Free will -> Probabilistic model of volition -> God's injustice

[hmkpoker]

An interesting thread broke out between me and Mempho, which I'd like to express and get some other opinions on. The thread is available here. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=3770696&page=1&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1)

To synopsize:

Free will must contain, if it is not completely characterized by, a random element. God must be unable to predict a person's choices when he creates them, because otherwise the person's ultimate destination would be pre-determined, and God could not be called just.

If free will were to have causes other than complete chaotic randomness, the above deterministic argument will arise until the principal source of free will is randomness.

It is apparent, though, that some people are far more likely than others to accept Jesus. Most people who are born Christian die Christian, and most people born Muslim die Muslim. The individual cannot exercise control over circumstances such as these; only God can.

If God creates two souls with the knowledge that one is far less likely than the other to be saved, he cannot be called just. This is analagous to God dealing some people aces and other people 72.

Thoughts?

[chezlaw]

This and many similar arguments are correct in as far as no rational person can believe in this unjust version of god (assuming they see this kind of god as unjust).

That's because, if there is a god then our sense of justice is directly from god and is to be trusted more than any indirect evidence to the contrary.

chez

[Mempho]

Ironic that you posted a thread about this, too....check out my one below....or I could just include it in this one. After our enlightening debate, I went searching on the web for apologist thinking. I found this, which is somewhat interesting in that this apologist claims that their is a biblical basis that people will be differently according to their circumstances here on earth.

I'd like to see what you think:

Edit** The reasoning behind the probalisic model is that you are either saved or not. Now, the question is...if people are judged differently, what does that exactly mean? Check out the apologist website first.**
What happens if they've never heard? (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/neverheard.html)

[Xhad]

This post does an excellent job of explaining why I don't believe in "free will." Any definition of it is going to include acting without cause, and I fail to see why people feel that acting randomly is better (or more true) than acting according to brain chemistry, social upbringing, etc.

[hmkpoker]

I'm a hard determinist myself, but the purpose of this thread isn't to disprove free will; it's to prove that free will is also irreconcilable with a just God, just like determinism.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

If free will were to have causes other than complete chaotic randomness, the above deterministic argument will arise until the principal source of free will is randomness.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is the libertarian versus compatabilist argument. The problem is insoluable for humans. Killing God doesn't solve it because then we are determined by the chance movement of particles and therefore just as bound as you think we are if created by God. Complete randomness doesn't solve it because that's not really a choice, it's just an accident. How is it just to sentence a murderer whose decision to kill was accidental? The concept of justice becomes nonsensical in a universe ruled by chance. We can only get to a concept of justice if God exists.

As humans we are faced with paradox almost everywhere we turn. We have difficulty because we abandoned the one Source of knowledge, and constanly demonstrate the consequences of trying to figure it out for ourselves.

As a theist I believe that there is human responsibility and this involves free will at some level. God has created us in His image and He did not intend for us to be automotons. His judgments are just and in accordance with His omnibenevolence. And it's reasonable for me to believe this because He is omnipotent and omniscient. It's also reasonable for me to believe I can't comprehend it in this life because of finitude and sin.

Since Adam first sinned man has been trying to blame God for his sin. God wasn't buying it then and He doesn't buy it now. He made us much higher than that with the responsibility that goes with high status. The "God made me do it" excuse won't fly.

[hmkpoker]

Either:

A) Choice has a cause. This denotes determinism.

or

B) Choice has no cause. This denotes randomness.

This is not difficult.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

This is not difficult.


[/ QUOTE ]


So you go with B)? Hitler's decision to kill millions had no cause? He was guiltless?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Either:

A) Choice has a cause. This denotes determinism.

or

B) Choice has no cause. This denotes randomness.

This is not difficult.

[/ QUOTE ]Nah this assume way to much. Free will, choice is a consequence of knowledge. Those that have more knowledge have more choices and are more free. Some people choose to live in a subhuman fashion and are determined in most if not all of their actions. It takes someone of reason, and education to have freewill. Chioce has a cause, it is education, education or lack there of restricts free will and reduces some to a subhuman deterministic realm. But those with an education can overcome the deterministic choice if they so wish.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
So you go with B)? Hitler's decision to kill millions had no cause? He was guiltless?

