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:   In defense of nihilism
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 166 of 306 (265837)
12-05-2005 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by iano
12-05-2005 5:08 PM


Re: Peace of mind
You're no dummy Robin.
In matters scientific, I am a dummy, as any scientist who has tried to explain something to me knows. I find this irritating.
In order for you to truly believe, God would have to overcome all the phsycological, emotional, rational and reasonable objections you could raise. He would have to give you proof of his existance of an order that makes you sure. So sure that all your objections would evaporate like morning dew. Read Paul on the road to Damascus. On his way to round up Christians for jail or killing. In a couple of seconds it's... "Yes Lord" He doesn't sound like a guy who remained to be convinced. And that is reaction of all who come face-to-face (so to speak) with God in the bible. They all fall flat on their faces.
If I had an experience like Paul purportedly did, no doubt I would change my mind.
So you're saying that Christianity offers certainty, whereas nothing else does. I find that a very strange statement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by iano, posted 12-05-2005 5:08 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by iano, posted 12-06-2005 1:47 PM robinrohan has replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 167 of 306 (265869)
12-05-2005 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by 1.61803
12-05-2005 4:34 PM


Re: A salute to nihlist
Existance may be a matter of concequence, but it is undeniable that the choice between there being something and there being nothing has been made.
Certainly there is something rather than nothing; but there is no evidence that any choice was made.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by 1.61803, posted 12-05-2005 4:34 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by 1.61803, posted 12-06-2005 1:27 PM Omnivorous has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 168 of 306 (265881)
12-05-2005 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Rrhain
12-04-2005 4:37 AM


Rrhain On Nihilism
Rrhain writes:
Nihilism insists that "good" and "bad" and "morality" do not exist at all.
Rrhain writes:
buzsaw writes:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My understanding is that nihilists have no code.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then you don't know what nihilism is. Please go back and read my post about what nihilism is.
So if there's no good or bad, how does that translate into a code of morality or of ethics?

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Rrhain, posted 12-04-2005 4:37 AM Rrhain has not replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 169 of 306 (265886)
12-05-2005 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by iano
12-05-2005 5:25 PM


Re: Peace of mind
iano writes:
I got into a discussion before and was told that there is no mind without cognitive function. I felt (and it never got to a conclusion to the contrary) that cognitive function are consequences of the mind. If you start disconnecting cognitive function all that happens is that cognitive statements (which may be measured) such as:
"I am happy" reduces simply to
"I am..."
I am is not reliant on any cognitive function we can measure. How do you get a person to say "I am not" afterall. The juries out for want of a way to test for it ( call it "abiogensis problematics")
I truly have no idea what you mean here, though I would point out that "I am" depends on consciousness, which, as I pointed out, can be suspended with a sound right hook--on a good day, even a straight left jab.
I also know that a skilled neurosurgeon with a fine electrical probe can elicit or obliterate (depending on voltage) pretty much all known cognitive functions.
The brain generates the mind. If you have a better candidate, I'm all ears for evidence.
Maybe Christian based Religions do so but Christianity doesn't. Christianity says believe. But it doesn't for one moment say that the belief is a blind belief. Blind belief is illogical and irrational. One cannot truly believe what one has no absolute proof for. Christianity offers that. If you don't have it you cannot be sure sure. You may be a Christian then but if you want to be sure you are then God needs to prove himself to you in some incontrovertible way. A way that leaves no doubt. The others do NOT offer certainty
The Hindi is as certain of Krishna as you are of Christ; or, in other words, he insists on his certainty as strenuously as you do on yours. He seems quite as sincere and, to me, is just as unpersuasive.
We get back into the problem of how one can ascertain who is and isn't a Christian in order to measure 'peace levels' I would suggest that someone calling themselves a Christian should be taken with a pinch of salt.
From my perspective that presents no problem: even if I consider only those self-proclaimed Christians with the greatest apparent peace of mind to be real Christians, and those with the least, not, I see no sign that their peace surpasses anyone else's, let alone my understanding, regardless of the comparison faith or lack of it.
You may be riding a Suzuki 200 peace. And it might suit you perfectly. You can't miss what you've never had though.
And apparently you've never enjoyed peace of mind without the psychological support of religious beliefs--perhaps my peace of mind surpasses your understanding. My backyard chop-shop one-off, running full-throated on clear air and unadulterated natural fuels, may run rings around your Fazer.
I know the discussion continues here about the proper definition of nihilism, and that's fine, though I will note that if definitions don't occur at the beginning of a discussion, they rarely manage to clarify it later.
But robin's observation--that the universe appears to be without apparent purpose or meaning--rings true to me. Purpose and meaning--and, yes, honor--are ours to create. You have created yours, and I, mine. I feel knowing that my purpose and honor, my tenderness and love, are freely created and embraced by me makes them precious and meaningful in a way that an external source could not.
I understand that you believe I am certainly wrong, and that my error, if uncorrected, will cause me eternal torment; I believe I am right, but agree I may be wrong: I am no champion of certainty.
But in any case I would not worship a being that torments others forever for their errors, and so I am content to follow where my mind and heart lead me.
This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 12-05-2005 09:55 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by iano, posted 12-05-2005 5:25 PM iano has not replied

