|
|
I was going to write a longer reply but I thought it best to keep things "simple" (haha) as you seem to often overlook the arguments I want you to deal with, concentrate on the irrelevancies and instead just repeat the same tired rhetoric.
Also, I'm no fool. I understand that you think your arguments make sense, otherwise you wouldn't use them. I am also open to the possibility that they may make sense but that you haven't explained them well enough yet. If an argument seems incoherent then perhaps you haven't explained it well, notice I've been trying very hard to get you to explain it in a different manner but you refuse to for some reason. I'm not one to toot my own horn, I would if I could - but I think we both know that I'm probably capable of understanding the explanation if there was one. Unless of course the explanation only makes sense to the elect, in which case this Christianity of yours is starting to sound a lot like a cult which only makes logical sense if you already believe...
So please, please respond to what I say, (it pains me to repeat this) and really respond. Take a sentence or an analogy and explain where it fails. I've made loads of analogies to help you understand and to try and point out the holes in your reasoning but you have never really tried to plug the gaps.
Compatibilism:
Don't tell me what compatibilism is. I know what it is. What I am disputing is that it makes any kind of sense. So far you've just explained what it is several times and abused the meaning of the word choice.
I am claiming that what you are calling a choice, or free will is in fact not free will. You can call a spade a bucket but it won't carry water. I try to call a spade a spade without abusing definitions.
Quote
Therefore voluntary choice is not the freedom to choose otherwise (as i explained before), that is, without any influence, prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition. Voluntary does mean, however, the ability to choose what we as humans want or desire most (which therefore, make us responsible for our actions). The former view (libertarian free will) is known as contrary choice, but what the Bible teaches is the latter, free agency.
So we have free agency which seems to be defined as the ability to do exactly as god planned us to do. The perfect analogy is actors in a play - assuming they do their job. The actors just play out the script and stage directions. Macbeth cannot choose not to murder the King. Please explain how we are any different from actors in the play god wrote?
If we are actors then how are we responsible for our actions? An actor has free agency to become an actor and play a role at least. We don't even have that choice. Imagine then that Shakespeare manages to program people to play out Macbeth in real life. Should the "actor" be responsible or the author?
Quote
So as "slaves" to our nature and circumstances, we are free moral agents to choose what is available to us. It is illogical to claim that the laws of the universe are unjust because a whale can't choose to walk on dry land - instead the whale is just as much a free agent in it's one available choice, that is, live and breath underwater.
So as it stands, God does not force us to choose; but we are liable to choose the option available to us, and that is part of God's predetermined plan.
I understand that we don't have the free will to do anything we want. We don't have the free will to fly or be a moth. If we are to be held accountable for not being able to fly or not being a moth then surely the person who created us and made us accountable should at least afford us the opportunity to be these things? The point is that we are being held accountable for not accepting the salvation offered to us and we have been designed so that we can do nothing but reject this salvation. I will say right now that if Christianity is true, I accept the free gift of salvation, everyone would accept it! The point is that I don't honestly believe in it, not by my own choice but because god predetermined this.
It is exactly the same as god creating an elephant and then sending the elephant to hell for eternity because it isn't a dolphin. What is the difference between god creating me to be an atheist and allowing me to go to hell eternally simply because I am an atheist?
"But god only does this in order to show his love to his elect" " What kind of judge would he be if he didn't punish the guilty who hadn't had their crimes paid for?" I anticipate your reply and this is why I talked about god being a slave to logic. My point was that you and I can imagine more loving ways god could have created the world. He could have pre-determined all of us to be his elect and then none of his creation would suffer eternally. There are two obvious answers to this problem:
1.God knows best and who are we to question his decision to send the majority of his creation to eternal torment
2.Your concept of god is flawed or he doesn't exist at all.
Now I assume you jump straight to 1 which is perfectly understandable but it's only a short term solution. In any case this is a follow up argument so don't pay too much attention to it until you have dealt with the main issues.
I shall not talk about anything else for now because I fear it would be too much to take in at once and distract you from the crux of the argument. Once again please deal with my genuine grievances, don't explain what Compatibilism is, explain why it works... Anyway, we shall see...
|
|
|
C.S Lewis:
"In the play Hamlet, Ophelia climbs out on a branch overhanging a river: the branch breaks, she falls and drowns. What would you reply if someone asked, ‘Did Ophelia die because Shakespeare for poetic reasons, wanted her to die at that moment - or because the branch broke?’ I think that one would have to say ‘For both reasons.’ Every event in the play happens as a result of other events in the play, but also every event happens because the poet wants it to happen. All the events in the play are Shakespearean events; similarly, all events in the real world are providential events… ‘Providence’ and natural causation are not alternatives; both determine every event. Both are one."
For me it is a natural conclusion, with your Macbeth analogy - Macbeth murders the king, both because his motives were prompted by his meeting with the Witches and because of his own power-hungry desire (so, it is predetermined by other aspects of the play) but at the same time Shakespeare is as you said, in control of the script.
So the characters (as opposed to actors) in the play cause their own events by their past actions, circumstances and motives - and i don't think anyone could deny this. But at the same time, it is Shakespeare's play, and whilst the free will of characters in the story is bound by the events that precede their own choice, Shakespeare is ultimately providential and the characters are subject to his will whilst in the play their will is independent.
So the human will is both independent and dependent on God's in the way that our actions and motives cause events, but dependent in that God is providentially in control of them.
However, if we want to talk about the sequence of cause and events, the concept of free will (as a present entity) is a logical fallacy. Since events predetermine future events (and the choices of the past dictate the choices of the future), it ulimately boils down to "what was the first choice that predetermined all other choices" - in the narrative of the Garden of Eden, the writer illustrates man's fundamental flaw, his first mistake that determined the rest of history if you will. Man was given a choice in the Garden to let God rule or rule himself - and man of his own accord, chose to rule himself (and this subsequently outlined the course of the future).
On one level, it is impossible for the Creator not to know the functions of his creation, so with God's decree to create humanity, the Fall of Man was subsequently permitted. So man's choice, was ultimately a consequence of God's creation - however, this simply predetermines our nature which in turn reflects on our choices.
My understanding is that our nature is predetermined but our choices are still free (not as in undetermined, but as in unforced albeit limited).