[/ QUOTE ]

If it had no cause, then how can you blame him? This is consistent. Do you "blame" a deck of cards when your opponent hits his 2-outer?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Do you "blame" a deck of cards when your opponent hits his 2-outer?


[/ QUOTE ]

The deck has no will.

You didn't answer my question. Are you going with A)? Determinism? How can you blame Hitler if he was determined by outside causes?

[hmkpoker]

I've mentioned before that I am a determinist, but my personal beliefs are irrelevant to this argument.

Any competant determinist believes that it is in the best interest of human beings to have a sense of personal responsibility. Whether it is true or not is unimportant. The fact is that it helps motivate decisions that are useful and good, and contribute to a better quality of life. "Punishment" should serve as either A) a means toward correction (which it seldom does), or B) a deterrant (which it seldom does). To "give someone what's coming to them" is, in my opinion, not useful at all, and frankly is quite primitive.

However, I don't want to debate free will v. determinism here; it's a thread that I've been through far too many times and I know it won't have a pretty resolution. I've only answered personal questions because you asked, and I don't want to go further with this. I am, for the purposes of this thread, only concerned with the nature of free will.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I've mentioned before that I am a determinist, but my personal beliefs are irrelevant to this argument.


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course they're relevant when they concern the subject matter of the thread.

Edit: What I mean is your choice is relevant for the purpose of your argument. Which are you arguing, A or B - not which you privately believe, which I agree is irrelevant.

[ QUOTE ]

Any competant determinist believes that it is in the best interest of human beings to have a sense of personal responsibility


[/ QUOTE ]

I've said before the atheist's only and final refuge is pragmatism. But pragmatism only makes sense within the framework of a goal. So the next question is, "Who's goal, and why"?.

[ QUOTE ]

Whether it is true or not is unimportant.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Think about that one, sports fans.


[ QUOTE ]

However, I don't want to debate free will v. determinism here
...
for the purposes of this thread, only concerned with the nature of free will.


[/ QUOTE ]

You have succeeded in totally confusing me.

[hmkpoker]

You've picked four different fights.

Which one would you like me to explain to you?

[hmkpoker]

No, I take that back.

This is going to degenerate into an argument between whether the libertarian or deterministic model of the universe is correct, and I'm more interested in discussing the nature of free will as it exists within the context of the presence of a just god.

And I have no desire to explain my views to someone who won't appreciate them anyway.

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This is not difficult.


[/ QUOTE ]


So you go with B)? Hitler's decision to kill millions had no cause? He was guiltless?

[/ QUOTE ]

NR, you often invoke the horrors of Nazism in your arguements, so I'm taking a page from your book. You have stated on more than one occasion that god is the source of morality. Alolph Hitler wrote that "faith is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude". Can you not see that your path leads to the same destination?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Which one would you like me to explain to you?


[/ QUOTE ]


Start with why truth is unimportant. We'll go from there.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

This is going to degenerate into an argument between whether the libertarian or deterministic model of the universe is correct, and I'm more interested in discussing the nature of free will as it exists within the context of the presence of a just god.


[/ QUOTE ]

Only if you insist on it. My point is that neither model works, that the truth, which is important, is something else, and we don't know what it is because we've rejected the only Source of truth. The nature of free will in the context of a just God is what He says it is - anything we say about it without reference to Him will always end in absurdity.

[hmkpoker]

My intended response, in case you missed it. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=3782193&page=0&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=&vc=1)

No. This is not the direction I want this thread to go in.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Can you not see that your path leads to the same destination?


[/ QUOTE ]

No. I disagree with Hitler. God is the foundation of morality, not our faith.