1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 170 of 306 (266084)
12-06-2005 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Omnivorous
12-05-2005 8:27 PM


Re: A salute to nihlist
Hello Omnivorous,
Thanks for your reply.
Omnivorous writes:
Certainly there is something rather than nothing;but there is no evidence a choice has been made.
Ok. I can see how the word choice would smack of a chooser.
There are 2 sets of conditions that are possible,
A. something
B. nothing
If it is arbitrary then set A. is just as probable as set B.
But set A was realized. Then again a new set of possibilities are there.
A. the density of the universe will allow for existance.
B. the density of the universe will not allow existance.
And we see again the realization of set A. in favor of existance.
Over and over the Cosmos is perpetuating a cascade of
of existance. Each arbitrary condition continually falling in favor of a something rather than nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Omnivorous, posted 12-05-2005 8:27 PM Omnivorous has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 171 of 306 (266095)
12-06-2005 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by robinrohan
12-05-2005 5:59 PM


Re: Peace of mind
Robin writes:
In matters scientific, I am a dummy, as any scientist who has tried to explain something to me knows. I find this irritating.
God doesn't require you to understand science. He doesn't even require that you understand the bible. The bible is spiritually discerned and until that part is plugged in the light won't shine. Everyone is a spiritual dummy (spiritually dead is more accurate) until God turns on the light. One may examine the bible technically (theology) but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. If it did, then only bright people could go to heaven. What about the illiterate and the stupid?
When I say you're no dummy I mean you are bright enough not to be duped by something that man could make up. The level of proof necessary to say (and know) "I believe" could not be foisted upon you by a man-level arguement. Some can be, but I don't think you could be. You'd spot it for what it was. Sure, you don't have the 'comfort' of Religion but maybe your like me, I preferred the lonliness of no- belief to the comfort of a pseudo-belief.
If you did turn, then you'd have the benefit of a relative blank slate. No Religious hang ups to worry about. It is a blessing
If I had an experience like Paul purportedly did, no doubt I would change my mind
That's what happens. It's different for different folks. Not everyone gets struck blind. But the absoluteness and positiveness can be the same. You know because you know because you know. It is, and must be the standard before a person can truly say "I believe"
So you're saying that Christianity offers certainty, whereas nothing else does. I find that a very strange statement.
Yup, that what I'm saying. But in a kind of a way it only matters if your certain for yourself. Proving your certainty to another is impossible. Someone disproving your certainty too. But no one offers a personal, one on one relationship with their god. And it follows why they don't. If they did then the god would have to turn up. This wouldn't bode well for the longevity of the Religion in question - assuming it is a false one.
Note that someone may know they are a Christian but not be sure that salvation is a certainty. This doesn't affect the certainty of their salvation in the least. Positionally they have been translated from death to life. that is the essence of it. They are citizens - period That they get the doctrine fully is not essential - otherwise salvation depends on mans ability to get it. Which is not the gospel. God does the saving not mans efforts or smarts.
All man can do is refuse Gods gift. It is offered to all. A person won't of course know it is Gods gift they are refusing. But he will present choice for him/against him. And we are given the ability to make a free-choice to allow ourselves to be drawn in his direction or to pull away from him. God does not test beyond endurance. He doesn't say things like "Robin - if you stop drinking for a week then I'll consider that to be you pulling yourself in my direction"
It happens at a different level than that. That which your heart wants. Watch the two sides at work (God drawing, Satan/your dead self pulling away) Watch closely your reaction next time God pulls. You'll be faced with a situation and you will have a moment where you know what the correct action to take is. Watch as this quite voice is dismissed and you choose for the incorrect action. I'm not saying this is a pull-away and God marks a debit on his card. It's just a way to observe the tug going on. At the end of the day it's not about merits/demerits, it's about your hearts response to things. Read Romans 7:7 to end again - especially 17-24. This is God using the law to convict us we are sinners. If you feel miserable about the fact that you cannot help do what you do and wish that you didn't do it then you empathise with the man in Romans 7. Note that his desparation isn't a whinging whining, self focussed desparation. Its a desparation of one who knows what right is (purely because it is RIGHT) and knows he does wrong. And despairs of it
It is not necessary to know that this right comes from God. It is sufficient to know (acknowledge in ones heart) that however it may be true, right is in fact an absolute entity. What one says in public is irrelevant. God only saves the lost afterall. And where would the lost be without a bagful of alternative philosophies to help them maintain that state
This message has been edited by iano, 06-Dec-2005 06:50 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by robinrohan, posted 12-05-2005 5:59 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by robinrohan, posted 12-06-2005 4:10 PM iano has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 172 of 306 (266128)
12-06-2005 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by iano
12-06-2005 1:47 PM


