Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Calvinism and Arminianism remix
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 248 of 283 (817716)
08-19-2017 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by GDR
08-18-2017 4:50 PM


Re: Why do you care?
GDR writes:
The point is that something has to be added. Either the processes are mindless or the result of intelligence.
You contradict yourself. If the processes are mindless, nothing needs to be added.
GDR writes:
If the cause for the existence of the processes is mindless then you need the addition of a vast number of causes for the transition even between basic particles and the first atom, let alone sentient moral life.
But the magic word "intelligence" doesn't explain any of those causes. It just adds another cause - the intelligence itself - that can not be explained. You're always adding one. X + 1 is inherently more complex than X.
GDR writes:
That is hardly the point.
Again, show your work. Don't just say, "Nuh uh."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by GDR, posted 08-18-2017 4:50 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by GDR, posted 08-19-2017 4:51 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 250 of 283 (817718)
08-19-2017 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Tangle
08-19-2017 2:39 AM


Re: The Problem Of Evil
Tangle writes:
How could two hippies bring an end to a god's creation?
And vegans at that. They didn't even kill anything, yet they're responsible for all death.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Tangle, posted 08-19-2017 2:39 AM Tangle has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 251 of 283 (817719)
08-19-2017 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Phat
08-19-2017 2:42 AM


Re: The Problem Of Evil
Phat writes:
Jesus was in the beginning.
That's a false doctrine.
Phat writes:
... Lucifer fell from heaven and became a talking snake.
Also false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Phat, posted 08-19-2017 2:42 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Phat, posted 08-20-2017 2:10 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 252 of 283 (817722)
08-19-2017 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by Phat
08-19-2017 10:38 AM


Re: The Problem Of Evil
Phat writes:
What would your approach as Creator of all seen and unseen have been?
Let Adam and Eve stay in the Garden.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Phat, posted 08-19-2017 10:38 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 261 of 283 (817810)
08-20-2017 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by GDR
08-19-2017 4:51 PM


Re: Why do you care?
GDR writes:
Something had to occur to cause any one of the countless processes that are required to start. It could be anything like some star going super nova or any other cause.
Weasel words. As I said, nothing needs to be added to mindless processes. Stars going supernova are mindless processes.
GDR writes:
No one is able to explain the naturalist causes for the processes required to bring our world into existence.
But we do understand the processes of chemistry. We just don't know the exact details of how they fit together - yet. We didn't know how electricity worked until we did. There's no reason to think we won't figure out how abiogenesis works. We didn't need intelligent design to figure out electricity and we don't need intelligent design to figure out abiogenesis.
GDR writes:
Frankly it seems to me more rational to conclude, as with the house, that there is a unified intelligence involved than to conclude that their was virtually an infinite number of cases of mindless random chance as a cause for our world.
We're not talking about your personal opinion of what's "more rational". We're talking about which explanation is simpler a la Occam. The explanation that doesn't rest on a giant question mark is obviously simpler.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by GDR, posted 08-19-2017 4:51 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by GDR, posted 08-20-2017 7:16 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 262 of 283 (817811)
08-20-2017 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Phat
08-20-2017 2:10 AM


Re: The Problem Of Evil
Phat writes:
how could you possibly claim they are false doctrines?
Because they're not in the Bible. If they were, you could point them out instead of just being shocked.
Phat writes:
The only argument you might try is the one that charges John as a revisionist gospel...yet even that is far from settled.
Nope. I'd start by saying that "in the beginning was the word" has nothing to do with Jesus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Phat, posted 08-20-2017 2:10 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Phat, posted 08-20-2017 3:58 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 263 of 283 (817812)
08-20-2017 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by kbertsche
08-20-2017 6:37 AM


Re: The Problem Of Evil
kbertsche writes:
Such a mature and selfless attitude! You sound like a four-year-old who must have his marshmallow NOW rather than waiting for something better.
Is that an attempt at sarcasm? We're not talking about delayed gratification here. We're talking about the needs of the present versus some hypothetical fictitious wishy-washy weasely future benefit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by kbertsche, posted 08-20-2017 6:37 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 268 of 283 (817874)
08-21-2017 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by Phat
08-20-2017 3:58 PM


Re: Who Is In The Beginning Anyway?
Phat writes:
What else could "in the beginning" mean? The Word was with God...the Word was God, He was with God in the beginning.... He Who?
Where does it say "He" was with God in the beginning?
Start by not capitalizing "Word" and not assuming that Jesus is the word. Now what do you have?
quote:
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory...
Doesn't that say that the word became Jesus, as opposed to having been Jesus from the beginning?
Phat writes:
Why do you insist on reinterpreting an entire group of books?
I'm not reinterpreting anything. How could Jesus become something He always was? You're the one who's trying to shoehorn a lot of figurative language together to make sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Phat, posted 08-20-2017 3:58 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 269 of 283 (817878)
08-21-2017 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by GDR
08-20-2017 7:16 PM


Re: Why do you care?
GDR writes:
The issue can't be proven and it boils down to a matter of belief.
We're not trying to prove an issue. We're talking specifically about Occam's razor.
You can not make an explanation of your car simpler by insisting that it needs an invisible pink unicorn to pull it. You can believe it till the cows come home and you may even be right but you can't use Occam to back you up. If you can not prove it exists, you can not use it to simplify anything. You are flat-out contradicting Occam.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by GDR, posted 08-20-2017 7:16 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by GDR, posted 08-22-2017 3:10 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 278 of 283 (818115)
08-23-2017 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by GDR
08-22-2017 3:10 PM


Re: Why do you care?
GDR writes:
I didn't bring up Occam but in response it is my opinion that the simpler explanation of a single intelligence is simpler that a virtually infinite number of instances of random chance.
You're misunderstanding Occam. You can't count every chemical process as an individual complication and then count God as only one. God would have to be infinitely more complex than the sum total of chemical processes.
You're also misunderstanding chemistry. Those processes are not random.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by GDR, posted 08-22-2017 3:10 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by GDR, posted 08-23-2017 10:17 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 283 of 283 (818158)
08-24-2017 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by GDR
08-23-2017 10:17 PM


Re: Why do you care?
GDR writes:
It isn't the processes that are necessarily random, although in many cases they are, but the reasons the processes exist in the first place. Is it random chance or intelligence?
You're trying to add a complex reason instead of a simple one. That contradicts Occam.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by GDR, posted 08-23-2017 10:17 PM GDR has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024