|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Calvinism and Arminianism remix | |||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You can't get beyond the existing model. Pssh I went above and beyond the existing model. And that's funny, I was going to say the same thing about you:
quote: quote: .
Why do we need to grow? Why are we not grown? Why do we need to comptete for limited resources? These are not givens if you're a god designing a world. I didn't say we need to. And you don't know the givens.
Why not! Because it's an irrelevant hypothetical. Why yes?
We judge evil based on harm to others. Define "others". I don't judge my evil based on the countless number of organism I inadvertantly kill as I'm walking around all day.
Your god has created the ultimate harm. Your god promises perfect harmony - but only after he's tortured us and all his creation. You don't get to tell me about my God.
Well I admire your attempt to downplay multiple, planetary-wide genocide - and worse - as 'should have been better' but really, what more does a god have to do to be called evil? That question is too loaded to answer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
NCE writes: I didn't say we need to. And you don't know the givens. God has 'givens'?
Define "others". I don't judge my evil based on the countless number of organism I inadvertantly kill as I'm walking around all day. What's inadvertant about deliberately killing every animal and plant on a planet? Including people.
You don't get to tell me about my God. Just watch me.
That question is too loaded to answer. It sure is, it's the same question I've been asking for a few dozen posts. It's so loaded you can't even get close to answering it. It's the question believers can't answer - why is there suffering if this is a loving god?Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
That's a bugos argument. Adam and Eve were the only people in the garden. You can't extrapolate their experience. There were far more people communicating with God after "the Fall' than before, even if it wasn't 100%.
Only selected people whom God chose as prophets, and that is in fact evidence for what I said since the vast majority did not and do not hear God as Adam and Eve did before they disobeyed. Faith writes:
That doesn't say anything about physical death. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that Paul was talking about physical death and at the same time claim that Adam and Eve died a spiritual death.
... they were now subject to physical death too, which wasn't the case before their disobedience.
ringo writes:
Sure it does:
The Bible doesn't say any such thing.quote: Faith writes:
That is good and evil. It says that they understood good and evil for the first time, not that good and evil didn't exist before that..
In respect of knowing good and evil. But otherwise it was the beginning of all the suffering in the world for man and beast.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
If your dog attacks somebody, are you responsible? Yes. Is the zoo responsible for the consequences? To paraphrase Judge Wopner: You can put up any damn sign that you please. It doesn't absolve you of your responsibility.
Phat writes:
You're missing the point. If you create an attractive nuisance - e.g. inviting people in see the dangerous animals - you have to take responsibility for the consequences. If you're not prepared to be responsible, don't open a zoo.
What alternatives would the legal system insist that the zoo provide?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Would you go so far as to say that since God allowed Lucifer to become Satan...in essence allowing evil to become actualized...that Satan himself could be an attractive nuisance?
Given that, God provided Jesus Christ as an antidote to the nuisance that was allowed solely to provide a choice...first for the fallen angel and later for humanity. Not that I don't think the whole plan was unnecessarily complicated. But what do I know? Ask any human to come up with a better plan, and dollars will get you doughnuts that other complications will arise because of their plan. One example that I usually give is the idea that if all suffering were removed, there would be no method in which to build character and strengthen resolve. We would simply be a species of pampered and favored couch potatoes. Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
I would go so far as to say that: Would you go so far as to say that since God allowed Lucifer to become Satan...in essence allowing evil to become actualized...that Satan himself could be an attractive nuisance?
Phat writes:
So He provides first aid after you step on the land mine? Too little, too late.
Given that, God provided Jesus Christ as an antidote to the nuisance.... Phat writes:
I would scrap the plans for Hell without even applying for the building permit. Tell me what the complications are with that, or give me my doughnut.
Ask any human to come up with a better plan, and dollars will get you doughnuts that other complications will arise because of their plan. Phat writes:
If you really want to give people a choice, let them choose between suffering and character OR no suffering and no character. My guess is you'll get a lot of happy people who get by just fine without much character.