refusing "God's gift"
A person won't of course know it is Gods gift they are refusing.
That makes things rather problematic. If a person doesn't know what he's refusing, he can hardly be blamed for refusing something good that he thought was bad, or something true that he thought was false. If I refuse what seems to me an irrational idea and it turns out to be "God's gift," surely this is not my fault. It is my choice to refuse it, but if my ideas are sincere, then my error in understanding is innocent.
He doesn't say things like "Robin - if you stop drinking for a week then I'll consider that to be you pulling yourself in my direction"
Well, that's good to know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by iano, posted 12-06-2005 1:47 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by iano, posted 12-07-2005 6:45 AM robinrohan has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 173 of 306 (266331)
12-07-2005 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by robinrohan
12-06-2005 4:10 PM


Re: refusing "God's gift"
That makes things rather problematic. If a person doesn't know what he's refusing, he can hardly be blamed for refusing something good that he thought was bad, or something true that he thought was false. If I refuse what seems to me an irrational idea and it turns out to be "God's gift," surely this is not my fault. It is my choice to refuse it, but if my ideas are sincere, then my error in understanding is innocent.
What you seem to imply here is something along the lines of "I read the bible and it makes no sense to me rationally - its full of contradictions as well. How could I be blamed for not accepting blindly what it says. If God gave me reason then this is what it produced. I couldn't help it"
If that was the case then you would be right. A just God would have to 'let you off' for it.
But the call doesn't happen at rational level. It happens at heart (or soul) level. And its not that you refuse to comply in a sense that you obey that which the call makes on you - say the call of conscience. God knows that you can't. That you are actually unable to. He is not suprised in the least by it.
It is more that something inside you - not rationally explicable - wishes that you could comply and despairs at not being able to. It might be the inability to contain a temper, it could be the inability not to decieve people with lies, it could be the inability not to cheat on your wife. How often have you promised yourself "that I am not, I repeat not, going to do this, that or the other again!" A while passes and the same old prompt comes again and you find yourself unable to resist. One part wanting no, the other part very much wanting yes. Rational. Patently not.
Ignoring the call I think means moving towards a direction of excusing the behaviour which is known to be wrong, to justify it by pointing the finger at everyone but oneself. And everytime it is excused it becomes easier to excuse it again, and again, and again. To the point where the dislike of the behaviour starts shifting in direction becomes tolerance of the behaviour to getting to think that there is nothing at all wrong with the bahaviour. Whilst nihilism cannot say there is anything objectively wrong with sex with 4 year olds it is interesting to note an this extreme example where child sex abusers actually don't see anything wrong with their behaviour. When people get to this level of amorality we tend to call the sociopaths. But it's simply a question of the degree to which this self-justification extends.
That is the path or direction a person can move in. They may hold it at a level and not descend to the very extremes. Whatever level it is at it requires a certain hardness of heart and self-righteousness to maintain itself.
"All your (self) righteousness are as filthy rags" God says
God is calling people in the other direction. And that direction seeks to expose the excuses and self-righteousness for what they are. To reveal the truth about the actions we take, to show us the hurt we cause others. A person doesn't have to work this up in themselves. God does that. And it is their response to that that matters. Either do nothing and let God reveal or deny it and repress it and kill it.
If the latter then the person will arrive in some way shape or form at the man in Romans 7. God will have done the work and the person, if they arrive in this place will have done nothing. A very important nothing it must be said.
No one comes without struggle. The movement is not a smooth progression in one direction or the other. All will deny and self-excuse and kill off Gods call. It is a question of the degree to which a person says no which decides how far and how fast they move down the slope. And it makes sense that the further a person moves away and the harder their heart gets the less effectual the call becomes.
Lets make no mistake here. If a person was to spend a number of years gazing out from a lighthouse and the majesty and infinite evolking nature of the seas and the stars and think for a moment what a creator God would be like should he exist - then they would be humbled. This God should not be presumed to suffer man forever. There does come a time when God will cease to call to a man who persistantly refuses to listen, who has only one answer in repsonse to Gods call - NO. God is God. He won't be taken for a fool
Either we come to say "Thy will be done" or God will say to us "Thy will be done"
(for what it's worth Robin, I don't think you belong in that latter category. But then I'm not God so I don't know)
iano writes:
He doesn't say things like "Robin - if you stop drinking for a week then I'll consider that to be you pulling yourself in my direction"
