|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Free will vs Omniscience | |||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Phat writes:
Rats. Thanks. Notice the date of his post, GDR. jar has not yet returned.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
ringo writes: OK, lets think about that. Lets say there was no hell. Never. Lets also assume that there was the hypothetical rebellion in Heaven. Some of the angels began to agree with one specific angel who wanted to do things his own way. This angel was allegedly jealous that God had creatures who freely loved Him. The angel evidently wanted in on some of that action. Whatever. The point is, what type of a place would such a heaven be like? It would be like anarchy at work, where some folks decided they didn't want to work as a team and sought to make their own hours and rules. Arguably God had to make hell as a place for the rebellious workers to freely express themselves because he didn't want them mucking up Heaven.
Our free will depends on what God will do to us if we don't do HIS will. It doesn't matter whether He knows beforehand what we're going to do. Whatever we "choose", He does HIS will.That isn't free will for us. Heaven or Hell is not a reasonable choice. ringo writes: Same thing. Whats so bad about a Heaven where a rebellious angel is given his own abode so as not to disrupt the flow?
What's so bad about a world in which a man who is about to do a mass shooting is struck by lightning? I could live with a God who exerted that kind of useful control.ringo writes:
... to you, free will means having compleeeeeeete freedom to choose milk chocolate or dark chocolate or white chocolate - and you ignore the threat that you'll be tortured eternally for choosing vanilla.phat writes:
Perhaps choosing vanilla has unforeseen consequences down the road...ringo writes: Then let the consequences fall where they may - but we don't need a God to impose additional arbitrary consequences of His own. Let's say that swimming in shark-infested waters was dangerous. lets also say that you wanted the right to swim wherever you wanted, blaming God for the sharks. If God tells you that if you swim there you will die, that itself is not an arbitrary standard. The chips will fall, the sharks will eat, and you will be fish food. You may not have chosen it, but by not listening to God, you experienced that judgement by default. So is God responsible for the sharks? It seems to me you would want a right to challenge God, rebel, and not get judged or punished for it in any way.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
No. Let's not. I'm not interested in conclusions drawn from made-up assumptions. Let's stick to reality.
Lets say there was no hell. Never. Lets also assume that there was the hypothetical rebellion in Heaven. Phat writes:
Seriously, don't you see how stupid that sounds? God is such a weakling that He doesn't even rule in Heaven? Come on. Stop wasting my time with that tripe. The point is, what type of a place would such a heaven be like? It would be like anarchy at work, where some folks decided they didn't want to work as a team and sought to make their own hours and rules.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Im going off of your assumptions that hell makes no sense.
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
My "assumption" is a conclusion based on your ideas about hell. The puny "god" that you describe makes no sense. Im going off of your assumptions that hell makes no sense.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
No punier than a God who needs correction from humans. And which you and jar claim is Biblical.
Why have not the apologists mentioned this anomaly in the stories? Oh, that's right...you think they are all in cahoots to sell snake oil.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Just for the record Phat, do you actually believe all this stuff about angels in heaven rebelling and god not being able to stop the devil and so on?
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
It is in the Bible. Do you seriously dispute that?
No punier than a God who needs correction from humans. And which you and jar claim is Biblical. Phat writes:
Why don't bank robbers get real jobs? That's not their agenda.
Why have not the apologists mentioned this anomaly in the stories? Phat writes:
If you have apologetics to defend the lies that apologists tell, why don't you explain?
Oh, that's right...you think they are all in cahoots to sell snake oil. quote: quote: And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
First, let's take your link to Propaganda:
quote:Are you saying that objective information by definition will likely not defend a belief? This irritates me because you have reframed the issue making objectivity the default value. 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. Second, though while you are a clever debater, you seemingly use a tactic of switching back and forth from neutral objectivity to quoting the Bible when it suits you.For instance, you will claim that Jesus told us to do it or ask Jesus. Then, later on in our ongoing discussions, you will claim that Jesus may not have even existed and that God is fiction. Don't you realize how hard on the head this flip flop becomes? Its almost as if you are more concerned with simply winning a debate than you are for persuading me that your argument is sound. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
tangle writes: I question it often. There are a lot of things about my faith that I question.
Just for the record Phat, do you actually believe all this stuff about angels in heaven rebelling and god not being able to stop the devil and so on? It is not wise because I believe that my faith must be tested to be proven genuine. Now...did God tell me to believe this? *thinks about it*... No, in my opinion, God expects me to question anything I dont understand. Granted without faith it is impossible to please God. (Thats the message) A double minded mind is unstable. We all have questions and doubts, and we all tend to stick with what we have chosen to believe. Lets take what I see to be your argument.
