

[Rían]

Well, I'm certainly glad that I have not offended you, but you have offended me if you're just playing around with me, like it seems you are (pretending to be offended when you're not). I'm not angry with you (being offended does not necessarily mean being angry), but it makes me sad to think that I might have to stop replying to you, because I've enjoyed discussing things with you. It's very discouraging to take time to make a thought-out post and then find that it is irrelevant. Could you please use the smilies if you're joking around, in the future? I love to kid around, as long as all concerned know it's kidding! And if you decide to leave us elf-lovers then I'll pray for you anyway, whenever I think of you! heehee, can't stop me!! neener-neener!

example: god sees the future and we make a right turn, is it possible for us to instead make a left turn? and if we can make a left turn, then god was wrong, thus he is not omnipotent . thus we have free will, because we are not bound by gods omnipotence.

Well, I guess we will just have to disagree, because it seems that we are not getting anywhere. It is completely clear and perfectly logical to me how God can see the future and we still have free choice. Didn't my parent/kid example make that clearer at all? Don't you often know what your daughter will do, and she still has free choice?

I hope your head feels better (Windows has a tendency to give people headaches! ) and your kitchen gets cleaned up quickly! My kids are now doing the kitchen (we just finished eating) The littlest sweeps under the table, the next oldest clears the table, and the oldest (12) rinses the dishes. Then I load and finish off. What a slavedriver I am!

[Coney]

I've enjoyed reading this thread but what is all of this talk of God in aid of?

Didin't Tolkien write his stories "without allegory"?

[Wayfarer]

Coney:

Most people misunderstand what tolkien meant when he said that. Or at least, what the meaning of allegory is.

Allegory is when something in the story represents something outside the story. For example, if 'frodo represents christ'.

The fact of the matter is the none of tolkien's writings are allegorical. Frodo is a young hobbit with a tough job to do, nothing more. But a story does not have to be allegorical to be applicable. The ring may not repreesent the atom bomb, tolkien himself tolkien compared the two.

Talking about Eru is almost always going to carry over into talking about God. Not because he resembles or portrays god (in the manner of narnia's Emporer Over Seas) he literally is God, because middle earth is our world. In the same way, Numenor literally is atlantis, and orcs literally are corrupt humans. As such, you can apply one to the other, without being allegorical.

[MasterMothra]

rian, i read your post all the way through. there was no disrespect there. i thought i was clear when i asked the question:

"do we have the ability to change the path that god has seen, or are we bound by the path that god has already seen? " i just simply wanted an answer to that question. can you give it? ill give another example:

it is now 11/18/02. god decides to see what im gonna do on 10/02/05. he sees that i will get out of the bed on the right side. ok he now knows. now fast forward to 10/02/05. im getting out of bed, do i really have a choice to what side im gonna get out on? god has forseen that i will get out on the right side, so is that what i will do, or can i get out on the left side?

about the parent/child thing. heres my take using the same logic:

i(the parent, god, eru, whatever) am watching my child(human, child of god) play on a playground. i observe my child being assaulted by another child. what do i do. do i let my child fend for themselves and not interfere? or do i intervene and try to stop it before it happens? what would you do rian? now change(i) with eru, god, whoever and change (child) with humans or firstborn or gods children. then tell me if you have the same answer to both.

[MasterMothra]

"Allegory is when something in the story represents something outside the story. For example, if 'frodo represents christ'.

The fact of the matter is the none of tolkien's writings are allegorical.
Talking about Eru is almost always going to carry over into talking about God. Not because he resembles or portrays god (in the manner of narnia's Emporer Over Seas) he literally is God, because middle earth is our world. In the same way, Numenor literally is atlantis, and orcs literally are corrupt humans. As such, you can apply one to the other, without being allegorical."

wait a minute, what you just described IS an allegory, but you initially said it wasnt. ??????
if numenor was actually atlantis, then wouldnt tolkien have used the word atlantis insead of numenor? since he used numenor instead of atlantis that is by definition an allegory.

"Most people misunderstand what tolkien meant when he said that. Or at least, what the meaning of allegory is."

we can only give our opinions as to what tolkien meant, coney. your assumption is just as good as anyone elses. he didnt want an allegory.

[Wayfarer]

Mothra, have you read Alistair Reynolds? If not, you should. Great scifi author.

But that's besides the point. What I want to use is one of his blackbox technologies: Galactic Final Memory.

You see, there's this race of aliens called Grubs. They communicate chemically, and they can transfer memories from one to another. Now, supposedly, before they go extinct, they have a great databank of everything any of thier species learned in it's history. One of these bits happens to be time travel, and so they send parts of it back in time.

For example, they have a communication system which already contains all the messages that have ever been sent. So it knows what you're going to say before yoy say it. Freaky, huh?

I talk about time travel, because that's the most rational example I can give of something like this. You ask: If god has seen which side of the bed you got out of timorrow, do you still have a choice in the matter? I ask: If I know which side of the bed you got out of yesterday, did you still have a choice in the matter?

I think you do. Now, if I send a message back in time to myself, telling which side of the bed you are going to get up on, do you suddenly stop having a choice? Of course not. But, having made the choice when you made it, you can't go back and change it, an you?