Well, that's good to know.
In fact there are no conditions. All a person has to do is not say No. But even there he helps a person. Forgive all the evangelising but I'm on a bit of a roll.
Another thing I noted after-the-fact of being saved was the following. God presents situations where he makes is as possible to say yes and it is for us to say no. Watch out for situations that may occur where something comes up which involves something directly or indirectly to do with God. It could be a tv programme, it could be a poster advertising an evening course, it could be a street preacher you come across. I'm not saying you should go to these things if you really don't. That is you doing the work.
But it may occur that your wandering along and something like that pops up. Your first reaction is "Hmm, that sound interesting, I think I'll...." then will come the "aah bollox - its just all that EvC indoctrination crap" If you examine it you will see there is no good reason not to follow up. There is nothing particularily in the way of you actually doing it. Except No for No's sake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by robinrohan, posted 12-06-2005 4:10 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by robinrohan, posted 12-07-2005 1:19 PM iano has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 174 of 306 (266404)
12-07-2005 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by iano
12-07-2005 6:45 AM


the appearance of life
What you seem to be doing, iano, is whittling down what we have to do, as opposed to what God does, to almost nothing. However, you can't whittle it down all the way. If you did, the doctrines of sin, salvation, heaven, and hell wouldn't make much sense.
You say this:
In fact there are no conditions.
Then you say this:
All a person has to do is not say No.
You've just given a condition.
You also seem to be saying that we should pay attention to our emotions not our reason:
But the call doesn't happen at rational level. It happens at heart (or soul) level.
Of course, we are not supposed to let all our emotions dictate our actions, only certain ones. And we pick out the certain ones that are in keeping with the moral system that's written in our hearts. Of course we can't prove that our moral system is The Moral System.
All we can do is point to its near-universality, like this:
Whilst nihilism cannot say there is anything objectively wrong with sex with 4 year olds it is interesting to note an this extreme example where child sex abusers actually don't see anything wrong with their behaviour.
Its near-universality does not prove that the rule is objective any more than the near-universal belief that the earth was stationary in the past prove that the earth is in fact stationary. However, certain near-universal feelings that we have do suggest that people have perhaps a "moral faculty" as one has a rational faculty, and that some people's moral faculties work better than other's. And as we intuit the assumptions of geometry, we also intuit the rightness or wrongness of certain actions. There are all sorts of ways we can interpret our general abhorrence of certain actions without invoking God.
But let us return to your idea that we should pay more attention to certain feelings than we should the results of Reason. This goes back to that game of God I spoke of earlier. Here we have a world that, on the face of it, operates by chance. By "chance," of course, I do not mean that there are no "laws of nature," but we understand that a law of nature is just a description of what things always do.
For example, a very nice person has a car wreck and is hideously maimed. What caused this car wreck? This nice person's brakes failed. What caused the failure of the brakes? Well, during its manufacture, somebody assembling the brakes forgot to insert a certain screw properly. Why? He had a headache that day and so was rather careless in his normally meticulous procedure. What caused the headache? He has had a tendency for bad headaches ever since he was a child, and he forgot to pick up his medicine from the pharmacy. What caused him to forget? Well, he was very excited about this young lady he met at church the night before, couldn't get her out of his mind, and so the idea of picking up the medicine didn't occur to him until after the pharmacy had closed. Why was he excited about the young lady he met, which caused him to forget his medicine, which caused him to have a headache, which caused him to improperly insert the screw, which caused the brakes to fail, which caused the car wreck, which caused the nice young person to be hideously maimed? There is no end to these questions. This is what I mean by life operating by chance.
This is the way life appears on its surface, iano. And to combat that idea, we are supposed to be influenced by certain strong moral feelings that occur to us from time to time which are supposed to let us know FOR CERTAIN that this world of chance we experience day after day doesn't really exist, that it's really all planned out in secret--except of course for the actions of our "free will"--by the Almighty. And we are supposed to believe that--based on some "feelings" we have.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by iano, posted 12-07-2005 6:45 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by iano, posted 12-07-2005 2:55 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 177 by iano, posted 12-07-2005 4:02 PM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 185 by Silent H, posted 12-08-2005 1:43 PM robinrohan has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 175 of 306 (266461)
12-07-2005 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by robinrohan
12-07-2005 1:19 PM


