Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Vice President’s Commentary On Bob Enyart’s Interview Of MSA

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Granite View Post
    This argument certainly puts human free will at a premium, doesn't it? More than relieving suffering, the almighty thinks we creatures of dirt and ash deserve to agonize and agonize one another. I'm not sure if this kind of clinical detachment and hands-off sadism is touching or torturous.
    Hi Granite:

    Since you are a Satanist, does this mean you disagree with atheists?

    Is worshiping Satan an acknowledgement that God exists?

    Thanks for your time.
    (1 Cor 1:13 KJV) Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
      It's your inclusion of "to do evil" that slants the posit. He creates us with the ability to distinguish and make moral choice. His desire can only be for our good and that we make those choices in accordance with His will. The choice itself leaves open the possibility that we will defy His desire and choose unwisely. Had you stated,

      In other words, God wants to eliminate evil, but more then that he wants to permit us to choose

      I wouldn't have had the same objection
      Your restatement, however, doesn't correct what I said at all. It just generalizes it. It is perfectly reasonable to point out one of the implications of your position. If God permits us choice unrestricted by his own standards of good or evil, then that permission necessarily includes permission to choose to do evil on some level. Surely if we can figure out that God is offering us the choice to do good or evil, God can figure that out as well.

      Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
      (I would have objected to the "more than" which was needlessly assumptive). Words mean things and their arrangement draws inference. You're aware of that and so my objection remains.
      Well, if not for the "more than", God's desire to prevent evil would have to trump free will, and we would have to expect that there would be no evil.
      Global warming denialists are like gravity denialists piloting a helicopter, determined to prove a point. We may not have time to actually persuade them of their mistake.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
        ...then, well, why the devil make it and have me waste time pointing out its flaws?
        I wasn't making the argument. I was giving an example of of a class of related arguments and, as I was typing the OP, the problem of evil was the first to pop into my head. If you'd, I can provide some example of arguments aimed at Gods' attributes that I do favor?

        That's an assumption no more or less reasonably supported than one claiming man's moral autonomy is inviolate. You're making the same sort of mistake Epicurus does in assuming that if God cannot do all that can be done He is not omnipotent. Rather, God cannot do any number of things and those things remain unrelated to His power. God cannot act contrary to His nature, cannot reason imperfectly, cannot do that which is logically impossible, like create a square circle, to offer a few examples.
        Then he is not omnipotent. That's not to say you can't still call him God, it just means omnipotence is inherently inconsistent.
        No Christian with at thought in his head will tell you that suffering is evil. Now a man doing that which works contrary to the perfect will of God is doing evil. Evil is a willful act of disobedience. That God's ways are not our ways is inarguably true, as His understanding is above our own. But it would be a cruel and imperfect God who let His children live without an understanding of the distinction between the good and evil act and God is good.
        There are two kinds of suffering: those imposed by nature and those imposed other individuals. Usually, the person who willfully administers suffering is taken to be evil. I didn't mean to imply that suffering itself is evil, or that by not eliminating natural sources of suffering God has failed to be benevolent. The only suffering that matters in reference to the problem of evil is the sort administered by other persons.

        That's in the nature of the debate. Either it is relative, in which case we might as well substitute preference for evil or good and we have no more or less objective claim to make the distinction than any other man...or morality proceeds from an absolute source and authority, one requiring neither our assent nor recognition to exist in perpetuity and we are called to a particular conduct and obligation.
        I'm inclined to agree with you.
        - Chalmer

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Metro State Atheists View Post
          Why should I choose to ignore one authority and not another? The answer, and I think this is true for anyone of faith, is that my natural emotional affections and aversions should guide me from one prophet of knowledge another.
          Now, I know you have seen the below Venn diagram before.

          The red circle is truth. Everything in this circle is true.

          The blue circle is what you believe. Some things you believe are factual, and some things are false. For example, you believe there is no God. I believe there is a God. One of us is right and one of us is wrong. Therefore our Venn diagrams are different.

          When we die, and find out who was right and who was wrong, the purple part of our own diagrams will be larger for whoever was right.

          Everything in the blue circle is obtained from rationalism, empiricism, and faith.

