Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 95 (8886 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 01-22-2019 5:49 PM
259 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 846,178 Year: 1,215/19,786 Month: 1,215/1,731 Week: 195/377 Day: 66/70 Hour: 2/3

Announcements: Switching Over to Cloud Server


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
43444546
47
48Next
Author Topic:   Free will vs Omniscience
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6519
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 691 of 711 (846802)
01-11-2019 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 685 by Phat
01-11-2019 4:02 PM


Re: Free Will & A God Who Is Wrong At Times
Phat writes:

Why is God and Jesus so persuasive to me and not as much so for others?

Because you need it more than others. Some people need the security it seems to give them.

It is not wise because I believe that my faith must be tested to be proven genuine.

I wonder who first came up with crap? It's just a device to avoid thinking to carefully about the inevitable conflict between reality and primitive dogma.

In other words, as long as God behaves appropriately in your mind, He is at best worthy of consideration (to exist) but as soon as it is read in scriptures that He is mean, vindictive, obviously a product of human writings, and fallibilities.

You're never, ever going to be able to understand the other side of the argument until and unless you work out how to put aside the enormous raft of religious crap that's corrupting your thinking.

That's not what is being said. I'm trying to get you to see a contradiction. God can't simultaneously behave like a total arsehole and be a loving father. He can't, no matter how much you fall for the rationalisations you've been fed over the years. If this god of yours exists as a minimum he can't be the god of the OT.

I'll grant that our understanding is limited by our fallibilities.

No it isn't, a child could point out how silly that is. It's obviously a purely human construct - people inflicting their own values and failed structures on heaven.

For this reason, a war in Heaven seems like a rationale to a perfect God dealing with imperfection, flaws, strong wills opposed to Him, and other such philosophical head of pin issues.

Does that make any kind of sense to you? It doesn't to me. The concept of a war in heaven is plainly stupid to me and simply a projection. Doesn't it seem to contradict everything you think your god is? The supreme being, the maker of all things seen and unseen etc etc etc? But he can't stop a war in heaven? A war in heaven? Doesn't it seem more like a human concept to you?

I can see your point of view better than you may think.

Phat, you haven't the first clue.

You have simply dismissed any idea of anything unevidenced by science and rationality.

Nope. Not even close. You're not listening. I've seen Ringo say that many times too. What do you think you're missing?

In conclusion, I'm not entirely sure why I cling to belief. It seems it would be easy to let go. But I have subjectively experienced a loving God. Or at least I thought I did. And I won't let that belief go.

You dont make it any easier, however.

Can I suggest that you abandon all attempts to reconcile the utter bollox written in that bloody book and just get on with loving your god? Maybe have a quiet word with GDR. Your relationship is with the thing in your head that you call God not the fiction in the book.

I somehow must either deal with an imperfect God or renounce my belief.

Billions of people do just that and don't seem to have a difficuly with it. It just means not listening to charlatans peddling the rubbish your hearing from people like ICANT.

This sort of thinking also works with those who have no beliefs at all.

You can't speak for those who have no belief at all, you simply don't understand their way of thinking. You have enough trouble understanding yourself; it's probably best to start there.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 685 by Phat, posted 01-11-2019 4:02 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3649
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 692 of 711 (846819)
01-12-2019 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 690 by Faith
01-11-2019 6:12 PM


Re: Flickering Christians?
I don't know why you guys are so stupid about these things or think we are, or that all of us are.

No, M'love, it is not that we think you're stupid. We know that you are ... lacking in certain critical thinking skills.

Your bible is a kluge of political brinkmanship and opportunism with all the veracity of the book of mormon.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 690 by Faith, posted 01-11-2019 6:12 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 697 by Faith, posted 01-12-2019 1:57 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16026
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 693 of 711 (846823)
01-12-2019 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 684 by Phat
01-11-2019 3:35 PM


Re: Free Will & A God Who Is Wrong At Times
Phat writes:

Are you saying that objective information by definition will likely not defend a belief?


Yes. We've been through this many times. Belief is for when you don't have any objective evidence. If you have objective evidence, there's no place for belief.

Phat writes:

This irritates me because you have reframed the issue making objectivity the default value.


There's no reframing. Objectivity has always been the default.

Phat writes:

Now, this is not a problem unless objectivity is atheistic or secular humanist in nature, whereupon I would claim bias and propaganda on that end of the spectrum.


Objectivity is objective in nature. Atheism may be the conclusion from the objective facts but not necessarily so. Belief can not be the objective conclusion.

Phat writes:

... you seemingly use a tactic of switching back and forth from neutral objectivity to quoting the Bible when it suits you.