And regarding the definition of free will; say if someone had a slave and they chose to set this slave free, would the freed slave therefore be able to choose to be a slave or not be a slave (libertarian free will) or would the former slave just be under no compulsion from his master anymore (compatibilist free will). I think the latter is more logical because whilst it takes into account the predetermined causality of events, it admits that this will is executed by the will of an individual under no compulsion. The consequence of these events (in the executing of the will) are predetermined, but the individual is a moral agent because it makes a conscious choice with the counsel of it's circumstances and nature.
This makes sense to me on a logical level, I am not giving ground because compatibilism is necessary for my beliefs - i think compatibilism is complementary to Christian theology, and also it's tenents can be seen in it. But I think in all things (not specifically because I am "the elect") that Compatibilism is necessary - in the Judicial system, in Physics especially but in all sciences, in the Arts, as well as sport..hell, even in maths!
So Kashmir, while at the same time, the circumstances that have led to your atheism were predetermined essentially by God - you are still in a position to accept and believe on God and what he has done, and I can say to you truthfully that if you believe you will be saved. God has put you in this position..even led you to the Christian Musers forum. The command to "Repent and believe" is equally given to you as it is to Christians. But if you don't repent and believe, then it is obvious that your will doesn't desire to be saved making it compatible and therefore just with your predetermined ends. If someone truly didn't want to go to Hell, then they would fulfill the requirements for their acquittal - but as it stands, is there essentially any difference between wanting to go to Hell and refusing to believe it? You might say that there should be a third state for all those who don't believe in Hell's existence - but I know you wouldn't say that, because although you may not believe, have I not told you about it?
|
|
|
Quote
nat smythe :
C.S Lewis:
"In the play Hamlet, Ophelia climbs out on a branch overhanging a river: the branch breaks, she falls and drowns. What would you reply if someone asked, ‘Did Ophelia die because Shakespeare for poetic reasons, wanted her to die at that moment - or because the branch broke?’ I think that one would have to say ‘For both reasons.’ Every event in the play happens as a result of other events in the play, but also every event happens because the poet wants it to happen. All the events in the play are Shakespearean events; similarly, all events in the real world are providential events… ‘Providence’ and natural causation are not alternatives; both determine every event. Both are one."
For me it is a natural conclusion, with your Macbeth analogy - Macbeth murders the king, both because his motives were prompted by his meeting with the Witches and because of his own power-hungry desire (so, it is predetermined by other aspects of the play) but at the same time Shakespeare is as you said, in control of the script.
So the characters (as opposed to actors) in the play cause their own events by their past actions, circumstances and motives - and i don't think anyone could deny this. But at the same time, it is Shakespeare's play, and whilst the free will of characters in the story is bound by the events that precede their own choice, Shakespeare is ultimately providential and the characters are subject to his will whilst in the play their will is independent.
So the human will is both independent and dependent on God's in the way that our actions and motives cause events, but dependent in that God is providentially in control of them.
"Their will is independent"? That's a really bad euphemism for saying they have NO will. How can you say something has a will when all that will does is to drive them to do something which that will was created to do. That is not a will. You are abusing words again just to satisfy your worldview.
Shakespeare knew what he wanted of his characters so he engineered a world where physical events would cause them to act a certain way. You are trying to dig yourself out but there is nowhere to hide when the creator created the scenery, the branches and everything which affects our so called choices. He created all this to force us to go down a certain path by causality, it was still his choice. We couldn't do otherwise and you are still avoiding this with layers of obfuscation which almost make me cry as I peel them off only to discover you have invented another one.
In reality your theology states that we have no choice, and you have admitted this in the past, but that god condemns us or saves us by his own choice. He predestines his elect. If you were a good Christian you would just accept this. God made some people so that they could go to hell for eternity, not because they want to, but because he didn't want them to see the truth and accept salvation. But your conscience cries out from within you. "This is wrong!" How can any being be punished for doing all it can do? Indeed all it was programmed to do by the law giver and punishment disher. You know inside you this is wrong because you have a sense of justice which most tribal animals share. So you try and justify it by claiming we must have condemned ourselves by our own choices on some level.
Quote
However, if we want to talk about the sequence of cause and events, the concept of free will (as a present entity) is a logical fallacy. Since events predetermine future events (and the choices of the past dictate the choices of the future), it ulimately boils down to "what was the first choice that predetermined all other choices" - in the narrative of the Garden of Eden, the writer illustrates man's fundamental flaw, his first mistake that determined the rest of history if you will. Man was given a choice in the Garden to let God rule or rule himself - and man of his own accord, chose to rule himself (and this subsequently outlined the course of the future).
On one level, it is impossible for the Creator not to know the functions of his creation, so with God's decree to create humanity, the Fall of Man was subsequently permitted. So man's choice, was ultimately a consequence of God's creation - however, this simply predetermines our nature which in turn reflects on our choices.
What a waste of a paragraph. "Man was given a choice" - the whole point is that there is never any choice with your concept of god. This wouldn't bother me so much if there were no hell which we couldn't choose to avoid, but there is a hell which some of us were created to fill. God created us knowing we would eat of the tree. You have just made my argument a whole lot simpler. God created us knowing we would eat of the tree and knowing this would lead to Matt Bellamy going to hell (for example). I don't see what point you are making, it feels like you're backtracking whilst grabbing at straws and clawing at sand all the while.
If however you are saying that man truly did have a choice independent of god's will to steer clear of the "apple", then I would still say the punishment of eternity doesn't fit the crime of not being a good enough creation to avoid it. We're being punished for not being god and god is doing the punishing! And we are being punished for what our ancestors did, is Adam to blame. If god hadn't created Eve then he would still be in heaven lol... (anyway, if you accept evolution you have accepted that must be an allegory - I won't ask you to clarify because I don't think you have made your mind up yet, but I trust you to use the rational part of your brain on this one).
Quote
My understanding is that our nature is predetermined but our choices are still free (not as in undetermined, but as in unforced albeit limited).
