Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-20-2017 11:24 PM
353 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: DC85
Post Volume:
Total: 822,733 Year: 27,339/21,208 Month: 1,252/1,714 Week: 95/365 Day: 51/44 Hour: 1/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
202122
23
2425Next
Author Topic:   The meaning of the trinity
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11813
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.4


(1)
Message 331 of 363 (811854)
06-12-2017 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 330 by Stile
06-12-2017 2:56 PM


Re: Re-Trinity
One evil removed.

Do we not still have free will?

The question to me seems to become: How is man prevented from performing the one evil action? By restricting his will? Or not?

"All or nothing" certainly is not the only option.

Given. BUT my inability to fly like Superman has not been prevented by restricting my will

So how's it work in your scenario?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by Stile, posted 06-12-2017 2:56 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 333 by Stile, posted 06-13-2017 9:10 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10062
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 332 of 363 (811870)
06-13-2017 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 330 by Stile
06-12-2017 2:56 PM


Re: Re-Trinity
New Cat's Eye is asking questions along the line of reasoning that occurs to me. I will ask some more direct questions.

Consider a world exactly the same as ours. Except one singular, heinous action simply doesn't exist. Let's pick... stealing children for the intention of putting them in human trafficking operations (sex slave type stuffs).

1. When the earth was created, no actions existed at all. No humans existed. Given humans, how do we prevent them from creating actions just because they do not already exist absent by restricting their free will? Describe to me a world with independent mobile folks each having free will in which it is impossible for one folk to exploit another against their will.

2. Obviously, we could create a world without sex at all, so perhaps arguments about eliminating one particular evil are not really even germane. You need to make a case that all potential evil can be removed without removing free will. I don't believe such a thing is possible, but even if you can eliminate one particular bad act, that is not enough.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Not really, it is a theory that is imposed on nature so consistently that you think you are observing it. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by Stile, posted 06-12-2017 2:56 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by Stile, posted 06-13-2017 9:19 AM NoNukes has responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3036
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 333 of 363 (811897)
06-13-2017 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 331 by New Cat's Eye
06-12-2017 8:39 PM


Re: Re-Trinity
New Cat's Eye writes:

The question to me seems to become: How is man prevented from performing the one evil action? By restricting his will? Or not?

Does it matter?

Let's say it is 'by restricting his will' (I'm assuming you consider this to be a negative thing).

Even if free-will is reduced to create such a place... why does such a reduction matter?
Is such a reduction worth preventing the heinous action?

I think the obvious answer is 'yes.'
If you think the answer is 'no,' could you offer a reasonable defense in allowing the heinous action? What 'value' are we preserving in order to keep the heinous action?

If infinite - 1 is still infinite... and there are an infinite number of ways to freely choose to "do good"... then, is free will reduced by blocking some "bad" options?

If there is not an infinite amount of ways to do good, but "infinite as far as we're concerned" does this still count?
That is... let's say there are more good-options to choose to do than we could ever hope to choose to do within our life span. Therefore, the amount of good-options may not actually be "infinite" but they might as well be to us.

If such a situation is true, and we remove a few "bad" options... do we not still have "as-unlimited-as-before-free-will-to-do-good?"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-12-2017 8:39 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-13-2017 10:26 AM Stile has responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3036
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 334 of 363 (811899)
06-13-2017 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 332 by NoNukes
06-13-2017 1:03 AM


Re: Re-Trinity
NoNukes writes:

1. When the earth was created, no actions existed at all. No humans existed. Given humans, how do we prevent them from creating actions just because they do not already exist absent by restricting their free will? Describe to me a world with independent mobile folks each having free will in which it is impossible for one folk to exploit another against their will.

I do not have a practical answer for such a question.

I merely intended to show the flaw in your original statement:

quote:
How can good and free will both exist without evil, or not good existing? I don't believe such a thing is even possible. The choices then are to create good and evil or to create robots without the potential for doing anything but what they are told to do. Given a choice of a universe to live in, I'd prefer the former.

I actually agree with the first two sentences. I do not understand how good can exist without evil. And I'm also not sure if it's possible.