[ QUOTE ]
How is it just to sentence a murderer whose decision to kill was accidental? The concept of justice becomes nonsensical in a universe ruled by chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

People [society] can jail a murderer to protect themselves from him or deter others like him, not because they are making pronouncements of absolute morality (or absolute justice). I've discussed this many times with you and you continue down this same worn-out path to wrongwhere.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I've discussed this many times with you and you continue down this same worn-out path to wrongwhere.


[/ QUOTE ]

And I've commented many times on the abject failure of pragmatism.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I've discussed this many times with you and you continue down this same worn-out path to wrongwhere.


[/ QUOTE ]

And I've commented many times on the abject failure of pragmatism.

[/ QUOTE ]

That makes no sense. Jailing murderers to protect ourselves is now an abject failure of pragmatism? Your view that everything is a failure unless "God" (and his associated absolute morality) is the source is the real failure here.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that neither model works, that the truth, which is important, is something else, and we don't know what it is because we've rejected the only Source of truth. The nature of free will in the context of a just God is what He says it is - anything we say about it without reference to Him will always end in absurdity.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are addressing someone who does not believe in God. Please try to understand that I'm not going to accept any argument as valid if it bases itself on an assumption that I do not accept. I don't tell Christians "well yeah, but God doesn't exist, so that can't be right," because I know that they will not accept my reasoning.

THIS GOES TO ALL CHRISTIANS. Far too many Christians do this, and in addition to being useless it makes them look foolish.

To me, determinism, as it exists in the context of a universe with no god, makes sense. To me, it is not absurd.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

To me, it is not absurd.


[/ QUOTE ]

To me, it is absurd.

[ QUOTE ]
The nature of free will in the context of a just God is what He says it is

[/ QUOTE ]

NotReady, you bluster on in post after post and then, in the end, come down to the same useless reasoning every time.

[ QUOTE ]
Free will, choice is a consequence of knowledge. Those that have more knowledge have more choices and are more free. ... It takes someone of reason, and education to have freewill. Chioce has a cause, it is education, education or lack there of restricts free will and reduces some to a subhuman deterministic realm. But those with an education can overcome the deterministic choice if they so wish.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, can those without an education choose to get one?

[hmkpoker]

Then perhaps you should EXPLAIN WHY.

The purpose of this thread is to reconcile free will with a just God. I have proposed that free will necessarily contains a random element.

You have responded with a counter argument that is completely irrelevant.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If free will were to have causes other than complete chaotic randomness, the above deterministic argument will arise until the principal source of free will is randomness.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the libertarian versus compatabilist argument. The problem is insoluable for humans. Killing God doesn't solve it because then we are determined by the chance movement of particles and therefore just as bound as you think we are if created by God. Complete randomness doesn't solve it because that's not really a choice, it's just an accident. How is it just to sentence a murderer whose decision to kill was accidental? The concept of justice becomes nonsensical in a universe ruled by chance. We can only get to a concept of justice if God exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Insoluble? That's the best you can do?

Come back when you learn how to formulate a competant argument.

[ QUOTE ]
Free will must contain, if it is not completely characterized by, a random element. God must be unable to predict a person's choices when he creates them, because otherwise the person's ultimate destination would be pre-determined, and God could not be called just.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Christians aren't responding coherently, so I will. (Note, I don't agree with these responses, but these are the various Apologetical responses.)

1) God is "just" because he defines "justice". He is moral because he is the source or morality.(*)

2) God chooses to limit his foreknowledge of our choices, allowing him to act in such a way as to not force us to make particular choices.

3) Just because God knows our future choices, doesn't mean he caused them. To God, the future is like watching a DVD -- just because he's seen the ending before, doesn't mean he caused the ending.

(*) #1 would be the stance taken by Calvinists. It is the most logical explanation, although the implications are glaringly contrary to our own sense of morality and justice. Also, Calvinists would say that we do not have "freewill" (at least to believe in God -- we are "totally depraved").

---------

Now that that's out of the way... I'm a determinist. There is no such thing as freewill. It's an illusion. A very helpful illusion, but still an illusion.