And regarding the definition of free will; say if someone had a slave and they chose to set this slave free, would the freed slave therefore be able to choose to be a slave or not be a slave (libertarian free will) or would the former slave just be under no compulsion from his master anymore (compatibilist free will). I think the latter is more logical because whilst it takes into account the predetermined causality of events, it admits that this will is executed by the will of an individual under no compulsion. The consequence of these events (in the executing of the will) are predetermined, but the individual is a moral agent because it makes a conscious choice with the counsel of it's circumstances and nature.
Analogy time again: A robot is programmed with it's nature predetermined but apparently its choices are still free? (not as in undertermined, but as in unforced albeit limited).
You omit a word. Limited to ONE. Our choices are limited to the varied selection of 1. I am going to give you a choice, I can either force you to punch yourself in the face or force you to punch yourself in the face (with some mind control device). It's your choice, you will be the DO-er. Exactly the same concept as your god and I presume you would blame me for getting you to punch yourself in the face and not chastise yourself?
You are the executor of punching yourself in the face and my mind control device manipulates events and circumstances and the structure of your brain to force yourself to do this. You would then be a moral agent because you make the conscious choice with the counsel of your circumstances and nature to punch yourself. Don't you see the madness in this inevitable conclusion of your theology?!
Quote
This makes sense to me on a logical level, I am not giving ground because compatibilism is necessary for my beliefs - i think compatibilism is complementary to Christian theology, and also it's tenents can be seen in it. But I think in all things (not specifically because I am "the elect") that Compatibilism is necessary - in the Judicial system, in Physics especially but in all sciences, in the Arts, as well as sport..hell, even in maths!
Quote
So Kashmir, while at the same time, the circumstances that have led to your atheism were predetermined essentially by God - you are still in a position to accept and believe on God and what he has done, and I can say to you truthfully that if you believe you will be saved. God has put you in this position..even led you to the Christian Musers forum. The command to "Repent and believe" is equally given to you as it is to Christians. But if you don't repent and believe, then it is obvious that your will doesn't desire to be saved making it compatible and therefore just with your predetermined ends. If someone truly didn't want to go to Hell, then they would fulfill the requirements for their acquittal - but as it stands, is there essentially any difference between wanting to go to Hell and refusing to believe it? You might say that there should be a third state for all those who don't believe in Hell's existence - but I know you wouldn't say that, because although you may not believe, have I not told you about it?
I am still in a position to accept and believe god? No you are missing the point. I am not! If I do eventually accept and believe god, under your theology I will have had no choice in that matter either. It was all completely programmed into me like a rat programmed to turn left at every turning in a maze:
One rat is programmed to turn left in a maze. One is programmed to turn right. The second rat will fall into a bottomless pit of despair and the second one gets some fabulous Gruyere. Explain the difference? God made the maze, god programmed the brains. Is it fair or just in any sense you can understand? Answer me! Is it fair if I do this to the rats? Now tell me why what I do to the rats is any different from what god does to me.
You use all this fancy verbal hucksterism to justify will and then you contradict it all. There is your "intellectual" side which tries to explain all this away without violating your chosen axioms. Then there is your real intellect which screams out against this without you even noticing. "But if you don't repent and believe, then it is obvious that your will doesn't desire to be saved making it compatible and therefore just with your predetermined ends. If someone truly didn't want to go to Hell, then they would fulfill the requirements for their acquittal" "My" will doesn't want to repent and believe? Release your preconceptions and talk to me on a human level. How is it my will when god created my will and everything which influences it. He created the layers of inputs and he created the specific configuration of my neurons all so that my "will" would go down a specific track which I did not independently choose but which I acted out.
I would understand if god were some non omniscient creator who made us without foreknowledge of our destiny. Then our choices could be called our own, a slave only perhaps to physical interactions but not to some other consciousness which punishes or rewards us. However this is not the god you are talking about.
All you have done is add layers like that Lady who believes the world is on the back of an elephant on the back of an infinite column of turtles. I urge you to really think about the parts in red. Just mull them over. Try and understand what I am saying. Look at the analogies and admit to me that in the case of the rats my chosen punishment is unfair and no fault of the rat's, and if I loved the rats I would pluck them out of this maze I created. Admit this and then show me how the rats in my maze are any different from the humans in god's universe. You could even conclude that your concept of god must be wrong, perhaps the Gospel writers made mistakes, after all we are only human. I know you are thinking about this, but please pause a minute and think about it for a day or so, maybe on the tube or bus. Just mull it over and really pick out the differences. I don't think you are being honest with yourself...
Let me repost the analogies you skipped:
me
If we are actors then how are we responsible for our actions? An actor has free agency to become an actor and play a role at least. We don't even have that choice. Imagine then that Shakespeare manages to program people to play out Macbeth in real life. Should the "actor" be responsible or the author?
Tell me the answer for this analogy. Should we blame the actor or the author?
me again
It is exactly the same as god creating an elephant and then sending the elephant to hell for eternity because it isn't a dolphin. What is the difference between god creating me to be an atheist and allowing me to go to hell eternally simply because I am an atheist?
PS: Don't dwell on this or reply to it but don't you think no one wants to be separated from god. The problem is that all us non Christians don't think your god exists. If we knew he existed then we would want to be close to him. Even Christopher Hitchens (self proclaimed anti theist) would want to be close to god if this character revealed himself to him and explained that there was a plan to it all. If god revealed himself to him to let him understand that heaven really is a charming place and to prove to him that god really is all loving. Everyone wants to be close to god, the problem is that most people know he doesn't exist or have no proof at all that he exists in the form you worship. I suppose you think it's fair of god to deny vast swathes of his creation the opportunity to have god revealed to them. Ask yourself if you really believe that. And don't generalise, there must exist at least one person on earth who wants to believe in Christianity but whose heart isn't in it because they are unelected. You really think it's loving and fair for god to allow that atom of his creation to go to hell? I don't think you believe that, even if you claim you do. You want to believe it but you know it can't be. You're not a monster so you can't believe it... Or can you (shudders).
|
|
|
Quote
Kashmir :
Even Christopher Hitchens (self proclaimed anti theist) would want to be close to god if this character revealed himself to him and explained that there was a plan to it all. If god revealed himself to him to let him understand that heaven really is a charming place and to prove to him that god really is all loving.
