A Way to Think About Free Will and God: Open Theism

tangle writes: We are the holders of the truth, the one truth, the defenders of the faith.

We have yet to arrive at a consensus of any one truth, but through discussions, we are ostensibly trying.

I am currently leaning towards the theory(belief) that humans do in fact make up their interpretations and understandings of a universal truth. My belief, of course, is that such a truth does exist and that there is but One God--One source. To be an atheist, in contrast, is to support relativism where truth is unique to each and every individual. I disagree with Faith because she never explains her own personal relationship and understanding of God but rather casts her lot in with apologists past and present who have formulated and agreed to abide by a universal doctrine. Why should I assume that John Calvin knows anything more than what any modern scholar with a heart for truth would know? To simply fall back on the belief that the Bible is the one source for universal Truth is, in my opinion,a decision that is risky. Too much evidence against inerrancy. A Belief in One all-knowing Creator with a perfect desire and plan for humanity is more logical. Thus, I won't fall back on the position that the Bible is a word for word truth and reality. I will, however, assert that the authors were seeking such a goal but that a consensus throughout time is hard to achieve. If God exists, God exists period. If not, then no. I refuse to concede this argument....there is not enough intelligence that convinces me to reject the idea and belief. In contrast, my personal experience confirms the need for this belief as well as the possibility that it is true.

Phat writes: I am currently leaning towards the theory(belief) that humans do in fact make up their interpretations and understandings of a universal truth. My belief, of course, is that such a truth does exist and that there is but One God

Well that's progress of sorts. It's fashionable to dump the stuff that makes their religion what it is yet still maintain a belief in a belief. It allows the emasculated belief to continue.

To be an atheist, in contrast, is to support relativism where truth is unique to each and every individual

Over and over you tell me/us what atheism is and over and over we tell you that you're wrong. I wonder why you do that? Is it so you can maintain a belief that's fading away into wishy-washy, cultural nothingness?

Not once have I said to myself that truth is unique to an individual. The simple reason being that it would be a really, really stupid thing to say. 'Hey Charlie, how's gravity for you today?'

Why should I assume that John Calvin knows anything more than what any modern scholar with a heart for truth would know? To simply fall back on the belief that the Bible is the one source for universal Truth is, in my opinion,a decision that is risky. Too much evidence against inerrancy.

Yup

A Belief in One all-knowing Creator with a perfect desire and plan for humanity is more logical.

Nope.

That's not logical, nor does it coincide with the evidence unless this God is a needy psychopath inflicting needless pain and suffering on all his creation all the time, but it does have the advantage of not being easily proven wrong like the other stuff.

If God exists, God exists period. If not, then no.

Er...yes, can't argue with that.

I refuse to concede this argument....there is not enough intelligence that convinces me to reject the idea and belief. In contrast, my personal experience confirms the need for this belief as well as the possibility that it is true.

Your need to believe is obvious.

tangle writes: Over and over you tell me/us what atheism is and over and over we tell you that you're wrong. I wonder why you do that? Is it so you can maintain a belief that's fading away into wishy-washy, cultural nothingness? Not once have I said to myself that truth is unique to an individual.

Note that you say *we*. What your group of "we" do is to follow the evidence. I fail to see any consensus in your worldviews apart from that. You are all a group of individuals with varied beliefs and worldviews.

Your need to believe is obvious.

As is your need for evidence. You have a faulty argument concerning God, however. The problem is that you follow the evidence from books and manuscripts describing such a critter rather than imagining a God above such petty human defects. Of course, you won't even allow yourself to make one up. You prefer evidence...I get that. And you obviously don't need belief.

Phat writes: Note that you say *we*. What your group of "we" do is to follow the evidence.

Even that's not true. Most atheists I know never think about their non-belief at all. It's a non-belief. Like you don't think about Vishna and all its trappings. You have to put yourself in a society where belief is not a thing. Tricky for you I know but try it. If the majority of people are defacto atheists what you get is the entire cross section of people, warts and all, with all their foibles, failings and fables. Some will be rationalists following evidence some will be artists away with the fairies. How they think and act has got nothing whatsoever to do with not believing in a god.

I fail to see any consensus in your worldviews apart from that.

Well done. But I can guarantee that very, very few of them go around talking mystical twaddle like that. “To be an atheist, in contrast, is to support relativism where truth is unique to each and every individual” That's your superimposition of your own thoughts onto theirs.

It's your very own belief telling you that atheism is the equal and opposite of your own. It's nothing of the kind.

As is your need for evidence.

Sure is. All other methods fail.

You have a faulty argument concerning God, however. The problem is that you follow the evidence from books and manuscripts describing such a critter rather than imagining a God above such petty human defects.

Uh? As non-sequiturs go, that was a blinder.

Of course, you won't even allow yourself to make one up.

but, but but but......why on earth would I? What is the point of making stuff up that you know to be made up? What would I do with my made up god? Get on my knees and worship it? That's bonkers.

Phat writes: How about attempting to understand Him?

Believers are the first ones to tell us we can't understand Him - mysterious ways and all that.

Phat writes: And thus they have no business commenting on this topic if they can't accept the hypothetical.

It seems to be more about forcing them to accept YOUR hypothetical and not allowing any questions about it.

Phat writes: So your argument has to be that belief is not rational.

Of course it isn't. Why are you guys so sensitive about being irrational? My choice of ice cream isn't rational; I don't feel any need to pretend that it is.

Phat writes: Is the hypothetical God with omniscience and foreknowledge rational?

Back to your first question. His "mysterious ways" are not rational by our standards. That's why you use the mysterious ways copout in the first place.