[ QUOTE ]
3) Just because God knows our future choices, doesn't mean he caused them. To God, the future is like watching a DVD -- just because he's seen the ending before, doesn't mean he caused the ending.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except its like watching a DVD you've seen before and then punishing the characters because the story ended the same way as last time.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3) Just because God knows our future choices, doesn't mean he caused them. To God, the future is like watching a DVD -- just because he's seen the ending before, doesn't mean he caused the ending.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except its like watching a DVD you've seen before and then punishing the characters because the story ended the same way as last time.

[/ QUOTE ]

... and you wrote, produced, and directed the movie. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[hmkpoker]

Under the assumption that one knows Christian metaphysics to be correct, the decision to be saved by Christ is wholly pragmatic; it is instrumental toward getting into Heaven, which is our highest and best goal.

Don't believe me?

Let's say that God came to Earth and addressed all humans. Through his divine word, everyone who observed this presence KNEW that it was God, and not a special effect or imposter of some sort.

He proposes a change in the cosmic alignment. For reasons beyond our comprehension, now those who accept Christ as their savior go to hell, and all non-believers go to Heaven. His divine presence affirms that this is not a hoax.

Under these conditions, accept Christ, or don't accept Christ?

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Just because God knows our future choices, doesn't mean he caused them. To God, the future is like watching a DVD -- just because he's seen the ending before, doesn't mean he caused the ending.

[/ QUOTE ]

This one, for lack of a better word, is a hum-dinger. I've heard many intelligent Christians claim that God exists outside of time, and is omni-present temporally as well as spatially.

This means that:

God creates a human soul WITH KNOWLEDGE of what the soul will ultimately choose, regardless of whether God caused that choice or not.

Therefore:

God creates many souls WITH KNOWLEDGE that that they will go to Hell. I can't understand why he would bother creating something worthless to him and damned for eternity when he has the power to prevent it. That hardly seems like a gift to me.

[Mempho]

When we were discussing this, we looked at a possible probalistic explanation. I think that your theory of either determinism or randomness is incorrect though because it violates one of the fundametal precepts of the religion. That is, at some level, you are a self-determining being, the opposite of random. Determinism also fails in that it negates free will.

So, at some level, you have to take a leap of faith. We could go down all the way to the "atomic level" in debating this. You can't disprove or explain religion, however, by just getting down to the root because there is no root...just like in the creation of the universe. It is not provable either way. You can't go much beyond, "It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is." At some point, to accept any religion, you have to take it at face value. We could argue until the end. Determinism and randomness are not free will...so you either accept the concept of free will or you do not because there is and will be no proof.

Yes, some people are more likely to be Christian...that is definately quantifiable over a population. If you want to ask about how that could be fair...check out the link above. I choose to believe that it is fair. I'm well aware that it doesn't have to be fair. I just happen to choose to believe the opposite because that is the type of being that I want to follow and that "appears" to be how Christ lived his life. If Christ was truly fair, and if Christ is God, then God is fair. I had to answer to "ifs" to get there, but that's how I arrived at the solution.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Come back when you learn how to formulate a competant argument


[/ QUOTE ]

Okey dokey. That will be right after I learn how to spell.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]

God creates many souls WITH KNOWLEDGE that that they will go to Hell. I can't understand why he would bother creating something worthless to him and damned for eternity when he has the power to prevent it. That hardly seems like a gift to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps he has chosen to hide the future from his own eyes. If he is both omnipotent and omniscient, he could do that. You might want to refute that he is actually omniscient at that point but it leads to a logical fallacy much like the kid in Sunday school that asks, "If God is all powerful, can he create a rock so big that he can't move it." There are just certain concepts that our minds can't understand, like the concept of infinity over the dimension of time or the cosmos over spatial dimensions. Like it or not, our minds are very limited by certain constraints.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

So, at some level, you have to take a leap of faith.