And of course he didn't do this did he? Revealing himself like say, turning BC to AD - it is amazing that intelligent atheists say that they want to believe in God but then proceed to conclude that God has done nothing to reveal his love. Have you noticed or understood yet why Christians carry on about Jesus Christ? Why Christians have "Christ" as their name? If the fact that we breath, have food, the sun shines and the universe is not utter chaos but an ordered and stable structure isn't enough, then surely the fact that "God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son that whoever believes in him will not perish but have eternal life" would give them a hint? There is a reason John 3:16 is arguably the most famous verse in the Bible. I see no possibility how someone, having the knowledge of who Christians claim Jesus is and his impact on humanity can say truthfully "I'd believe a loving God if I could". Find me one person who wants to be a Christian but can't - if someone truly desired to be a Christian, then their wouldn't their stubborness (or lack of) reflect their real attitude towards who Jesus is. If someone truly wanted to believe in Jesus, they would - because the only thing that seperates a believer and a non-believer is pride. On the one hand, the Christian accepts that there can be no pride for the believer because firstly mankind is intrinsically evil, and secondly, God is infinitely good. Thus pride is eliminated. The non-believer on the other hand seeks to retain pride by affirming that mankind is either good, capable of doing good or morally neutral (as you may suggest) and against God too maintains this pride by suggesting a finite being may know better than an infinite being about say God's existence, power, wisdom and love (which you have tried to refute every single point of these). I can safely say to you Kashmir, pride is what is keeping you an atheist and what is making you think you know better than God. The concept of "knowing better than God" is logically inconcievable but of course you don't see this because you work under the presumption of your beliefs, the non-existence of God. Once again, you will let your beliefs shape your knowledge - and then as a counter-argument you may cry but atheism is the default position and a non-belief has no bearing on knowledge. If you really think this, I have given your intelligence too much credit. You are shaped and intrinsically biased by your non-belief in God which I argue stems from pride. Because of this bias you do not see the paradox of a finite being claiming supermacy on issues over an infinite one - even if there is or isn't one! It is logically inconcievable. I have carried on this argument for a while (and I apologize for the inconsistency of my response's timing) but the great burden that you are arguing something impossible is making this conversation more and more ludicrous.
I want to draw up some conclusions that you may answer your own questions from these theses; I've always encouraged you to appeal to the Bible, and I'm not aware that you have accepted this request. Your unending barrage of meaningless analogies all mean the same thing, which I have already affirmed pages and pages ago. Your grappling of the justice question is beginning to sound humurous to me as I have already pointed out - a finite being refuting even a hypothetical infinite being is unrealistic. So forget about the justice question, I shall deal with it. Then you deal with Free Will - I have defined free will in the past in many ways, all consistent; such as the freedom to do what we want, and the freedom to do what we can etc. You argued with the straw man that my conscience cries out "this is wrong!" and that I'm not a "good Christian" (not patronizing at all) because you think I can't accept that God creates people for different purposes. I have never ever rejected this view! All your assumptions are false.
1) Firstly I don't think it's wrong that an Artist can make two artworks, destroy one as he pleases and make the other into a masterpiece. I find nothing morally repulsive about this - atheists I have conversed with say the artist is "stupid" for wasting a canvas. As an artist myself I understand these procedures as both necessary and entirely under the good pleasure of the Artist. Because God is the creator, it is not morally degrading for him to do what he wants with his creation - he has supreme right and authority over it, and once again I percieve it as your pride (not that you would ever agree) that stops you from understanding that you are subject to laws (whatever it is; nature, existence, what I view as God etc.) to which you have no right to excercise authority over and are completely subordinate to the mere pleasure of the exterior's will.
2) However the reality of God's right over creation does not deny creation's responsibility. Though an Artist makes the two artworks, one being good, the one he destroys is deserving of it's destruction because of the pleasure of the Artist - the fact that it is not artistically worthy is enough for it's own demise. You may raise some questions to this, which you have - so the issue of compatibilism is expounded to refute accusations of say, Stoic Fatalism. God's creation man is endowed with free will as in, man does what it wants, and man does what it can do. Regardless of the circumstances made imminent by the creator, I find it hard to deny responsibility to the man. I've said before, though man's will is predetermined, he is the executor of the will. But you bring up again a meaningless analogy which does not take into account the question at hand - the "punch in face" analogy. Seeing as we seemed to have veered away from the fact that desire also plays equal part with choice (as I DID NOT omit, but did suggest was limited to one - read closer) in the will. The executor of the will, whether it be punching itself in the face, is responsible because it is excuding it's power to both DO WHAT IT WANTS, and DO WHAT IT CAN. You have forgotten the meaning of the word WILL as to refer to desire - instead you limit its meaning by merely referring to choice, which I admit at one level, will lead to things sounding problematic. Just because you act out a will, does not mean you are emotionally detached from it - regardless of the institution of your being (neurons etc.) the will that you execute is at one and the same with your desire; making it therefore valid and making you therefore responsible.
3) Thirdly and finally, I feel that this too needs a point. I have already explained why in literature the Characters AND the Author are equally responsible for the events in say Shakespeare's Macbeth so there is no reason at all to repost your analogies for effect - as if I had "skipped" them as you suggested. Was Macbeth's murdering of King Duncan prompted by his greedy activism and involvement in the Witch's Prophecy or by Shakespeare's pen? I don't think anyone could truthfully say it was one or the other - thus the two wills are compatible. Providence and causation are "one and the same". However if you really were going to refute on serious grounds, you would admit that both are responsible - both the actor and the author - but instead put emphasis on who has more right. When Shakespeare murders Duncan in his play, does that make Shakespeare a murderer? What you seem to be implying (not to make a conclusion that you haven't yet drawn) is apparently yes, yes it does - you think because God holds right to destroy individuals in existence it makes him therefore the author of death and thus responsible and evil. But as I have already explained, when God is compared with Shakespeare, and mankind compared to characters in a play - then there is no paradox in God damning and saving, isn't that precisely what makes great authors of great books? To suggest that Sauron in Lord of the Rings was not worthy of destruction is a farfetched notion, all would probably unanimously agree the evil inclinations of the character were worthy of damnation. However, although Tolkein both raises up the character and destroys the character - he is detached from the responsibility of the character's actions by firstly his position as author, and secondly in the context of the narrative, Sauron is deemed as necessary for both the message and essentially, Salvation of middle-earth to take place. So as no-one passes moral judgement on J.R.R Tolkein or William Shakespeare for the occurences of their fictional works but instead praises them for their insight and wisdom as an author - so is the same with God. So as to use cliqued analogies as you so frequently use, I feel that best summarizes and defends against the point which you are making, regardless of whether the very existence of the argument is a logical fallacy on your part. It could well be possible, as in all things, that God intended fiction books to mirror his genius and wisdom as an author.
|
|
|
Reply Pending, Depending Upon Motivation.  I will get back to you, it would be rude to ignore your [censored] effort.
|
ReItA
405 posts
 - in your world
|
oh stop it. calm down ppl.