One example that I usually give is the idea that if all suffering were removed, there would be no method in which to build character and strengthen resolve.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
GDR writes: Getting from mindless particles to a single cell and then to sentient life by an endless series of processes due to an endless string of good fortune, is no simpler than the idea that those processes were the result of a pre-existing intelligence.ringo writes: A string of known processes, no matter how earnestly you want to reject it, is simpler than adding a complex intelligence to it. A driveway is simpler than a driveway with a car in it. A bottle is simpler than a bottle with a firefly in it. A blank page is simpler than a page with a sonnet written on it. X is simpler than X + Y. Period. Your examples are total non-sequiturs. A better example would be a car assembly line. We can observe all of the processes that result in the finished product. Which is the simpler conclusion? Is it that all of the processes just happened due to multiple chance occurrences or that is is all caused by a pre-existing intelligence. Occam's razor points to our existence being the result of intelligence and not blind chance.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
Show your work.
Your examples are total non-sequiturs. GDR writes:
That's a terrible example - and a self-serving one. Yes, intelligent designs add up to a bigger intelligent design. Big tautological deal. But chemical processes are not intelligent to begin with so they don't add up to intelligent no matter how big the pile is.
A better example would be a car assembly line. We can observe all of the processes that result in the finished product. Which is the simpler conclusion? Is it that all of the processes just happened due to multiple chance occurrences or that is is all caused by a pre-existing intelligence. GDR writes:
Wrong is still wrong no matter how many times you assert it. Occam's razor points away from the superfluous intelligence. Occam's razor points to our existence being the result of intelligence and not blind chance. If you want to believe in intelligent design, feel free to do so. Just don't abuse poor Occam to do it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
My guess is you'll get a lot of happy people who get by just fine without much character. Evolution will eventually weed them out. Trump's base is a prime example.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
GDR writes: Occam's razor points to our existence being the result of intelligence and not blind chance. Nope. Inserting the supernatural into a natural regime is just a cop out with no explanatory value, and it's the worst form of unnecessary hyptheises imaginable.
quote: You added a superfluous supernatural being.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
As you ought to know, evolution doesn't necessarily favour character. Evolution will eventually weed them out. Trump's base is a prime example. The jury is still out on whether Trump's base will win or lose the evolutionary contest. It's just my subjective observation but I can almost see the US getting stupider by the minute.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
ringo writes: But chemical processes are not intelligent to begin with so they don't add up to intelligent no matter how big the pile is. Sure the chemical processes themselves are mindless but the question is why did the processes happen in the first place. Bronze didn't come into existence by chance but because intelligent beings brought the necessary elements together. You are arguing for basic elements to come together to form atoms, atoms to single cells, atoms to life, and life to evolve into sentient moral beings and all that by chance. You have far more faith than I do. It is much simpler to conclude that all that happened due to intelligent design. (And again, not the form of distortion of ID that argues nonsensically against evolution.)
ringo writes: Wrong is still wrong no matter how many times you assert it. Occam's razor points away from the superfluous intelligence. Wrong is still wrong no matter how many times you assert it. Occam's razor points to intelligence and away from an ontology of a virtually infinite number of examples of random chance.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Tangle writes: Nope. Inserting the supernatural into a natural regime is just a cop out with no explanatory value, and it's the worst form of unnecessary hyptheises imaginable. quote:His [Occam's] principle states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. You added a superfluous supernatural being. I'm not inserting anything that you aren't. We simply come to our own conclusions. Is the world as we know it the result of random chance or intelligence. You have to insert one or the other.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Phat writes: Would you go so far as to say that since God allowed Lucifer to become Satan...in essence allowing evil to become actualized...that Satan himself could be an attractive nuisance? Again, you are simply asserting stuff that is not evidenced in the Bible. In the GoE story it is God that lies and creates the attractive nuisance and the Serpent that tells the truth and is honest.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
jar writes: You have stated this for years and it has never failed to annoy me and challenge my preconceptions! I even googled the statement and found two other sources explaining it similar to how you did. I have a hard time with the idea that God would lie, would need to lie, and if so, why would He lie? As for the serpent allegedly telling the truth, I see this as an analogy of how we ourselves...being our own inner stubborn selves, rationalize disobedience to God and/or to others. In tentative conclusion, I can only imagine God lying for the purpose of providing a teachable moment in the text. In the GoE story it is God that lies and creates the attractive nuisance and the Serpent that tells the truth and is honest. No other explanation would make any sense.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024