[/ QUOTE ]

What you can do though is examine the logical consequences of the faith. Augustine said "I believe that I may know". Okay, that sounds somewhat fideistic. I don't think it is in the larger view, but even if it is, you can then see what that means contrasted to what either libertarian or compatibalist mean. I think only Christianity can make sense of the universe and provide a sound foundation for logic and morality. Every other view reduces to absurdity.

[ QUOTE ]

I just happen to choose to believe the opposite because that is the type of being that I want to follow and that "appears" to be how Christ lived his life. If Christ was truly fair, and if Christ is God, then God is fair. I had to answer to "ifs" to get there, but that's how I arrived at the solution.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is well stated except I don't think you just "happened" to choose to believe. That would be libertarian, thus random, and in itself, meaningless. We have "reasons" to believe, and after believing we can provide some logical discourse on our beliefs. But we are finite and fallible so we cannot provide absolute certainty.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps he has chosen to hide the future from his own eyes.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was #2. Not that they can't be used in conjuction with each other, but if you have #2, you don't need #3. You need #3 if the thought that God doesn't know something doesn't jive with your other theology. I agree #2 is better than #3. But, #1 is better than #2.

[ QUOTE ]
I think only Christianity can make sense of the universe and provide a sound foundation for logic and morality. Every other view reduces to absurdity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does it reduce to absurdity because of your presupposition that all things are absurd if they don't originate from God? If so, that is absurd. Do you see why?

If you have some other reason to say it is absurd, I'd like to hear it. (Or just point me to a post (an exact location would be nice) if you've already addressed this before.)

Thanks.

[ QUOTE ]
We have "reasons" to believe, and after believing we can provide some logical discourse on our beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's true. Only, it's inherent in the belief, that you then believe that the "reason" you believed in the first place has something to do with the logical discourse you later provide to rationalize that belief.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]


You need #3 if the thought that God doesn't know something doesn't jive with your other theology.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't bother me in the least as long as I God made the choice voluntarily. He still has the power, after all.

[hmkpoker]

Considering that I got a 5 on my AP English exam, a 720 verbal SAT score, and I'm typing fast and loose on an internet philosophy forum where spelling is of little importance, I really don't care whether I slip up on a word here and there.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Does it reduce to absurdity because of your presupposition that all things are absurd if they don't originate from God?


[/ QUOTE ]

It's absurd because if you start with absurdity you end with absurdity. I'll leave it to others to elaborate.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So, at some level, you have to take a leap of faith.


[/ QUOTE ]

What you can do though is examine the logical consequences of the faith. Augustine said "I believe that I may know". Okay, that sounds somewhat fideistic. I don't think it is in the larger view, but even if it is, you can then see what that means contrasted to what either libertarian or compatibalist mean. I think only Christianity can make sense of the universe and provide a sound foundation for logic and morality. Every other view reduces to absurdity.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're fundamentally correct here. I don't think we can go much deeper than I believe that I may know. It's just impossible in humans. Fortunately, we Christians have doubting Thomas to steer us through these times when we question. Anyone who just says that they believe all of the time without any doubts whatsoever has just refused to think or is lieing to themselves...and I believe that it is wrong not to understand why you believe what you believe. I am still working on my understanding of my own beliefs.

[ QUOTE ]
This is well stated except I don't think you just "happened" to choose to believe. That would be libertarian, thus random, and in itself, meaningless. We have "reasons" to believe, and after believing we can provide some logical discourse on our beliefs. But we are finite and fallible so we cannot provide absolute certainty.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct in that it was not made in a logical context. I used logic when sorting through the precepts, but fundamentally I made an emotional decision. I am not ashamed to say this because I think it is the only way it can be done. You can either choose to believe that my emotion was a scientifically explainable phenomenon caused by various chemicals that course through my body or that my emotion came from an entity separate from the body that has control over bodily responses. That entity would be the soul.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Does it reduce to absurdity because of your presupposition that all things are absurd if they don't originate from God?


[/ QUOTE ]

It's absurd because if you start with absurdity you end with absurdity. I'll leave it to others to elaborate.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's absurd.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Does it reduce to absurdity because of your presupposition that all things are absurd if they don't originate from God?