Fort Canning Park, January 16th 2007
Gelora Bung Karno, February 23rd 2007
|
|
|
intelligent commentary is not needed thankyou
|
|
|
Quote
2) However the reality of God's right over creation does not deny creation's responsibility. Though an Artist makes the two artworks, one being good, the one he destroys is deserving of it's destruction because of the pleasure of the Artist - the fact that it is not artistically worthy is enough for it's own demise. You may raise some questions to this, which you have - so the issue of compatibilism is expounded to refute accusations of say, Stoic Fatalism. God's creation man is endowed with free will as in, man does what it wants, and man does what it can do. Regardless of the circumstances made imminent by the creator, I find it hard to deny responsibility to the man. I've said before, though man's will is predetermined, he is the executor of the will. But you bring up again a meaningless analogy which does not take into account the question at hand - the "punch in face" analogy. Seeing as we seemed to have veered away from the fact that desire also plays equal part with choice (as I DID NOT omit, but did suggest was limited to one - read closer) in the will. The executor of the will, whether it be punching itself in the face, is responsible because it is excuding it's power to both DO WHAT IT WANTS, and DO WHAT IT CAN. You have forgotten the meaning of the word WILL as to refer to desire - instead you limit its meaning by merely referring to choice, which I admit at one level, will lead to things sounding problematic. Just because you act out a will, does not mean you are emotionally detached from it - regardless of the institution of your being (neurons etc.) the will that you execute is at one and the same with your desire; making it therefore valid and making you therefore responsible.
Let me try and get this straight. Are you saying that we can be punished for wrongdoing which we had no choice to do or not, and that we can be punished because while we did this wrongdoing we felt a desire to do it? I think you're splitting one process into two: We do things because we desire to do them. I do exactly what I want to do, I do exactly what my brain tells me to do and that is the definition of "want". If I want to lose weight but my desire to gorge myself and lay around is stronger then my desire is actually not to lose weight. I can desire both but one is stronger than the other and this deterministic process dictates every action I make. God programmed me not only to be the executor of his will for me, but also to desire to execute the will. So he might have programmed conflicting desires but he also programmed the outcome of this conflict of desires. Please could you try to elaborate because your paragraph doesn't quite make sense in its present form and I'd like to understand it properly as I think it is integral to the way you think about all this.
ie: What do you mean by DO WHAT IT WANTS and DO WHAT IT CAN? Man does what he can (the choice of one) because he wants to do it. Are you saying god didn't predestine us to want to do it? I could brainwash you to want to shoot me. Are you to blame because you wanted to do it, or am I to blame because I wanted you to want to do it? You had no say in what you wanted to want and I have no say in what god wants me to want and therefore do.
Wanting and doing are like two dominoes, when one falls the other will always fall. If you want to do something then you do it (if you didn't do it, then it means you "wanted to do it" less than you "wanted not to do it"). Are you suggesting that one doesn't necessarily follow the other?
|
|
|
Well, obviously there are things man wants to do but is unable to do, because he CANNOT do them. That is why I was explaining the inextricable link between desire and availability - and of course the subject is moral decisions. A disabled person does not essentially do what they want to or they can because they are not in control of there body - however that is not a moral decision.
Of course there are different wills (of different importance, position or whatnot), which I'm happy you picked up because it made me think. When we talk about the executor of the WILL - I guess you are right, it is important to narrow down the "will" in discussion. Take for example one man - he is driving. He has one desire to speed, and one desire not to be fined for speeding. However the action that he takes responsibility for is the action he executes. This is obvious - and I think (possibly) this is what you were wanting me to say. But of course both desires, or wills are determined by past events - if you want to be particular; say the caution for fines is based on a tight budget and the desire to speed based on male superiority complex derived from highschool rejection. Both wills are determined by the past - all our conflicting wills are determined by our past, and essentially God's creation.
The reality of this percieved "duality of wills" is shown in God is it not? (I was hoping you would've picked this up) - on the one hand he has a desire to save but on the other hand he has a desire to eliminate evil. The desire to save is essentially subordinate to the decree of destroying evil - but regardless God finds a way of both saving and punishing evil for those he chooses; taking the punishment himself. The "duality of the will" or "order of will/decrees" is intricate theology, but fortunately I've just started my study of it.
So I guess in summary - what we do is a product of a will. Regardless of which will it is, we are responsible because it is our Will. When our actions are seperated from our Will (for example disabled conditions etc.) we are obviously not responsible - but when they are linked, which for the majority of people is the majority of the time; both law courts and God find mankind responsible.
Any more questions? Feel free to wait, I'm just going to be in out now that I am a free person. Ironic huh..
|
|
|
I can see now that this is a fundamental issue in your faith and worth talking about.
Quote
on the one hand he has a desire to save but on the other hand he has a desire to eliminate evil. The desire to save is essentially subordinate to the decree of destroying evil - but regardless God finds a way of both saving and punishing evil for those he chooses;
For God so desired to give his only begotten Son, that he created the world, that whosoever believeth in his Son should not perish, but have everlasting life. God didn't give us Jesus because he loved us, he created us rotten to the core because he wanted to give us Jesus! The decree to destroy evil is superior to the desire to save: if he had created nothing then he would have no evil to destroy... He created us rotten because he wanted to destroy evil? Or was our rotten nature a mistake on his part which forced him to have to destroy evil?