Tangle writes: 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. I'm using heaven as an example of a godly creation that doesn't involve evil and suffering. Apparently it's perfectly possible. I'll grant that our understanding is limited by our fallibilities. 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.
tangle writes: In other words, you describe God as a belief concept based entirely on what you would consider a set of rational characteristics. Granted this makes sense. One would not feel comfortable believing in a God Who could and would allow pain and suffering. It is what it is because life here evolved that way - competition between species, carnivorousness, pain and suffering all makes perfect sense. But no loving god would ever create such a thing and nor is it the only creation possible. I can see your point of view better than you may think. You have simply dismissed any idea of anything unevidenced by science and rationality. And I can appreciate this world view. Why not focus on evidence? Why not go fishing and live life without worrying about philosophical hypotheticals waiting to pounce? For the sake of my mental health and stability, I would be wise to consider doing the same thing. 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.
tangle writes: Seems like a loaded question, doesn't it! If I embrace and accept my free will, I somehow must either deal with an imperfect God or renounce my belief. I said that the existence of free will demonstrates that god is evil or reckless or, in fact, not god. God can and does stop the devil. The devil is in the details. The devil resides in our philosophy. It would be wise for all of us to pay attention to how we think and why we think as we do. It also does not hurt to speculate how we would or should respond whenever various wrenches are thrown into the mix. This sort of thinking also works with those who have no beliefs at all.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
ringo writes: Some of us claim to know. It is your job to request that we prove it.
We all know that our grandfathers existed, whether they were good or bad. We do NOT know whether or not God exists. It is reasonable to deny his existence, given the total lack of evidence that he does exist. Also, given the way he is described by his devotees, it is reasonable to reject him.
ringo writes: Perhaps that is why you have such low regard for belief. Belief is an assumption. I have a higher regard for my belief than I have for the need for evidence. One need not prove the obvious to me. I'm not interested in conclusions drawn from made-up assumptions. Let's stick to reality.
You will then ask how my definition of obvious seems diametrically the opposite of yours. You then will likely question my methodology of defining my belief as an obvious assumption. I would also ask why you are the opposite---why you conclude the way that you conclude. *flips through the record*...Ah...you will again repeat that the message has value and the existence or nonexistence of messengers is secondary in importance or relevance. To me that is obvious. It is not as obvious as to why it was easier for you to deny that God exists the way most apologists insist He does. I get that you value belief as a low priority. I conclude that you simply accepted the evidence you found. I have found much of that same evidence and have rejected it. The decision is a choice that should not be backed by evidence pro or con. Now lets go give out spare change...its gonna snow tonite. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
I conclude that you simply accepted the evidence you found. I have found much of that same evidence and have rejected it. The decision is a choice that should not be backed by evidence pro or con. We're in deep doo-doo because so many people make their choices based on emotional gut feel instead of on knowledge. The species is doomed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
I respect knowledge when it is conclusive. Much of the knowledge that counter-apologists get is gathered from the source notes of their fellows: Sam Harris, Jeffrey Jay Lowder, Richard Dawkins, Richard Carrier, and Christopher Hitchens...et al.
(also the logical fallacies arguments) This information is presented as factual but is not yet conclusive in my mind. I have seen other information which many apologists have used. It too is not as of yet conclusive in my mind. In summation, there is no solid conclusion as to the question of whether or not the books of the Bible are reliable as evidence or not. I would argue that a fair number of the detractors also are motivated by emotional gut feel. For whatever reason, they have concluded that religious indoctrination is harmful and fake. Like many apologists, they seek confirmation through the internet, books, and like-minded people. Not everyone is this way. Some of you...too few...are open to information from wither side. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
In summation, there is no solid conclusion as to the question of whether or not the books of the Bible are reliable as evidence or not. 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. If some must insist and faith is the only reason to conclude god then we must also conclude tooth fairy, leprechauns and Her Most Divineliness The Invisible Pink Unicorn (May She Always Have A Full Bag Of Feed) as well and that's just plain crazy. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
That IS just plain crazy.
The quality of the testimony in the Bible is excellent evidence for its veracity, unlike that of all the other stuff you claim is equivalent. I don't know why you guys are so stupid about these things or think we are, or that all of us are. Some people argue from feelings but I don't and most I know don't. The quality of the Bible deserves the belief it asks of us and the more time we spend getting to know it the firmer becomes our basis for believing it. If you don't see it, that's your own inability to judge literature accurately. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024