Re: the appearance of life
In fact there are no conditions.
My computer is dogslow today so I won't go back and see what I said. Let me clarify though what I meant (or should have said I meant)
Man can do nothing at all to effect his salvation. Every effectual aspect of salvation is carried out by God. He is the one who calls, he is the one who convicts a person of their sin, he is the one who provides the evidence that lets us believe, he is the one who gives us the ability to understand that his word makes perfect sense, he is the one who carries out the various mechanical/legal aspects involved with salvation. In that sense there is no condition - because there is nothing a man can do to effect even the slightest bit of his being saved.
All a person has to do is not say No.
Saying no is an active decision on our part. The right way is presented to us and we know it is the right way. It is not that man has to accept that it is the right way - he knows it is without having to make any decision at all about it. Saying no is denying what is true. Thus, if a person is lost - it is through a decision (or series of decisions on their part)
Consider it as a person free falling from earth without a parachute. That is the default position of every person born. God didn't make it that way, Adam did (and we all share his spiritual genes, dead to God genes)
God tries to place a parachute on us so that we won't go SPLAT. Man does nothing to put the parachute in place, there is no condition man has to fulfill in order to have God attempt to do that. God wants that none should perish and he attempts to fix a parachute to everybody
But man can shrug off the parachute if he likes.
Salvation is from God, offered without condition. Damnation is of man - by own free choice

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by robinrohan, posted 12-07-2005 1:19 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by robinrohan, posted 12-07-2005 3:05 PM iano has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 176 of 306 (266463)
12-07-2005 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by iano
12-07-2005 2:55 PM


Re: the appearance of life
Iano, would you agree that events occur in this world by chance?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by iano, posted 12-07-2005 2:55 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by iano, posted 12-07-2005 4:10 PM robinrohan has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 177 of 306 (266485)
12-07-2005 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by robinrohan
12-07-2005 1:19 PM


Re: the appearance of life
You also seem to be saying that we should pay attention to our emotions not our reason
Soul, if it exists, is not emotion so I don't hold that we should pay attention to our emotions. If right and wrong came from our emotions and our emotions vary then right and wrong will vary.
Whilst many will point to brain research and the fact that drugs influence emotions and thus emotions has some mechanical relationship to the function of our mechanical brains they cannot do the same with mind. There is something about the location of the mind which refuses to be pinned down to the simply mechanical. As I have said before, you may analyse the mechanical basis for "I am happy" but not "I am"
And it is in the "I am" that which sits above emotion and reason which is where I suggest soul resides. And the "I am" is what knows that something is right - despite all the conditioning that goes on to affect the lower levels. The conditioning may overrule the "I am" but it is a subjective overuling an absolute
Its near-universality does not prove that the rule is objective
No it doesn't. There is no objective proof of a universal right and wrong. No objective in the sense that man can provide a proof instead of innumerable theories and debates. No, if an absolute truth is to be proven, it will be proven only to oneselfs satisfaction. I know it to be true because I just know it. Failing God coming down and proving it for us, there is no better way to prove it.
And when it comes down to it, all that matters is that we are satisfied ourselves that that is the case. Who cares what anyone else thinks (something shared by both Christianity and Nihilism - although I'll warrant the Nihilist would suffer being thrown to lions in his steadfastness)?#
There are all sorts of ways we can interpret our general abhorrence of certain actions without invoking God.
But none can do more than scratch on the surface as to why this is the case. Its theory piled on theories the whole way down. It really is for you to decide for yourself Robin - as you hold to be the case.
Deny that in you which suggests (beyond the cut and thrust of debate) that there is such thing as an absolute right and an absolute wrong. To persist in denying that God is the only thing potentially available which could hope to explain it, not with never-to-end theory - but fully
Persist in denying or...
...follow where it is trying to lead you