Everything god created was inferior to himself and therefore holds an element of evil. He created everything as evil just so that he could fulfill his desire to save some of us? That's like shitting in two of your friends' birthday cakes and patting yourself on the back for not shitting in your third friend's cake. God created the evil, he wasn't forced to do so because if he were subordinate to some outside compulsion to do anything, then he would no longer have the moral authority to do as he wills. He'd be subordinate to some outside factors, some outside definition of morality which isn't defined by his actions alone.
If your religion is true, then my will would be to not be evil, but I am disabled by my evil design. Don't you will/desire to be undeserving of damnation? Don't you desire to be a "purer" being? If god created a child to be disabled then he can't blame them for not being able to run to him as you admit. God created mankind evil and disabled when it comes to our own fate. Our will had nothing to do with this. God is the ultimate cause of our limitations and yet he blames us for them?
PS: Even if my will were to be evil then I didn't will to have that will! We don't will our wills any more than we will our natural hair colour or will to be born crippled. So why is the cripple blameless for their disability but a disability of the soul is to be blamed on the unwilled soul! You do see the problem here?
|
|
|
God creates us to follow our desires - and this desire is to follow ourselves and not follow God. It's about human autonomy; our will is to serve ourselves not God, to worship what we do and not God etc. So the putting of ourselves in God's place is the evil will that we are talking about. But the question that you are asking is why did God make us like this? Why did he make us in such a way that we would idolize ourselves instead of loving God?
There are several reasons why our desire to do evil is essential;
1) Romans 5 says essentially that sin existed so God could show his unconditional, undeserved Love to those who are saved. "While we were still sinners, Christ died for us" - so in making all of mankind undeserving of himself, God uses this as a platform to show the most profound kind of Love; a sacrificial yet undeserved Love in dying for his people.
2) The existence of evil also serves to encourage people to delight in God (which is the ultimate purpose of creating mankind) - by creating everything else unworthy, God can be the only source of true joy and happiness. But again, the sacrificial undeserved Love comes into play; let's use an analogy of a Cook. This Cook makes the world's greatest cake to which everything else in existence is inferior. But no-one in the entire world wants to eat this cake, and it also comes at a price that no-one is willing to pay. However the cook so delights in showing the wonders of his cooking that he was willing to pay himself and give the cake free to many people. Bad analogy I know, but hopefully it makes sense.
3) Also we move onto logical arguments; for a people to be saved there a) needs to be something to be saved from and b) people to be damned. Evil/sin is this something which by people can be damned and from which people are saved. A more dry argument, but valid nonetheless.
I won't bore you with every argument under the sun, but those are three different but unopposed arguments that I find equally valid. But they are essentially focused on the plight of those being saved - now what about those being damned?
But it was interesting that you were saying it was unfair to blame a "disabled" person from being unable to run. You were talking about the CAN. I spent a whole post talking about the relationship between what you CAN and what you WANT to do - if the disabled person does not want to run then they can be held to blame. If they want to run, then God will carry them.
God created evil because he had to - since he has all knowledge, since he created knowledge, evil seemed fit in his grand scheme to show Love to a particular people. Since God created morality he is not bound by it's rules - as all creators remain seperate from their creation.
So yeah, in conclusion, God, who is not bound by an exterior force, saw that evil was necessary in his creation for his ultimate plan - and that likewise, damnation was necessary for the ultimate goal of salvation.
|
|
|
Quote
So yeah, in conclusion, God, who is not bound by an exterior force, saw that evil was necessary in his creation for his ultimate plan - and that likewise, damnation was necessary for the ultimate goal of salvation.
So you acknowledge that we are not really to blame for our desires. God had to make us this way for pragmatic reasons such as 1) and 2). May I just point out that god is subject to external laws if he was powerless to create a universe where damnation wasn't necessary. If he is not subject to external laws then it means that it is in the nature of god to need to damn certain portions of his creation. You might say that god doesn't have the power to act in an ungodly way or immoral way. He doesn't have the power to contradict himself, but this doesn't extend to the system of salvation and damnation. How would he be contradicting himself by any other number of possible systems which wouldn't result in eternal suffering. How would he be contradicting himself by predestining all people to be elected...?
You try to explain this: you said that for people to be saved, some people have to be damned. This isn't logical. For people to be saved there merely has to be a possibility of peril. A fireman might save a whole coach of kids and no one is killed. God could save us all and we would still all be saved from the potential of not being saved.
[PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND, it's hardly relevant to someone on the inside of a religion: An objective look at religion which doesn't really concern you, this is how I might go about explaining some of the mentality behind major religions. A system where all are saved wouldn't give religion, no power to the hierarchy to dictate who is damned or not and hence it's an illogical system for men to set up and grow. Also this kind of all inclusive religion doesn't work with the in-group mentality wired into our brains, of wanting to belong to a special group. If ancient peoples believed in a god who admitted even their enemies into heaven then I would be impressed, it would seem to transcend the tribal mentality way before we managed with ideas like Universal Human Rights. Christianity took one step (supposedly) by saying that anyone can become part of the in-group but there is still the in-group mentality of the saved and the damned heathens. They perhaps also took one step in saying all men should be treated equally but they failed in that the out group is only tolerated because they are eventually going to burn in hell anyway.]
If he loved us all then surely the most caring action would have been never to have created us. He knew there were negative side effects to creation and yet he went along anyway. Did he so desire to be glorified or was he lonely? Why didn't he just continue being god and create nothing. God needs us to give him glory? If he doesn't need us (as I am sure you admit), then why increase the total suffering in the universe just to get a bit more glory?
Quote
a sacrificial yet undeserved Love in dying for his people
Stop saying sacrifice as if god sacrificed something. He is the sacrifier, us heathens are the ones who are sacrificing, not out of choice (although I would sacrifice myself if it meant saving my sister or the rest of humanity). What sacrifice has god made? Ha!
Quote
1) Romans 5 says essentially that sin existed so God could show his unconditional, undeserved Love to those who are saved. "While we were still sinners, Christ died for us" - so in making all of mankind undeserving of himself, God uses this as a platform to show the most profound kind of Love; a sacrificial yet undeserved Love in dying for his people.
So he intentionally made us incapable of living up to his expectations, but why then does anyone have to be denied this "most profound kind of Love; a sacrificial yet undeserved Love"? You try to deal with this...