However... there is a gap jumping from that idea to the only choices of "world as it is now" or "robots."
We could have "slightly less evil than now" and still not be "robots."

That was the only point I was trying to make.

2. Obviously, we could create a world without sex at all, so perhaps arguments about eliminating one particular evil are not really even germane. You need to make a case that all potential evil can be removed without removing free will.

I don't understand where you're coming from here.

If my point is to say it's possible for us to be "slightly less evil than now" and just not become "robots."..... Why would I need to make a case that all potential evil can be removed without removing free will? My point includes evil still existing. Just not all of it.

I don't believe such a thing is possible, but even if you can eliminate one particular bad act, that is not enough.

Not enough for what?

My point is that if we could "just eliminate one particular bad act" then we would be better off than now... and still not be "robots."
If that's my point, why would I need to eliminate more bad acts? That would seem to go beyond my point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by NoNukes, posted 06-13-2017 1:03 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 340 by NoNukes, posted 06-13-2017 2:25 PM Stile has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11813
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 335 of 363 (811905)
06-13-2017 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 333 by Stile
06-13-2017 9:10 AM


Re: Re-Trinity
New Cat's Eye writes:

The question to me seems to become: How is man prevented from performing the one evil action? By restricting his will? Or not?

Does it matter?

It does to the question of whether or not he has free will.

Let's say it is 'by restricting his will' (I'm assuming you consider this to be a negative thing).

Even if free-will is reduced to create such a place... why does such a reduction matter?

Well, either the will is restricted or it isn't. After that is determined, we can move on to whether or not that matters

Is such a reduction worth preventing the heinous action?

Not my call, but I'd say no.

I think the obvious answer is 'yes.'
If you think the answer is 'no,' could you offer a reasonable defense in allowing the heinous action? What 'value' are we preserving in order to keep the heinous action?

An unrestricted will.

Take flying like superman as the example. I want to do that, but I can't. My will is free, but I am physically unable. No restriction of free will there.

Now, and this is where my question comes in: an alternative would be to simply restrict my will from wanting to fly like superman - or eliminating the desire to perfrom the forbidden evil action from the human population.

Is that how your scenrio would work? Because if so, there would be countless forbidden actions that are even more evil than your example that we are simply not aware of. And then the question becomes: where do you draw the arbitrary line of restriction?

I think that is a dangerous and slippery slope to be going down, so my preference would be to leave the line at 'unrestricted'.

If infinite - 1 is still infinite... and there are an infinite number of ways to freely choose to "do good"... then, is free will reduced by blocking some "bad" options?

That is my question to you: is the forbidden evil action prevented by restricting the will, or not? If not, how?

Too, subtracting 1 evil action from an infinite number of them still leaves an infinite number of evil actions to perform, so how does your scenario even really help?

If such a situation is true, and we remove a few "bad" options... do we not still have "as-unlimited-as-before-free-will-to-do-good?"

That depends on how the bad options are removed...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by Stile, posted 06-13-2017 9:10 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 336 by Stile, posted 06-13-2017 11:07 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3036
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 336 of 363 (811911)
06-13-2017 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 335 by New Cat's Eye
06-13-2017 10:26 AM


Re: Re-Trinity
New Cat's Eye writes:

An unrestricted will.

Can you explain what it is about an unrestricted will that's worth having for this heinous action to remain?
Please keep in mind that you still have an 'unrestricted will' for every other decision. Just not this single heinous action.

Take flying like superman as the example. I want to do that, but I can't. My will is free, but I am physically unable. No restriction of free will there.

I see the distinction. If I say "limiting the physical ability, but not the desire" would that end our conversation in agreement? If that's the case... let's not say that, as the alternative discussion seems more... interesting.

Now, and this is where my question comes in: an alternative would be to simply restrict my will from wanting to fly like superman - or eliminating the desire to perform the forbidden evil action from the human population.

Eliminating the desire.

Because if so, there would be countless forbidden actions that are even more evil than your example that we are simply not aware of. And then the question becomes: where do you draw the arbitrary line of restriction?