[/ QUOTE ]

It's absurd because if you start with absurdity you end with absurdity. I'll leave it to others to elaborate.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
It's absurd because if you start with absurdity you end with absurdity. I'll leave it to others to elaborate.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's my thoughts on the Bible and the Christian theology which follows from it. Well put.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

That's absurd.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's absurd because if you start with absurdity you end with absurdity. I'll leave it to others to elaborate.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's my thoughts on the Bible and the Christian theology which follows from it. Well put.

[/ QUOTE ]

OH SNAP!

You get a cookie! /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[hmkpoker]

Finally got around to reading your link.

Not too bad, actually. I think that's the best argument I've seen for reconciling the probabilistic model with justice.

It's funny that so many people get such phenomenally different things out of the same text. While you'll certainly agree that atheists and agnostics don't get the same "picture" from the Bible that Christians do, I think this post shows us that even Christians can get different meanings out of the same book.

Do you think the fact that no two people get the same "picture" out of the same book could compromise the Bible's integrity as divine truth?


(yes, this is a completely different argument /images/graemlins/smile.gif)

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
Finally got around to reading your link.

Not too bad, actually. I think that's the best argument I've seen for reconciling the probabilistic model with justice.

It's funny that so many people get such phenomenally different things out of the same text. While you'll certainly agree that atheists and agnostics don't get the same "picture" from the Bible that Christians do, I think this post shows us that even Christians can get different meanings out of the same book.

Do you think the fact that no two people get the same "picture" out of the same book could compromise the Bible's integrity as divine truth?


(yes, this is a completely different argument /images/graemlins/smile.gif)

[/ QUOTE ]

Possibly not. I think that a commandment like, "Thou shalt not kill" is literal and no one can seriously try to interpret that in another way. Meanwhile, I think that some passages are open to interpretation on purpose. Some would say that they believe that the Bible is "a living, breathing text" in that it speaks to people in the way they need to be spoken to. Whether you buy that or not, you have to remember something that is a hard, cold fact: Many people only see what they want to see instead of the truth. After all, everyone wants to be justified in their actions. The guy who bombs abortion clinics probably took some passages out of complete context....yet he forgot about that commandment from Moses.

Any smart person can take a text as massive as the Bible and pull things out of context to justify virtually anything...just like people can pull clips of the President and make it "seem" any way they want it to. T

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Possibly not. I think that a commandment like, "Thou shalt not kill" is literal and no one can seriously try to interpret that in another way. Meanwhile, I think that some passages are open to interpretation on purpose. Some would say that they believe that the Bible is "a living, breathing text" in that it speaks to people in the way they need to be spoken to. Whether you buy that or not, you have to remember something that is a hard, cold fact: Many people only see what they want to see instead of the truth. After all, everyone wants to be justified in their actions. The guy who bombs abortion clinics probably took some passages out of complete context....yet he forgot about that commandment from Moses

[/ QUOTE ]

You'd be surprised. Gun control activists have argued that the second ammendment means something other than "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I do think the fifth commandment can be disputed. "Thou shalt not kill." Kill what? People? Zygotes aren't people, so what's the beef with contraception and abortion? And how do you define kill? Is pulling the plug on Terry Schiavo "killing" her? No, it's her disease that's doing that; we're just letting nature take its course. Hitler never personally killed anyone, never offed someone with a bullet or pulled the Zyklon B, is he free and clean?

Hopefully you recognize that this kind of semantic arguing is trying to make an ironic point. (I DON'T want to debate the fifth commandment) All words are open to interpretation. Each individual person has an idea attached to a word, and to that idea, a different emotion. It means something different to different people. Now granted, MOST things invoke ideas that are similar enough in all of our minds that there's little to argue about, but can we really say that any word or sentence means exactly the same thing to EVERY speaker of that language? Universality of meaning exists in shades of grey; not black and white.

(Incidentally, I work paralegal in a law office. Believe me, ANYTHING can be disputed /images/graemlins/wink.gif)