Quote
2) The existence of evil also serves to encourage people to delight in God (which is the ultimate purpose of creating mankind) - by creating everything else unworthy, God can be the only source of true joy and happiness. But again, the sacrificial undeserved Love comes into play; let's use an analogy of a Cook. This Cook makes the world's greatest cake to which everything else in existence is inferior. But no-one in the entire world wants to eat this cake, and it also comes at a price that no-one is willing to pay. However the cook so delights in showing the wonders of his cooking that he was willing to pay himself and give the cake free to many people. Bad analogy I know, but hopefully it makes sense.
No it's a good analogy, with one addition. Many get to eat his cake but by eating the cake they release a virus which inflicts upon those who haven't eaten it the following: pestilence, boils, blindness, eternal pain, but ironically eternal life! The baker delights in this because he really wanted people to praise and enjoy his cake making abilities. Should the baker have refrained from making the cake so that he could be glorified by those who tasted it's bliss? Indeed, how great a baker is he doesn't have the power to make the ultimate cake without hurting everyone who doesn't get given a slice? Bit of a crappy cake, he really shouldn't have bothered, he should have set aside his need for praise and thought about all the conscious beings he was condemning in the process of his glorificaketion.
God created us to glorify him. Was this really necessary? If the only way god could get himself glorified was to allow most of the would be glory givers to go to hell, then wouldn't it have been a greater sacrifice to forgo all the glory he wanted? In your theology all god has done is to increase the amount of glory he gets from conscious beings by increasing the net suffering in the universe. The glory god gets is directly proportional to the suffering of his creation. Isn't that a pretty repulsive correlation and an awful example to set?
|
|
|
Perhaps slightly off the current topic, but...
Okay, I'm not going to lie, I'm not a great theologian. Nor am I a great debater. Pretty rubbish, most likely. But basically, we are trying to work out these problems using our human logic, yes?
Let's take the classic 'can an omnipotent god create a rock so heavy that he himself cannot lift?'. My answer is that yes, an omnipotent God, if he is truly omnipotent, can bend logic so that this is possible. Yet as humans, we cannot bend logic, nor understand this 'bent' logic, nor truly comprehend a logic other than our own... as it seems illogical to us, I guess, and nothing can change that.
Therefore, surely our logic is, or at least could be, fundamentally flawed? Therefore, surely we can never conclusively solve these metaphysical arguments through our own thoughts, as there is always the chance that we are arguing using flawed logic, no matter how flawless it seems to us?
I'm well aware that there may be, and probably is, a gaping hole in these thoughts, but could someone point it out to me please? You seem an intelligent bunch.
I have played in every toilet...
-Matt Bellamy
-(and George Michael)
|
|
|
No hole I can see apart from the fact that there is no reason to believe this. You might be a figment of my imagination or a hologram made by aliens to entertain me in a human zoo on their home planet Trafamaldore. Yet we don't take these concepts seriously do we? [suspicious]
Just looking at the traditional god concepts: if there were a creator then would he have created us with flawed logic so that we couldn't rationalise his existence? Would he do this if our eternal souls depended on accepting his existence? He'd have to be pretty malevolent and this is as far fetched as this omnibenevolent god concept.
Can god be an immovable object and an unstoppable force at the same time? Can he contradict himself? Nat says he cannot go against his nature of good, but goodness means nothing if it is defined purely by god's actions. Anything he does is called "good", but it may as well be called bad because if he decided to kill people for fun then who could say he was wrong to do so?
The problem can be extended to god. How does he even know he really is god? Maybe he is being fooled into believing he is the omnipotent power by overgods who are testing him? Maybe god's logic is also flawed. He would have no way of knowing if these things were true. God would have to concede the possibility that he is a rat in a maze unaware of those observing him... God isn't omniscient? It never ends.
We have no reason to believe our logic is flawed. We know we are evolved creatures in a universe which seems rational and therefore it makes sense that we should evolve to interpret the world as realistically as possible (or the world around us could be irrational but we have evolved to resonate with this irrationality - highly improbable).
Your speculation cannot be refuted, but then neither can most vague god concepts which have no basis in evidence.
|
|
|
Neon-symmetry, I believe you are right, you can't exactly criticize and omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being - it is flawed logic, because as humans we have limited knowledgde, limited power and remain in only one place, so yes criticizing God (even if you regard it as hypothetical, Kashmir) is ridiculous.
I am not saying as a finite being that I have all the answers about an infinite being - instead I use what limited knowledge I have to draw the conclusions. In essence I do not claim to "solve" the metaphysical argument but merely draw the most thorough conclusion out of it as I can with what I'm given. Yes the very idea of an omnipotent God means he can do ANYTHING; instead I would say to your analogy, "Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?" I would say, "Yes, but he'd lift it also". The world of extremes is full of paradoxes, that being one. But one I simply cannot understand is the common atheist's "critique of God" (as we can witness with Kashmir here) - that is indeed too paradoxical, and even a hypothetical being with all the knowledge in the universe and beyond is impossible to critique. In one sense I see Kashmir's questions humorously - as essentially they are fundamentally flawed, but at the same time they can be answered.
Ill respond to your post later Kashmir, big weekend ahead of me.
|
|
|
Congratulations on postulating an extremely improbable god who is full of paradoxes and then claiming I am the ridiculous one for claiming a paradox is a problem. You have incredible double standards. You try to justify god's existence and also his judgment and yet at the same time you admit that when you can't explain something it's simply because god can defy our flawed logic. If people think like you, they can convince themselves that anything is true. When it doesn't make any sense, it's their fault and not a flaw in the theory!
So in one sense my questions are fundamentally flawed because god can contradict logic and sense, but in another sense you can answer them. HA! Anyone who claims a theory they have is allowed to contradict the evidence, their own instincts, or even logic and common sense, must also see that any arguments they give are liable to contradict that same logic and sense! If I claim that Atlantis exists but even if it doesn't exist by the evidence and logic, then it does actually exist, would you not think my arguments for Atlantis are likely to be equally nonsensical? You have conceded logic to possibly be against you and as such your arguments are untrustworthy (to yourself) at best. ie: how can you trust any use of logic in the case of god when you concede it is deeply flawed when it comes to god. You attack a tool and then proceed to use it as if it were infallible!