I think that is a dangerous and slippery slope to be going down, so my preference would be to leave the line at 'unrestricted'.

I'm not positive what you're trying to get to here. But I think it's along the lines of "if we prevent 1 evil, then why not 20? Why not 'all'? Who decides? When do we stop?

If that is your concern. I fully agree.

I just completely disagree that the solution is to "not do anything at all."
I would say the solution is do a few things and look for the line.

If it was only this 1 heinous action where the free will/desire was eliminated and nothing else... no slippery slope at all to consider, no "...and then" to come after. If that was it, would you agree to the limitation then?

Crying wolf about slippery slopes can stop a lot of advancement.
It's possible that electronic devices could lead to the destruction of all humans. Shall we stop making electronic devices because of that slippery slope?

When a line needs to be drawn, I have no problems taking action far, far away from the line (at the extremes) and then discussing where (even if) an actual line needs to be drawn. I think it could be a very interesting discussion, actually. But, perhaps it doesn't include the Trinity

Too, subtracting 1 evil action from an infinite number of them still leaves an infinite number of evil actions to perform, so how does your scenario even really help?

The point here is that it doesn't help at all "in reducing free will." However, it certainly does help to children who are in the sex trade.
Therefore: if something doesn't affect free will... and yet eliminates children being in the sex trade... why not do it?

I agree that the 'slippery slope' is a concern and something to consider before doing anything rash.

But I disagree that this specific proposal would be 'rash.'


This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-13-2017 10:26 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 337 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-13-2017 11:34 AM Stile has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11813
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 337 of 363 (811917)
06-13-2017 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 336 by Stile
06-13-2017 11:07 AM


Can you explain what it is about an unrestricted will that's worth having for this heinous action to remain?

It's the principle... because freedom.

I don't want my thoughts controlled.

If I say "limiting the physical ability, but not the desire" would that end our conversation in agreement?

Sort of, I'm curious how you'd envision that happening tho... And it could have ramifications for our free will, so I dunno.

I'm not positive what you're trying to get to here. But I think it's along the lines of "if we prevent 1 evil, then why not 20? Why not 'all'? Who decides? When do we stop?

If that is your concern. I fully agree.

Nailed it.

I just completely disagree that the solution is to "not do anything at all."
I would say the solution is do a few things and look for the line.

I don't disagree.

If it was only this 1 heinous action where the free will/desire was eliminated and nothing else... no slippery slope at all to consider, no "...and then" to come after. If that was it, would you agree to the limitation then?

Crying wolf about slippery slopes can stop a lot of advancement.
It's possible that electronic devices could lead to the destruction of all humans. Shall we stop making electronic devices because of that slippery slope?

When a line needs to be drawn, I have no problems taking action far, far away from the line (at the extremes) and then discussing where (even if) an actual line needs to be drawn. I think it could be a very interesting discussion, actually.

Sure, but it seems impractical. We don't have any way of doing this and speculating on why a god would or would not do it doesn't seem very productive.

But, perhaps it doesn't include the Trinity

Oh yeah, and we're off-topic

Therefore: if something doesn't affect free will... and yet eliminates children being in the sex trade... why not do it?

I would speculate that it goes against a principle that is more important to uphold.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by Stile, posted 06-13-2017 11:07 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 338 by Stile, posted 06-13-2017 12:07 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3036
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 338 of 363 (811932)
06-13-2017 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 337 by New Cat's Eye
06-13-2017 11:34 AM


New Cat's Eye writes:

It's the principle... because freedom.

I don't want my thoughts controlled.

Understood.

New Cat's Eye writes:

Stile writes:

If I say "limiting the physical ability, but not the desire" would that end our conversation in agreement?

Sort of, I'm curious how you'd envision that happening tho... And it could have ramifications for our free will, so I dunno.

Ha ha. I didn't think that far ahead. This was all just some thinking, nothing more. I was mostly just weirded out by the impression of "being a robot" because of the elimination of my desire for even a single, specific terrible action. I didn't think it was an either/or situation, and wanted to express the option of more of a gradient of some kind.

