|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Free will vs Omniscience | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Wanting to be left alone is not the same as preferring that there was no God. I also want you gun-toting Americans to leave me alone. That doesn't mean I'd prefer that you didn't exist. I just want you to keep your violence away from me.
This whole idea of "wanting to be left alone" seems to me to be a common theme among the two categories that Theodoric brought up. Phat writes:
It isn't my idea. I'm just going by your description.
Seems you have this irrational idea that even if god existed he would likely be mean and demanding...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Why? If there was intelligent life in the universe even slightly more advanced that us, would you think they could determine our interests better than we can ourselves? They'd be more likely to exterminate us like Indians and take our resources.
To assume that you have more wisdom at running your own life than a Creator of all seen and unseen...however....is hubris at best. Phat writes:
I just consider not being eternally incinerated "better". Call me crazy.
What makes you think that humans can get along better without GOD?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Incinerates us, floods us, lets us be enslaved by the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Romans, and on and on. You seem to be snipping out a lot of the Bible to determine the "whole" point.
The whole point of the Bible story is not that of a GOD who incinerates us.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Floods, slavery, etc. are NOT the natural consequences of disobedience, idolatry, etc. They are artificial consequences imposed by your God, according to your Bible. In each of the examples you mention, the people brought it upon themselves. They were either disobedient, worshiping idols, or flat out evil. You wouldn't make such a silly argument to defend anybody but God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
In the Bible, God's Chosen people were enslaved because God actively chose not to protect them. You can teach your child a lesson by letting him burn his fingers on a hot stove, and you can call that a "natural" consequence of his own decision if you like. You can also call it negligence.
slavery is a natural consequence of idolatry... Phat writes:
The problem is the discrepancies between the character in the book and the "buddy" in your heart and mind. Who would want the character in the book as a buddy? You cherry-pick the parts of the book that you like and ignore the rest. It's like having a relationship with Long John Silver in my heart and mind because he was a jovial storyteller - but ignoring the fact that he was also a bloodthirsty pirate.
One problem in these types of debates is in reference to god as simply a character in a book rather than an actual relationship in the mind and heart.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
Can you introduce me to Long John Silver so I can get to know him outside the book?
It is my belief that you can only understand the character in the book through knowing the character outside of the book first. Phat writes:
And people embrace God based on the book yet don't even know the book.
People indict God based on the book yet don't even know God. Phat writes:
What of the Buddhists and Hindus and Muslims who have read other books and claim to have "met" other gods? ... what of people who have claimed to have met "Him" who have yet never read the book? I have no problem with your belief in God - but either it's based on the Bible or it isn't. You can't just cherry-pick parts of the Bible that you like and expect people to take your picks seriously.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Omniscience and omnipotence are made-up qualities, like Rumpelstiltskin's ability to spin straw into gold. It has no connection with reality.
How could GOD conceivably not have foreknowledge?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
I AM hypothesising with you when I point out that your hypothesis makes no sense. In fact, it isn't even a real hypothesis at all since you resolutely refuse to test it.
I wish you would hypothesize with me now and then.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
I wouldn't necessarily say that. I'd say that jar's viewpoint has helped me to express mine more clearly.
jar is, of course, the one at EvC responsible for your enlightened thinking. Phat writes:
So why don't you have any argument against it, other than that you don't like it?
... I don't like his interpretation of Christianity. The whole Matthew 25 we are responsible schtick, because people don't even have to believe anything anymore. they simply have to do unto the least. Phat writes:
I think He was a fictional character, probably based on an amalgamation of itinerant preachers, much like Elmer Gantry.
What was He? Phat writes:
It's obviously figurative. "The word became flesh" ought to be a clue to that. It would be hard to tell everything the author(s) meant by it without a thorough study - and I haven't done that. It seems safe to say though that Jesus wasn't literally a word.
ringo writes:
So tell me what you think it means. I'd start by saying that "in the beginning was the word" has nothing to do with Jesus. Phat writes:
Yes. So for you God is an unnecessary fiction in our minds and you feel it worthwhile to challenge religious minds with secular common sense. Incidentally, is "secular common sense" different from any other kind of common sense?
Phat writes:
There's no easy answer to that. It would require a line-by-line study and I don't feel much inclined to do that. It might be more productive for you to try to understand whether the doctrines you have been spoon-fed make any sense.
So in your opinion, what does the author of john mean? Phat writes:
Those commentators have an axe to grind. I don't. But I couldn't care less what you accept. I'd rather have you figure it out for yourself.
And why should I accept your definition when over 75% of the commentators, (yes, they have read the Bible, jar ) explain it differently? Phat writes:
If there was a God, we wouldn't have to replace Him. As it is, he isn't feeding the hungry, etc. so we have no choice but to do it ourselves.
Some of us want to replace God with ourselves Phat writes:
Where's the ambiguity?
ringo writes:
What do you mean by chance? I have issues with that word.... How can you learn anything if you don't get a chance to change your behaviour?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
No. I really don't.
You have to give the concept of Belief more credit. Phat writes:
As I said, we don't need negative evidence. All we need is lack of positive evidence.
... I would argue that no solid case as been made falsifying the belief. Phat writes:
I have no axe to grind. Almost everybody I know is religious. My life would be a lot easier if I believed the nonsense that you believe.
I would also again ask why you keep grinding this axe that you claim not to be grinding. Phat writes:
No. I don't.
What you need to do is to consider belief as a viable option. Phat writes:
No, Christ is not the point. The message is the point. And you're the one who throws out the parts of the message that you don't like.
What is frustrating is that you took the trademark---one message among many---and threw out other messages plus the whole point of the stories in general...which is Christ. Phat writes:
Of course I am. The messenger is not the message. The map is not the territory. Or are you going to challenge the assumption that Jesus Christ is the central message of the NT?And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
... what is the central message of the NT?quote:Old Testament too. Phat writes:
See above.
Can what is written support your assertion... Phat writes:
The question is: Why is Matthew 25 so behated by you? ...apart from your beloved Matthew 25?And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
No. They probably would call themselves "fundamentalists" but they're not as crazy as American fundamentalists.
Out of curiosity, do you ever argue(or discuss these things) with them? Phat writes:
They're not very different from me, except that they talk matter-of-factly about Jesus being real - and I try not to laugh too overtly.
Also...do you respect any of them for what they do apart from their religion? Phat writes:
Hard to say. Would you honestly think they would be better off without the religion?And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
You don't want to see Christians as goats. You don't want to give up your exclusive get-out-of-hell-free club. ...though I don't see the Goats as being Christians nor do I see the message suggesting global inclusivism.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Why? I could argue that you want a right to be left alone and get to smoke in your own house should you want to. That's a bad thing.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Smoking might shorten my life. A lot of things might shorten my life. Why should somebody else get to pick and choose which ones I can do? Because smoking shortens your life.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024