Wow this is so weird!?! Remember to respond to this post as we may have actually been getting somewhere!
|
|
|
Surely the only being capable of comprehending "god" is god itself?
By definition, how limited knowledge will never be able to comprehend such a being. We will never be able to prove it's existence, or disprove it's existence.
I still maintain that all organised religion is borderline insanity. Frankly Im sick of respecting peoples faith, they don't respect mine.
...the fact that it been chosen makes me thing it`ll be pants and were getting NSC 2. - Me, about Survival.
Its not elitism, some people are just better than others. - Joe.
Twitter
|
|
|
Just because god is the only being with the hypothetical potential to understand himself doesn't mean he's unprovable. At least there could be evidence which pointed strongly towards his existence, like we have evidence which strongly supports evolution. I can conceive of evidence which would point towards a creator.
I would say that a lack of evidence is as good as, or a borderline disproof for the time being.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Silly Athiests! Obviously, there is a God. I'm not going to go on and on though, about why you should be Christian - but simply offer a reason to you why there is a God. Often Christians underthink who God is and why he exists, often using the question 'how did the earth and animals get here then?' to convince athiests. However, science can explain that. What science can't explain, however, is 'how did the existance of anything come into being [i.e. the universe]. The fact is that there had to be some constant, independant of time, from which all of this started. That constant, whatever/whoever it is, is God. Now, it's simply up to you to get into theology [like Matt] and take your pick at whichever religion supports the best theory for the existance of God, or the best evidence of God. With several years of theological research under my belt, I have found that Christianity is the most credible, and most to my liking. I'm not going to go into my reasonings, but leave it to you to research theology yourself.
Oh yeah, most Christians don't understand their own religion and hardly speculate about God, so don't listen to the rest of them - they don't know what they're talking about and will only irritate you with irrational underdeveloped thoughts on God 
|
|
|
i don't belive in any religion......i believe in myself and thats all i need....to me "man" was created through natural occurances through time and space.....i watched this thing on the history channel about how cosmic space rays are regularly floating around in our planet and these rays are what helped trigger evolution and such......so in a sense we are all made out of stars....well anyways, if there were such thing as a christian god who set up 10 rules that we must obey or go to hell, and who pretty much tortures people to test their faith, then i don't wont to go to heaven with that asshole anyways.... 
shhhhhhh...go to sleep.
|
|
|
I agree with havok29, I don't believe at all!
But my parents make me go to church every Christmas and Easter! I hate that..:s
|
|
|
catalyst
What science can't explain, however, is 'how did the existance of anything come into being [i.e. the universe]. The fact is that there had to be some constant, independant of time, from which all of this started. That constant, whatever/whoever it is, is God. Now, it's simply up to you to get into theology [like Matt] and take your pick at whichever religion supports the best theory for the existance of God, or the best evidence of God. With several years of theological research under my belt, I have found that Christianity is the most credible, and most to my liking. I'm not going to go into my reasonings, but leave it to you to research theology yourself.
You refuted your own argument by denouncing the Christian question: 'how did the earth and animals get here then?'.
At what point did this question become a bad argument? Before or after the science explained the question? Before there was an explanation the question was just rhetoric based on scientific ignorance... and the same goes for your question about the origins of the universe.
Quote
The fact is that there had to be some constant, independant of time, from which all of this started. That constant, whatever/whoever it is, is God.
Major error! You don't sound like a physicist or cosmologist to me... So I wonder how you can know so much! Then you go on to assert that the constant must be god, how do you know this. Are you then saying that if it turns out the universe is the result of planes of existence colliding and thus forming matter and time (or something), then God is the planes of existence?
Quote
so in a sense we are all made out of stars
We are all star dust
From dead suns. It's true...
|
|
|
Yeah minerals come from stars... but to say we're made of stars sounds like you've been abusing certain hallucinaginic drugs.... hmmm......
But, Kashmir, I have studied quantum physics quite a bit, and there is absolutely no scientific explanation for the creation of matter - it's a scientific law that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore, something independant of physical laws had to of created matter, because, despite what some would say, occurances such as the big bang did NOT create matter - it simply changed what the matter was doing. So, something independant of laws of time and physics would had to of created the universe. This cannot be denied - it's not like everything just randomly appeared - something had to control whether matter could exist or not, otherwise nothing would exist. And about the argument 'where did the earth and animals come from?' - that can easily be explained through science - you should of studied that a long time ago in high school - considering you're 105 - or no... wait, they wouldn't have taught you space science and physics back then.... so that explains it.
|
|
|
Quote
catalyst :But, Kashmir, I have studied quantum physics quite a bit, and there is absolutely no scientific explanation for the creation of matter - it's a scientific law that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore, something independant of physical laws had to of created matter, because, despite what some would say, occurances such as the big bang did NOT create matter - it simply changed what the matter was doing. So, something independant of laws of time and physics would had to of created the universe. This cannot be denied - it's not like everything just randomly appeared - something had to control whether matter could exist or not, otherwise nothing would exist. And about the argument 'where did the earth and animals come from?' - that can easily be explained through science - you should of studied that a long time ago in high school - considering you're 105 - or no... wait, they wouldn't have taught you space science and physics back then.... so that explains it.
And here is your mistake:
Before Darwin there was no explanation for how the diversity of life could come about without some act of creation. No explanation for how animals are so well suited to their environment. Before certain things became known people would say: "such and such is not explained therefore god must be the cause" and you seem to be saying exactly the same thing except the 'such and such' is a different 'such and such'. The argument is still flawed!
You seem to think that just because there is an area of physics which you cannot explain this implies that god must exist. You are making the exact same fallacy as people made centuries ago, people who didn't understand how a planet can form without a god or how rain can fall without some supernatural intervention. Such a mistake is excusable once or twice but we are now in a position where it would be foolish to use the same faulty reasoning.
The most you can say is this: "Since certain aspects of nature are as yet unexplained by science there is room for me to assert that god is the explanation and my assertion cannot be falsified at present". This doesn't mean your assertion is true, it just means it hasn't been shown to be unequivocally wrong in the way that so many other religious assertions have been shown to be incorrect: geocentric universe, young earth etc... But don't worry, if you live long enough you shall see it falsified and then you will have to deal with other people making bold assertions based on an absence of evidence...
|