But 'limiting the physical ability' itself can be considered along the lines of what a police force or possibly government does. And then it's just specifics into 'how good' your policies and enforcement actually are.

New Cat's Eye writes:

Sure, but it seems impractical. We don't have any way of [eliminating an actual free-will desire] and speculating on why a god would or would not do it doesn't seem very productive.

Yeah. It may be that any discussion of 'free will' (in the non-physical sense) is moot in a practical sense because it's simply something we have no control over. But in the non-practical sense... I still think about it.

New Cat's Eye writes:

Stile writes:

Therefore: if something doesn't affect free will... and yet eliminates children being in the sex trade... why not do it?

I would speculate that it goes against a principle that is more important to uphold.

"Important" here seems to be a personal opinion.

You think it's more important. I don't.
I can't currently describe some method to judge which is 'better' in a practical/objective-ish way.
Especially since the scope of "what is actually affected" seems difficult to narrow.

A discussion for another day, in another thread, I think.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-13-2017 11:34 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 339 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-13-2017 12:19 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11813
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 339 of 363 (811934)
06-13-2017 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 338 by Stile
06-13-2017 12:07 PM


I was mostly just weirded out by the impression of "being a robot" because of the elimination of my desire for even a single, specific terrible action.

Right on. FWIW, I read this:

quote:
How can good and free will both exist without evil, or not good existing? I don't believe such a thing is even possible. The choices then are to create good and evil or to create robots without the potential for doing anything but what they are told to do. Given a choice of a universe to live in, I'd prefer the former.

...as implying that good and free will cannot exist if you remove all of evil - not that removing one little bit of evil would cause the whole thing to come crashing down.

A discussion for another day, in another thread, I think.

Cheers!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by Stile, posted 06-13-2017 12:07 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10062
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 340 of 363 (811940)
06-13-2017 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 334 by Stile
06-13-2017 9:19 AM


Re: Re-Trinity
If my point is to say it's possible for us to be "slightly less evil than now" and just not become "robots."..... Why would I need to make a case that all potential evil can be removed without removing free will? My point includes evil still existing. Just not all of it.

Because you challenged my statement to ringo, and my statement is about the world with a complete lack of evil and not about one with a mere absence of your chosen one evil thing. I don't see how such a situation (completely evil-free world) could exist without limits on free will.

Apparently you agree, so perhaps we were just talking past one another.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Not really, it is a theory that is imposed on nature so consistently that you think you are observing it. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by Stile, posted 06-13-2017 9:19 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by Stile, posted 06-13-2017 2:49 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3036
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 341 of 363 (811941)
06-13-2017 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 340 by NoNukes
06-13-2017 2:25 PM


Re: Re-Trinity
NoNukes writes:

Apparently you agree, so perhaps we were just talking past one another.

Yeah, looks like.

I don't see how such a situation (completely evil-free world) could exist without limits on free will.

I think this would depend on exactly what 'free will' means.
But, since 'free will' also seems very difficult to nail down... it compounds the issue.

For a glimpse:

If "Free Will" means 'ability to hurt other people' then yeah... I don't think you can remove evil and have evil at the same time.

But:

If "Free Will" means something more like "ability to be the authority on choosing whatever you want from the available options..." Then it opens up a bit more of a discussion on what the "limits" actually are, and which ones may be acceptable or not (that seems off-topic here, though).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by NoNukes, posted 06-13-2017 2:25 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5157
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 342 of 363 (811942)
06-13-2017 2:56 PM


Is a world without evil so evil?

When we have these discussions it's almost a default position that having the ability to do harm (free will) is important, even necessary. Is it really?

Obviously - well to me at least - this is a totally specious argument because we are simply another organism competing to survive - competing against each other as well as our environment so harm is inbuilt by biology. Evolution completely explains why we ae the way we are.

Freewill is a purely religious concept so you have to ask, why couldn't god have created a world without harm? Of course the answer is that he did but the Fall did for all that. To introduce the concept of evil, God had to also introduce the evil itself in the form of a talking snake representing a previously fallen angel.

It's a very, very strange and silly idea isn't it?


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.


Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by Phat, posted 06-13-2017 6:45 PM Tangle has not yet responded
 Message 345 by Phat, posted 06-13-2017 6:59 PM Tangle has not yet responded
 Message 352 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-14-2017 1:29 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10053
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 343 of 363 (811958)
06-13-2017 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 342 by Tangle
06-13-2017 2:56 PM


Taking Free Will To A Scientific Level
Stile writes:

If "Free Will" means 'ability to hurt other people' then yeah... I don't think you can remove evil and have evil at the same time.

But:

If "Free Will" means something more like "ability to be the authority on choosing whatever you want from the available options..." Then it opens up a bit more of a discussion on what the "limits" actually are, and which ones may be acceptable or not (that seems off-topic here, though).

I see where Mr.Stile has resurrected an old topic from the dusty bins of the Science Forums.

Stile in 2009 writes:

I was wondering if you could help explain something to me. I am not versed at all in psychology, or sociology.

Basically, my thoughts are along the lines of "since I freely choose simple things, why am I unable to freely choose larger things?"

I understand how things like environment and genes work together to shape us, and how certain things may not be in our control.

But what about those things that are in our control?

I mean, simply, I think I have "free-choice" to wear white socks or black socks each day. Or free-choice to snap my fingers 4 times or maybe stop at 5 times just because I want to.

How can you say such things are not evidence of us having free-choice?
Can you actually link environmental/genetic factors into my sock-colour choice? Or such factors into my "stopping to snap my fingers" choice?

What about when we come to an age where we can choose our environment (friends, living location, career...)? If our environment has control over us, be we choose our environment... doesn't that mean we end up with control over us again?

How is that not "free-choice"?

Maybe my lack of education in this area is making me miss something basic. But, well, my ability of free-choice seems rather obvious to me. Where do you think this is wrong?

Tangle, 2017 version writes:

Obviously - well to me at least - this is a totally specious argument because we are simply another organism competing to survive - competing against each other as well as our environment so harm is inbuilt by biology. Evolution completely explains why we ae the way we are.

Freewill is a purely religious concept so you have to ask, why couldn't god have created a world without harm? Of course the answer is that he did but the Fall did for all that. To introduce the concept of evil, God had to also introduce the evil itself in the form of a talking snake representing a previously fallen angel.

It's a very, very strange and silly idea isn't it?

Perhaps there is science behind the freedom. Try discussing this over at Free will but how free really?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by Tangle, posted 06-13-2017 2:56 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10053
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 344 of 363 (811959)
06-13-2017 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 327 by ringo
06-11-2017 2:07 PM


Re: Re-Trinity
Phat writes:

Some things cannot be proven or disproven through evidence alone.


ringo writes:

Without evidence, they can not be "proven" at all.

Must a belief be provable before you embrace it? What possible reasons would you have for rejecting it?

Perhaps you came from a family of believers who made no sense. Perhaps they used the belief as a crutch to avoid critical thought regarding daily reality.

Perhaps one day you discovered matthew 25 and a new calling was born.

After all, we all do seem to enjoy our conversations.

Perhaps if there is such a thing as The Holy Spirit He too is in communion with us as we attempt to be intelligent about our evolving beliefs.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by ringo, posted 06-11-2017 2:07 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by ringo, posted 06-14-2017 3:09 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10053
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 345 of 363 (811960)
06-13-2017 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 342 by Tangle
06-13-2017 2:56 PM


Freely Choosing To Deny God
Tangle writes:

Freewill is a purely religious concept so you have to ask, why couldn't God have created the world without harm?

I believe that He allowed the world without necessary harm. Evil is not a default option thanks to Jesus.

Science may disagree, but in a faith & belief context, can you argue the point? You have stated before that the religious terrorism simply must go and that it is our duty to freely reject unevidenced and archaic belief systems.

The Trinity is simply a concept that has a Creator of all seen and unseen eternally omnipresent. Even if we taught people to reject this concept, how would rejection of the necessity of a Holy Presence actually help people to deal with their own volatile emotions? Shrinks cost more money than tithes at church.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by Tangle, posted 06-13-2017 2:56 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
202122
23
2425Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017