That's because you're wrong on both counts. The Bible is the only source for your Jesus, yet you reject what it says about Him - i.e. your theology is a figment of your own imagination (and the imaginations of the apologists that you so admire). And even if you did accept your own source, it's often wrong.

Phat writes:

For instance, you will claim that Jesus told us to do it or ask Jesus.


I don't "claim" that Jesus told "us". I quote what Jesus told you. If you believe that He existed, you are the one who should be doing what He said.

Phat writes:

Don't you realize how hard on the head this flip flop becomes?


It may be hard on your head. Not mine.

Phat writes:

Its almost as if you are more concerned with simply winning a debate than you are for persuading me that your argument is sound.


I'm not concerned with persuading you about anything.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 684 by Phat, posted 01-11-2019 3:35 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16026
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 694 of 711 (846824)
01-12-2019 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 686 by Phat
01-11-2019 4:17 PM


Re: Flickering Christians?
Phat writes:

Some of us claim to know. It is your job to request that we prove it.


I've done that many times. I should be getting overtime.

Phat writes:

I have a higher regard for my belief than I have for the need for evidence.


That's dishonest. Would you let some guy into your house to "read the meter" without ID? You require evidence in every context but one.

Phat writes:

One need not prove the obvious to me.


When you can't explain something, how "obvious" can it really be?

Phat writes:

I conclude that you simply accepted the evidence you found. I have found much of that same evidence and have rejected it.


What right do you have to reject evidence?

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 686 by Phat, posted 01-11-2019 4:17 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 695 by Phat, posted 01-12-2019 12:31 PM ringo has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 11916
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 695 of 711 (846833)
01-12-2019 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 694 by ringo
01-12-2019 11:00 AM


Re: Flickering Christians?
what right do you have to reject evidence?
if evidence conflicts with other evidence i reject both temporarily. I need further verofication.

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

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 694 by ringo, posted 01-12-2019 11:00 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 696 by ringo, posted 01-12-2019 12:42 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16026
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 696 of 711 (846834)
01-12-2019 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 695 by Phat
01-12-2019 12:31 PM


Re: Flickering Christians?
Phat writes:

if evidence conflicts with other evidence i reject both temporarily. I need further verofication.


So give us some examples of two lines of evidence that you have decided were in conflict and explain how and why you chose one over the other. Remember that the context here is whether or not God exists.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 695 by Phat, posted 01-12-2019 12:31 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30497
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 697 of 711 (846840)
01-12-2019 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 692 by AZPaul3
01-12-2019 7:05 AM


Re: Flickering Christians?
I don't know why you guys are so stupid about these things or think we are, or that all of us are.

No, M'love, it is not that we think you're stupid. We know that you are ... lacking in certain critical thinking skills.

Your bible is a kluge of political brinkmanship and opportunism with all the veracity of the book of mormon.

I know it's way too much to ask but it would be really nice if you'd all stop imputing thinking problems to believers since it's a lie and does not further understanding of anything. Your assessment of the Bible makes you an example of mental derangement.

And by the way, the flirty language you use is rather jarring in the context of saying such hateful things to me. I'm sure you're capable of speaking as fully hatefully as you feel.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 692 by AZPaul3, posted 01-12-2019 7:05 AM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 698 by ringo, posted 01-12-2019 2:42 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 699 by AZPaul3, posted 01-12-2019 3:23 PM Faith has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 16026
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 698 of 711 (846843)
01-12-2019 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 697 by Faith
01-12-2019 1:57 PM


Re: Flickering Christians?
Faith writes:

... it would be really nice if you'd all stop imputing thinking problems to believers....


It isn't just a matter of "imputing". It's a matter of pointing out in detail what the thinking problems are - and you being unable to refute the clear conclusion.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 697 by Faith, posted 01-12-2019 1:57 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3649
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 699 of 711 (846851)
01-12-2019 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 697 by Faith
01-12-2019 1:57 PM


Re: Flickering Christians?
ringo addressed the one quote quite well already.

I'm sure you're capable of speaking as fully hatefully as you feel

I already do. This is me, at the moment. If things change, you'll know.

If the "flirty language" is too disturbing for you I will try to control myself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 697 by Faith, posted 01-12-2019 1:57 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 700 by Faith, posted 01-12-2019 3:53 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30497
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 700 of 711 (846857)
01-12-2019 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 699 by AZPaul3
01-12-2019 3:23 PM


Re: Flickering Christians?
Please do. Thank you.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 699 by AZPaul3, posted 01-12-2019 3:23 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 11916
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 701 of 711 (846876)
01-13-2019 4:22 AM
Reply to: Message 443 by AZPaul3
05-14-2016 12:40 PM


Re: Definition of free will
Dont you see that you want the same position and perspective that the omniscient Deity has?

