Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Calvinism and Arminianism remix
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 142 of 283 (817090)
08-15-2017 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Phat
08-15-2017 12:18 PM


Re: nope it's the mainstream view
Phat writes:
Perhaps God, being a wise teacher, foreknowingly modeled bad behavior knowing that humans with a conscience would call Him out on it. Just as he expects us to do to each other. Seems Cain didnt listen.
So what's your point?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Phat, posted 08-15-2017 12:18 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Phat, posted 08-15-2017 12:55 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 149 of 283 (817105)
08-15-2017 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Phat
08-15-2017 12:55 PM


Re: nope it's the mainstream view
Phat writes:
Personally, I don't believe that God foreknowingly created evil....
So which is it: Did He not create everything? Or was He not foreknowing?
Phat writes:
... I DO believe that God allowed it and the consequences rippling out from it.
How is that substantially different from creating it?
Phat writes:
Allowing humans to choose evil is expected if we are to learn anything after leaving the nest.
What can we learn from punishment after death?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Phat, posted 08-15-2017 12:55 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Phat, posted 08-15-2017 1:14 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 155 of 283 (817112)
08-15-2017 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Faith
08-15-2017 12:58 PM


Re: nope it's the mainstream view
Faith writes:
They lost their original connection with God, they could no longer hear Him as they used to....
Obviously not true. The whole Bible is the story of people hearing God. The only change after The Apple was that they no longer believed everything He said blindly. He did, after all, lie to them. As grownups, they had to think for themselves.
Faith writes:
... they now had to deal with a world in which thorns impeded their work of growing food which hadn't existed before, the woman had to suffer pain in childbirth which she hadn't had to before, she was also subject to the domination of her husband which hadn't been the case before...
All part of growing up; Daddy doesn't change your diapers any more.
Faith writes:
... they were now subject to physical death too, which wasn't the case before their disobedience.
The Bible doesn't say any such thing.
Faith writes:
I don't know why you didn't get at least some inkling of all this basic theology in your church experiences.
Because it isn't the "basic theology" that you think it is. You should read the Bible instead of just commentaries.
Faith writes:
If Adam and Eve's disobedience had had the positive consequences you impute to it....
God said it: they became more like Him.
Faith writes:
...one does have to wonder why there is so much turmoil and bloodshed in life now that didn't exist before their Fall.
Maybe you should consider the possibility that your ideas of "the Fall" are wrong. After all, you are directly contradicting God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Faith, posted 08-15-2017 12:58 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Faith, posted 08-15-2017 2:06 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 157 of 283 (817117)
08-15-2017 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Phat
08-15-2017 1:14 PM


Re: nope it's the mainstream view
Phat writes:
Because we chose it. He only allowed it to give us a choice. You seem intent on suing Him for the consequences of what we chose.
We've been through this before. If He plants landmines in his front yard along with a "Keep Off the Grass" sign, HE IS RESPONSIBLE for the consequences. Our legal system understands that. Why don't you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Phat, posted 08-15-2017 1:14 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Phat, posted 08-15-2017 5:07 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 168 of 283 (817316)
08-16-2017 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Faith
08-15-2017 2:06 PM


Re: nope it's the mainstream view
Faith writes:
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.
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%.
Faith writes:
... they were now subject to physical death too, which wasn't the case before their disobedience.
ringo writes:
The Bible doesn't say any such thing.
Sure it does:
quote:
Romans 5:12-14 Therefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
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.
Faith writes:
In respect of knowing good and evil. But otherwise it was the beginning of all the suffering in the world for man and beast.
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..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Faith, posted 08-15-2017 2:06 PM Faith has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 169 of 283 (817318)
08-16-2017 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Phat
08-15-2017 5:07 PM


Re: Attractive Nuisance
Phat writes:
Is the zoo responsible for the consequences?
If your dog attacks somebody, are you responsible? Yes.
To paraphrase Judge Wopner: You can put up any damn sign that you please. It doesn't absolve you of your responsibility.
Phat writes:
What alternatives would the legal system insist that the zoo provide?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Phat, posted 08-15-2017 5:07 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Phat, posted 08-16-2017 4:08 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 171 of 283 (817327)
08-16-2017 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Phat
08-16-2017 4:08 PM


Re: Attractive Nuisance
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?
I would go so far as to say that:
  • There is no such thing as Lucifer or Satan; he's just a personification of our innate potential for evil.
  • God created evil outright; the Bible says so.
You're the one who describes an attractive nuisance which we "choose" to be trapped by.
Phat writes:
Given that, God provided Jesus Christ as an antidote to the nuisance....
So He provides first aid after you step on the land mine? Too little, too late.
Phat writes:
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.
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.
Phat writes:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Phat, posted 08-16-2017 4:08 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Phat, posted 08-16-2017 4:52 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 173 of 283 (817332)
08-16-2017 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by GDR
08-16-2017 4:42 PM


Re: Why do you care?
GDR writes:
Your examples are total non-sequiturs.
Show your work.
GDR writes:
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.
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.
GDR writes:
Occam's razor points to our existence being the result of intelligence and not blind chance.
Wrong is still wrong no matter how many times you assert it. Occam's razor points away from the superfluous intelligence.
If you want to believe in intelligent design, feel free to do so. Just don't abuse poor Occam to do it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by GDR, posted 08-16-2017 4:42 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by GDR, posted 08-16-2017 5:36 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 176 of 283 (817335)
08-16-2017 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Phat
08-16-2017 4:52 PM