Phat writes: Would an open theistic God be any better?

It seems to me that open theism is just a new name for the same old copout.

ringo writes: Believers are the first ones to tell us...

OK WHO is "us"? Lets be specific. And if in fact non believers have a different thought process than believers, how does it matter?

I would argue that at best, you know no more than we do. You hang your hat on evidence but would be flying in the dark if there were no evidence...since your preassumptions serve as your radar.

Phat writes: OK WHO is "us"? Lets be specific. And if in fact non believers have a different thought process than believers, how does it matter?

It has nothing to do with different thought processes. Believers tell EVERYBODY that God works in mysterious ways. That's their excuse for anything they can't explain - i.e. anything that doesn't make sense.

Phat writes: I would argue that at best, you know no more than we do.

Again, it has nothing to do with who knows more. I'm talking about what believers think they know and the excuses they make for not knowing.

Phat writes: You hang your hat on evidence but would be flying in the dark if there were no evidence...since your preassumptions serve as your radar.

For science-minded people, assumptions are based on evidence. Real knowledge is a web of inter-connected strands, each of which can be traced back to evidence. It is not an Indian rope trick.

You hang your hat on evidence..

Aside from God what else do you accept the external existence of (I.e as existing outside of your own mind) either based on no evidence or based on subjective feelings etc?

Is there anything else or is it God alone?

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Uh, cuz normally an author is trying to convey something in particular and we call that the orthodox understanding, so other interpretations are false and we call those heresies. We are the holders of the truth, the one truth, the defenders of the faith. Heretics shall be burnt at the stake lest their infidel ideas pollute the minds of our children. Thus we have spoken. And that, my dearly beloved, is how bad stuff happens.

1. Kinda sorta like creationism is a heresy according to the ToE?

2. There must be hundreds of "Christian" heresies in the world at the moment, possibly at least half of them in evidence on EvC. Where's the "bad stuff?"

3. Perhaps you are thinking of Roman Catholicism for "bad stuff" such as murdering heretics? That's just one of the many reasons the papal institution is not Christian (which doesn't mean individual Catholics aren't.)

Faith writes: Kinda sorta like creationism is a heresy according to the ToE?

No, not like that. There are hundreds of thousands of scientists that believe in creation and also accept the ToE. They are not incompatible at all. After all this time, you still don't understand the ToE.

There must be hundreds of "Christian" heresies in the world at the moment, possibly at least half of them in evidence on EvC. Where's the "bad stuff?"

We've overcome most of them, thankfully. You'd have them back though if we allowed it.

Perhaps you are thinking of Roman Catholicism for "bad stuff" such as murdering heretics?

You bet. But also several other religions that do despiccable things even now for religious reasons - like throwing homosexuals off tall buildings and murdering people for invented blasphemies

That's just one of the many reasons the papal institution is not Christian (which doesn't mean individual Catholics aren't.)

Your un-Christian prejudice is showing again.

Tangle writes: Faith writes: Kinda sorta like creationism is a heresy according to the ToE? No, not like that. There are hundreds of thousands of scientists that believe in creation and also accept the ToE. They are not incompatible at all.

Correction: For creationism read YEC.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith writes: Correction: For creationism read YEC.

And for YEC read loonytunes.

Or heresy, which was my original point.

There must be hundreds of "Christian" heresies in the world at the moment, possibly at least half of them in evidence on EvC. Where's the "bad stuff?" We've overcome most of them, thankfully. You'd have them back though if we allowed it.

What on earth are you talking about? You seem to be majoring in non sequiturs.

You'd said a lot of "bad stuff" can be found in Christianity because we dare to identify the true doctrine against the heretical? I pointed to the RC Church as the only source of "bad stuff" against "heretics" I'm aware of (heretics according to them anyway, though in reality they murdered millions of true Christians along with all sorts of others). I mentioned that there are lots of other heresies that don't do "bad stuff" and continue to go on being heretical even at EvC. But you've "overcome" them? Huh? I'd "have them back if I could?" Huh?

Perhaps you are thinking of Roman Catholicism for "bad stuff" such as murdering heretics? You bet. But also several other religions that do despiccable things even now for religious reasons - like throwing homosexuals off tall buildings and murdering people for invented blasphemies

I thought we were talking about Christian heresies. How did Islam get in here?

That's just one of the many reasons the papal institution is not Christian (which doesn't mean individual Catholics aren't.) Your un-Christian prejudice is showing again.

You mean my prejudice against Antichrist.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith writes: You'd said a lot of "bad stuff" can be found in Christianity because we dare to identify the true doctrine against the heretical?

I say a lot of bad stuff happens when religious fundamentalists get their own way and start declaring others as heretics.

I pointed to the RC Church as the only source of "bad stuff" against "heretics" I'm aware of (heretics according to them anyway, though in reality they murdered millions of true Christians along with all sorts of others). I mentioned that there are lots of other heresies that don't do "bad stuff" and continue to go on being heretical even at EvC. But you've "overcome" them? Huh? I'd "have them back if I could?" Huh?

Heretic thought and subsequent action is not confined to Catholics or Christianity.

I thought we were talking about Christian heresies. How did Islam get in here?

YOU may be talking about Christian heresy, because you're obsessed by your little world. I'M talking about fundamentalists generally who want to impose their doctrine on everyboady at all costs. The result is what happened with so called 'Christians' in the middle-ages and what's happening now in the Middle East.

But no doubt, if you and your like-minded believers got your way, it would result in a lot of very 'bad things, happening to people who disagree with you. You cry heresy all day long and expect something to be done about it.