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

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 443 by AZPaul3, posted 05-14-2016 12:40 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 702 by AZPaul3, posted 01-13-2019 7:39 AM Phat has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3649
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 702 of 711 (846881)
01-13-2019 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 701 by Phat
01-13-2019 4:22 AM


Re: Definition of free will
Dont you see that you want the same position and perspective that the omniscient Deity has?

What? Sit on my throne and have the infinity of all of spacetime before me at a glance? There would be nothing to do except watch this, by now, dreadfully boring movie that I'd already seen an infinite number of times playing out yet again.

If I decided I wanted to intervene in even the slightest way I couldn't since all was already done whether I'd intervened or not. I would be powerless ... and bored.

No wonder all the gods vanished into oblivion. Under such a scenario not even the gods have free will.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 701 by Phat, posted 01-13-2019 4:22 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 703 by Phat, posted 01-13-2019 3:41 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 11916
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 703 of 711 (846931)
01-13-2019 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 702 by AZPaul3
01-13-2019 7:39 AM


Re: Definition of free will
What? Sit on my throne and have the infinity of all of spacetime before me at a glance? There would be nothing to do except watch this, by now, dreadfully boring movie that I'd already seen an infinite number of times playing out yet again.

If I decided I wanted to intervene in even the slightest way I couldn't since all was already done whether I'd intervened or not. I would be powerless ... and bored.

Let's think this through. Something does not sound right in your scenario.

Do you see anyone as powerless to change their mind? Also, hypothetically, why would God be limited? You claim that all would be done. Yet it is God who would have willed it so. Either by accepting communion with those who chose it or by establishing another community for those who rejected the first offer. Would you argue that there should only be one community? If so, would you require equal community decision-making capabilities with God? And if so, I suppose that that is what we actually have now. The only thing nobody knows or can know is their final destination. We cant really argue that we have any say in it...apart from doing the best that we can do on a daily basis.


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

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 702 by AZPaul3, posted 01-13-2019 7:39 AM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 705 by AZPaul3, posted 01-13-2019 10:13 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 11916
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 704 of 711 (846932)
01-13-2019 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 689 by AZPaul3
01-11-2019 5:38 PM


Re: Flickering Christians?
Just from the bible, then, you cannot rightfully make a decision either way.

Just from the bible, with all the questions of authorship, veracity, and reliability, as you say, there is no basis upon which to make a god-done-it decision.

But, with the other evidence we have from all the sciences which show that a god is not necessary to accomplish the reality we see in this universe we are forced into a position of rightfully discounting, almost to zero, the various god-done-it philosophies. With all the holy books being under such questionable veracity there appears to be no evidence to counter this conclusion.

You have a good point. Critics would argue that you did have a clear choice, but I can see your argument that in fact, you don't have certainty beyond a reasonable doubt.

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

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 689 by AZPaul3, posted 01-11-2019 5:38 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3649
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 705 of 711 (846953)
01-13-2019 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 703 by Phat
01-13-2019 3:41 PM


Re: Definition of free will
Do you see anyone as powerless to change their mind? Also, hypothetically, why would God be limited? You claim that all would be done. Yet it is God who would have willed it so.

We mere mortals, non-omniscient and all, can (apparently) change our minds whenever we want. We are not limited by perfect knowledge of all events, past, present, future.

If youre a perfect omniscient god you have already made all the decisions and have already set the entire play from infinite past to infinite future. And if you do want to change your mind thats a decision you already knew you would make and it is already a part of the infinite and perfect timeline already in place. You cant, effectively, change your mind about anything. From the moment you set the universe in motion there is nothing left to do, all timelines known, nothing to change from the initial perfect plan. Might as well just dissolve into oblivion.

So, no, I would not want the same position and perspective that an omniscient Deity is said to have. It would be a useless existence.

Either by accepting communion with those who chose it or by establishing another community for those who rejected the first offer. Would you argue that there should only be one community?

I argue there IS only one community the community of man. No gods need apply.

But, hypothetically, it would make no difference. The decision would already have been made and there is nothing anyone could do about it even god.

The only thing nobody knows or can know is their final destination.

Oh, but we already do know. We are each doomed to nonexistence. We will just cease to exist for all of the infinity left to eternity. Oblivion, the same place we came from. Or so our best evidence indicates.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 703 by Phat, posted 01-13-2019 3:41 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
RewPrev1
...
43444546
47
48Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019