Morality without god

It's even worse than that.According to the Exodus story, God is perfectly happy to directly interfere with the Pharaoh's free will when He wants a pretext to send a disaster. How, then can we say that doing more to prevent disasters or protect people in disasters is an unacceptable restriction on free will?

quote:

---

For your conclusion to make any sense at all, you would have to demonstrate beyond any doubt that God interfered with P's free will at all. This I am confident you or no one could possibly do.

---

According to the Bible, God says that he did.

quote:

---

Influencing a decision in one direction or the other, is not the same as interfering with free will. Since free will by its simple nature and make up is, making a choice in one direction or the other.

---

I would say that altering someone's mind to force a particular position qualifies.But I am glad to see that even you can see that the Free Will defence is nonsense. If directly influencing a decision by ordinary persuasion does not count then saving people from earthquakes or even preventing would-be evil doers from succeeding surely does not either.

quote:

---

Saying something doesnt make it an actual argument. Even if a particular position is chosen, it still just that , chosen. This should indicate to you that while he made a choice, he still had the mental capacity to make it in the other direction, forced or otherwise.

---

You're going to have to give a reason why it isn't qualify especially as it is clear that the Pharaoh was unable to choose otherwise. That's the point of it. And forced decisions are NOT considered free will.

quote:

---

You see thats the problem you are having, free will is a logical proposition independant of our choices. Choices are the result of exercising free will. Free will is the mental ability to choose, reguardless of the actual choice we make

---

You understand neither free will nor logic. Coerced choices are not accepted as freely willed, and I see no reason why mental tampering to force a decision should not be considered a violation of free will.

quote:

---

He did not interfer with Pharoahs free will, nor does he ours. What you are prescribing is nearly a logical impossibility

---

Then according to your view the Free Will theodicy ix complete nonsense.

quote:

---

I dont think you actually understand how debating works. Heres how. When I present you with an argument, you then respond to the specifications of the argument, to show why it is not valid.

---

You haven't presented an argument. You made an assertion - and I pointed out why it was not true.

quote:

---

I have explained to you twice now, that the choice is not what constitutes free will. That is the result of exercising free will.

---

And you're wrong. Free will has to be FREE. And coercion negates freedom. According to the Bible God tampered with the Pharaoh's mind to force him to decide a particular way. That constitutes coercion, and therefore interferes with free will.

quote:

---

There was no mental tampering. Had, what you accuse actually happen, then Pharoahs thinking ability would have been eradicated altogether.

---

In debate you're meant to respond to my actual position, not one you've made up.

quote:

---

Again, you are mixing up oranges with apples. It is a logical contradiction to claim mental tampering, where a person is still in control of thier faculties

​

Pharoah mentality was not tampered with.

---

The Bible disagrees.

quote:

---

Until you can show that free will is NOT that that I have described, you will be unable to proceed any further in your assertion that God forced P to do anything

---

You can disagree with the Bible all you like, but it still says what it says.

quote:

---

Again there is no such thing as a "forced decision", since there is as much possibility to choose even under duress, in the opposite direction

---

It would seem that the law disagrees

quote:

---

The only way to force decisions, is to take away the thinking process

---

Interfering with the mind to guarantee that a particular outcome occurs would seem to work equally well. The decision is forced in that no other is possible. That is the whole point of the interference.

quote:

---

Once again a lesson in the use of reality is necessary. Terms do not dicate reality, reality dicates the use of terms. Free will is a term that helps us humans understand the reality of what we call free will

---

Looks like you're the one who needs a lesson in reality. The meaning of terms is dictated by human consensus. Which means that you don't get to invent your own meaning and pass it off as reality.

quote:

---

The reality is, that a simple biological process is happening called the decision making process. I have now demonstrated by example and illustration (none of which have you attempted to address) that it is possible to make a counter decision, whether under duress or any other circumstance, unless the complete mental process is taken away.

---

Even if you have, you haven't given any reason to consider it free will if that process is under the control of another or even if coercion is applied.

quote:

---

It should be clear, even to the simple observer like yourself, that if examples in both directions, can be given, where two choices can be made in the opposite direction, of the same circumstance, that the things you claim are not true. Now watch, pay very close attention. Pharoah made two different choices under the same circumstance.

---

You mean that you can show a case where Pharaoh agreed to let the Israelites go even when God had "hardened his heart?" to make him do otherwise ? Then go on.

quote:

---

Pharoah could have easily stuck to his decision tonot let them go, even after the 10th plauge. Now watch pay close attention. According to the story, he did change his mind again and pursued the Iraelites. He changed his mind, exercised his free will all in the same conditions and circumstances

---

Nobody is claiming that Pharaoh lacked free will when God's influence was NOT applied to control his decision (except, maybe, for those people who hold that God giving evidence of his existence would violate our free will). So your "example" is merely proof of your inability to think logically.

quote:

---

Actually dealing with the illustrations and examples I provided you, would be considered debating. Skipping over them and pretending they dont have application is not objective

---

Then I guess that I'm debating and you aren't

quote:

---

Is your intimation that everybody else is allowed to speak metaphorically, but the bible's writers are not? Jesus said, "I have not come to bring peace but a sword". Are we to believe jesus was not a peaceful man and that he carried a sharp metal object stabbing people with it. Or is Jesus using metaphor to demonstrate another point. Point, No pun intended?