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by robinrohan, posted 12-07-2005 1:19 PM robinrohan has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 178 of 306 (266488)
12-07-2005 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by robinrohan
12-07-2005 3:05 PM


Re: the appearance of life
Iano, would you agree that events occur in this world by chance?
Nope (he said with fingers crossed). God knows every single thing that happens - and what will happen. Nothing happens without his 'assenting' to it (I use the word cautiously). He knows when a swallow falls from the air and he knows how many hairs that are on my head (you wouldn't have to be omniescent to know that in my case - I looked at the fine head of hair you had - in 2002 at least and....envied). When I die it will be on the day God has determined that I die
He knows if you will turn to him at some point and if you won't. It's a tricky subject and I can't say I've developed much in the way of understanding of it. Pre-destination vs free choice etc. I'm only starting to get my follically-challenged head around it.
I only a young-un in Christ. Spiritual milk is what I'm on still...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by robinrohan, posted 12-07-2005 3:05 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by robinrohan, posted 12-07-2005 4:27 PM iano has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 179 of 306 (266497)
12-07-2005 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by iano
12-07-2005 4:10 PM


Re: the appearance of life
Nope (he said with fingers crossed). God knows every single thing that happens - and what will happen. Nothing happens without his 'assenting' to it (I use the word cautiously). He knows when a swallow falls from the air and he knows how many hairs that are on my head (you wouldn't have to be omniescent to know that in my case - I looked at the fine head of hair you had - in 2002 at least and....envied). When I die it will be on the day God has determined that I die
Well, would you agree that events in the world APPEAR to occur by chance, as in the example of the car wreck? If you do, then we can conclude that this appearance is an illusion created by God. Why did he create this illusion? So that we wouldn't know He was out there?
And by the way, why are you crossing your fingers? I thought you were absolutely CERTAIN.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-07-2005 03:28 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by iano, posted 12-07-2005 4:10 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by iano, posted 12-08-2005 6:25 AM robinrohan has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 180 of 306 (266715)
12-08-2005 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by robinrohan
12-07-2005 4:27 PM


Re: the appearance of life
Well, would you agree that events in the world APPEAR to occur by chance, as in the example of the car wreck? If you do, then we can conclude that this appearance is an illusion created by God. Why did he create this illusion? So that we wouldn't know He was out there?
And by the way, why are you crossing your fingers? I thought you were absolutely CERTAIN
The reason that I was crossing my fingers was because I was hoping you wouldn't plow this furrow. It's tricky - not in the sense that I have any problem with it myself but that things would of necessity stray into trying to get ones head around the concept of eternity. There can obviously be no clear cut discussion about this given that we are locked in space/time.
Before we stray to far it would be worth while having a definition of what constitutes chance. The sense by which I understood you to mean it was "something occurring for no reason" I don't think anything happens by chance in that case. My understanding of it is that it is a man-made convention people employ to arrive at a description of cause of an ocurrance. This, due to the unwillingness or inability to trace the cause of the occurance back to the root.
But as you seemed to point out, we can go back and back and back and back - until time began. Everything happening today is a result of the arangement of things 10,100, 10000 years ago. Had things been different then, then the person wouldn't have got knocked down at the junction today. A kind of determinism if you like...but one in which our own free will can be expressed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by robinrohan, posted 12-07-2005 4:27 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by robinrohan, posted 12-08-2005 10:12 AM iano 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