Re: Attractive Nuisance
Phat writes:
Evolution will eventually weed them out. Trump's base is a prime example.
As you ought to know, evolution doesn't necessarily favour character.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Phat, posted 08-16-2017 4:52 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 186 of 283 (817404)
08-17-2017 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by GDR
08-16-2017 5:36 PM


Re: Why do you care?
GDR writes:
Sure the chemical processes themselves are mindless but the question is why did the processes happen in the first place.
Hydrogen and oxygen have an emergent affinity for each other. They don't need an intelligence to bring them together and tell them what to do.
GDR writes:
Bronze didn't come into existence by chance but because intelligent beings brought the necessary elements together.
Actually, it probably was by chance. Somebody noticed that rocks containing copper melted in a fire, so they got the idea of making copper tools. Then somebody found out accidentally that copper with certain impurities were stronger. The processes were there all along and didn't need any intelligence to bring them together. All the intelligence contributed was to use the existing processes for its own purposes.
If you want to believe that God finally figured out how to Frankenstein life out of existing processes, feel free.
GDR writes:
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.
Actullay, I'm not arguing that in this thread. I'm arguing that that scenario is simpler than one that adds intelligence to the mix.
Adding something complex does not simplify anything. 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by GDR, posted 08-16-2017 5:36 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by GDR, posted 08-17-2017 1:45 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 224 of 283 (817580)
08-18-2017 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by GDR
08-17-2017 1:45 PM


Re: Why do you care?
GDR writes:
How do you know that. You just observe what happened but you haven't established whether or not it is by design.
That's exactly the problem with your argument: We don't know. Speculating about something we don't know is adding a superfluous proposition, which is directly opposite to Occam.
GDR writes:
You are saying that the natural processes that have resulted in the world as we know it are simply driven by a virtually an infinite number of cases of random chance, and that constitutes the cause of it all.
No. I'm arguing that we don't know whether or not there is an "ultimate cause of it all". We do know that hydrogen and oxygen seem to have some kind of affinity for each other but speculating about whether it's leprechauns or space aliens pushing them together doesn't simplify anything. The imaginary pushers are what Occam was against.
GDR writes:
I am arguing for the much simpler explanation that instead of the all the cases where random chance played a part in our existence there is simply one cause; a creation by intelligence.
So a house that's held together by nails is a more complex explanation than a house that's held together by magic? Because there are hundreds of nails and only one magician? Come on. Surely you can see how stupid that argument is.
The complexity is the magician.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by GDR, posted 08-17-2017 1:45 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by GDR, posted 08-18-2017 4:50 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 225 of 283 (817582)
08-18-2017 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Faith
08-17-2017 6:24 PM


Re: The Problem Of Evil
Faith writes:
God didn't do any of that; that's all the consequences of the Fall.
Poor helpless god.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Faith, posted 08-17-2017 6:24 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by kbertsche, posted 08-18-2017 3:07 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 226 of 283 (817583)
08-18-2017 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Faith
08-17-2017 6:57 PM


Re: The Problem Of Evil
Faith writes:
Christians have disagreements but I don't know any who believe in the God you keep describing.
My "we" refers to Bible believers.
So all Christians agree with you and a Christian is defined as somebody who agrees with you. Perfectly circular.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Faith, posted 08-17-2017 6:57 PM Faith has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 227 of 283 (817585)
08-18-2017 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by New Cat's Eye
08-18-2017 9:58 AM


Re: Why do you care?
New Cat's Eye writes:
You're the one providing all this nonsense, not me. I'm not making claims about my God, you are.
New Cat's Eye writes:
I don't know.
If all you say is you don't know, it's hard for any of us to tell what you think of your god.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-18-2017 9:58 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-18-2017 2:55 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 247 of 283 (817711)
08-19-2017 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by kbertsche
08-18-2017 3:07 PM


Re: The Problem Of Evil
kbertsche writes:
There seems to be an implicit, unstated assumption behind this (and most) discussions of "the problem of evil": that God's highest priority is to reduce our human suffering.
That isn't my assumption; it's what Christians keep preaching at us, that God is love - until we point out that, "if God does NOT reduce human suffering, He is either evil or impotent."
kbertsche writes:
But what if God's highest priority is something else? Something on a longer and grander scale, like vanquishing ALL evil at the end of time?
Who gives a damn about the "end of time" even if there was such a thing? Why should people suffer today for some supposed end-of-time benefit?
Phat writes:
What if His priority for us, now, is not to reduce suffering, but to effect personal growth?
As I already said to Phat, a lot of people would probably rather give up the personal growth. If God is so big on choice, why doesn't He give us that one?
Phat writes:
Perhaps suffering is needed for our personal growth, just as we know that physical pain is a helpful warning to protect us from physical harm?
That seems like a pretty bad analogy. An injury or sickness is a backward step and pain warns us to fix it - i.e to get back to zero. It isn't about improvement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by kbertsche, posted 08-18-2017 3:07 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by kbertsche, posted 08-20-2017 6:37 AM ringo has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024