---

On the contrary, I say that it is a metaphor. Obviously God did not literally make Pharoah's physical heart, physically harder. If you wish to claim that the metaphor has another meaning it is for you to supply a meaning that makes sense in context. As anybody can see, you have not done so.

quote:

---

Unfortunately, the law at times like terms themself, dont get to the heart of the matter. It takes skilled thinkers to bring things into thier actual perspective. I dont disagee with the dictionary definitions that you provided, only that they reflect a human understanding and perception, that is lacking an actual perspective from reality. The dictionary difinitons are legal difinitons not logical applications

---

Being an arrogant and boastful twit does not permit you to dictate definitions. As you have demonstrated you are far from being logical or a "skilled thinker". Definitions are a matter of consensus, and therefore actual usage in real life overrides your personal opinions, no matter how much you try to glorify them.

quote:

---

Since I have demonstrated by the example of Pharoah, illustrations and other examples in life why this is not possible, possibly you could provide an example of what you are asserting. Its for sure that repeating this is not helping your cause.

---

No, I'm not going to abandon my point just because you can't rationally argue against it.

quote:

---

Perhaps you could provide an example of interference, where chemical alteration, mental alterations or removal of the thinking process is not involved, where a person still does not have the choice to amke a decision in the opposite direction.

---

So by your "logic" the ability to freely make choices in the absence of mental alterations etc. would "prove" the ability to freely make choices even when mental alterations had been made to force a particular outcome ? That IS the situation we are discussing.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Wow amazing. My friend long before "human consesus" determemend the meaning of terms, reality is way ahead of it

---

So in your worldview the English language is fundamental reality, existing before anyone spoke it. Err, no. It isn't. It's no different from any other language. Words are essentially arbitrary, given meaning only by consensus.

quote:

---

If you feel that I am inventing my own meanings, the pray tell please show how me demonstrating that reality gives us our meanings is invalid. You know Paul, its that thing called critical examination and actually responding to someones argument.

---

In real debate I am not required to agree with any assertion you make, no matter how absurd. You are NOT making any such demonstration you are simply claiming that your preferred definitions are reality.

quote:

---

I have, because coercion cant have enough of an effect on actual choice, because, it is not a DIRECT part of the other persons choice making process. Logically it can only act as an influence.

---

However it is accepted that coercion impinges enough on the freedom of the choice that it is not counted as freely willed. You see that's what the FREE part of "free will" is about.

quote:

---

As I have demonstrated by both sound argument, reason, example and illustration (not a single one of which you have delt with), it is not logically possible for anyone to interfer with my mental process of choice.

---

There you go denying reality again

quote:

---

You would have to show how it is both biologically and rationally possible to be "under the control of another" before just assuming that this is possible. Assuming that God was tampering with Pharoas mind, when most if not all of the text indicates other wise, doesnt help your cause.

---

And again.

quote:

---

You mean that you can show a case where Pharaoh agreed to let the Israelites go even when God had "hardened his heart?" to make him do otherwise ? Then go on.

​

Sure not a problem. Its called the majority of the story. Look very closely at these passages Exodus, 7:4, 13, 14, 16, and 22. Exodus 8:9-10, 15, 19, 25, 28, 32. Exodus 9:2, 7, 12, 17, 21, 27, 34-35. 10:3-4, 10, 11, 16, 17, 20 24. Exodus 11:1, 9. 12:31-32. !4:5

---

Well let's look at them.Exodus, 7:4, 13, 14, 16, and 22: Pharaoh does NOT decide to let the Israelites go in ANY of these verses.Exodus 8:9-10, Pharaoh says that he';l let the Israelites go, but there's no claim that God had hardened his heart on that occasion8:15, 19, 25, 28, 32. No actual letting go in here (excepting that the Israelites are allowed to go and sacrifice, but for that, too there's no indication that God hardened the Pharaoh's heart)If the majority of the story has the Pharoah successfully resisting God's hardening of his heart, then it's a bit odd that you are quoting so many verses where that doesn't happen.Exodus 9, 10, 11 still no examples.Well I guess there's nothing more to say. You can't answer my arguments at all.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Let's just cut this short.First "Free Will" is a term in the English language and it's meaning is governed by usage and no other reality. And usage clearly makes a distinction between freely willed and coerced decisions as I have shown.Second, referring to points in the text where God apparently did not apply mind control does NOT change the fact that at other places He does. No person with any sense would even consider that it could be any other way.These two points refute all your arguments.

From the page you linked: Looks like they were basically in agreement with Catholic doctrine.

quote:

---

Of GREGORY'S time. If that is "Pope Gregory the Great" this was before the RCC even existed as such, and although the RCC has since bestowed the title of Pope on him, he was not called Pope at the time and in fact he repudiated being called "Universal Bishop" saying anyone accepting that title would be the forerunner of Antichrist.

---

I don't think that the title "Pope" is an important doctrinal issue in itself. If that's the only point of agreement that you can find, then I think we can regard your claim as unfounded.

quote:

---

The Irish church was independent of Rome in those years both literally and doctrinally.

---

More accurately it had been founded by the Roman church and left alone for a while. The doctrines either came from Rome, or were home-grown. And the home-grown doctrines don't seem to be ones that you particularly agree with.

Your own source, Philip Schaff, identifies Patrick as Prospers Palladius appointed by Rome as Bishop over the Irish church! Hardly someone who had "nothing to do with Rome"And if you don't know the doctrines of the Celtic church, how can you know that they would have agreed with them? Why should they be any more to your liking than those of the Orthodox Church ? There's no reason, for instance, to imagine that the Celtic church would have endorsed sola scriptura.

quote:

---

Anything the RCC says about Patrick is suspect.

---

Last I heard, Schaff was not the RCC. And you are the one who chose to reference his work.As for the rest, your pride and hate don't make you right. Schaff was definitely a Protestant, for one.