          Let’s not get all technical about truth. For now, let’s assume all truth is absolute.

          There are truths we do not believe, and there are truths we cannot know (i.e. Does God exist)

          However, if you wish to be a wise man, remember this: “There are things you don’t know that you don’t know”.
          (1 Cor 1:13 KJV) Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by bling View Post

            God took the best human representatives the human race could have and put them in the Garden and they fail (like any rational person could expect), but it showed us the advantage we humans have outside the Garden and that God will provide a better place for us when we are ready.
            I don't agree they were the best representatives of the human race. My Children mind better than Adam and Eve. If you're so rebellious you can't go 1 day without defying God, why get best human credit? Most of the people on this board go much longer than that following much harder commands of God than don't eat some fruit.
            "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
            ...Stephen F Roberts

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by tetelestai View Post
              Hi Granite:

              Since you are a Satanist, does this mean you disagree with atheists?

              Is worshiping Satan an acknowledgement that God exists?

              Thanks for your time.
              I don't worship Satan.




              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by tetelestai View Post
                Now, I know you have seen the below Venn diagram before.

                The red circle is truth. Everything in this circle is true.

                The blue circle is what you believe. Some things you believe are factual, and some things are false. For example, you believe there is no God. I believe there is a God. One of us is right and one of us is wrong. Therefore our Venn diagrams are different.

                When we die, and find out who was right and who was wrong, the purple part of our own diagrams will be larger for whoever was right.

                Everything in the blue circle is obtained from rationalism, empiricism, and faith.

                Let’s not get all technical about truth. For now, let’s assume all truth is absolute.

                There are truths we do not believe, and there are truths we cannot know (i.e. Does God exist)

                However, if you wish to be a wise man, remember this: “There are things you don’t know that you don’t know”.
                Ok...but by what mechanism does faith or rationalism lead to knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt?
                - Chalmer

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by rexlunae View Post
                  Your restatement, however, doesn't correct what I said at all.
                  It illustrates the inference by demonstrating how it could have been objectively stated.
                  It is perfectly reasonable to point out one of the implications of your position.
                  We aren't agreeing that it is such.
                  If God permits us choice unrestricted by his own standards of good or evil, then that permission necessarily includes permission to choose to do evil on some level.
                  You're playing a fine game with language. If I give you a gun it doesn't follow that I mean for you to rob a liquor store, even if you subsequently do.
                  Surely if we can figure out that God is offering us the choice to do good or evil, God can figure that out as well.
                  He's offering us sentience, the result of which is that we can and will think for ourselves and make choices. We make errant choices because we are imperfect in our reason and will frequently choose, even in the face of a known wrong and horrific consequence, to advance error where it serves our immediate interest.
                  Well, if not for the "more than", God's desire to prevent evil would have to trump free will, and we would have to expect that there would be no evil.
                  Not really. Equal to would suffice and if free will is the unavoidable consequence of sentience then...there you are.
                  You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

                  Pro-Life






                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Metro State Atheists View Post
                    I wasn't making the argument. I was giving an example of of a class of related arguments and, as I was typing the OP, the problem of evil was the first to pop into my head. If you'd, I can provide some example of arguments aimed at Gods' attributes that I do favor?
                    If you like.
                    Then he is not omnipotent. That's not to say you can't still call him God, it just means omnipotence is inherently inconsistent.
                    No, you misuse omnipotence, a matter of might, in that you seem to suggest any limitation on the use of that power is a limitation of the power itself. The might of God is undiminished by its restraint in His nature. A bomb you will never use is no less or more powerful for that qualification.
                    There are two kinds of suffering: those imposed by nature and those imposed other individuals. Usually, the person who willfully administers suffering is taken to be evil.
                    I'd say the person does evil, perhaps is enthralled, habitually drawn to and the proponent of evil. I wouldn't say a person is evil.
                    I didn't mean to imply that suffering itself is evil, or that by not eliminating natural sources of suffering God has failed to be benevolent. The only suffering that matters in reference to the problem of evil is the sort administered by other persons.
                    I agree.
                    I'm inclined to agree with you.
                    - Chalmer
                    Two in a row an argument for the possibility of the miraculous...
                    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

                    Pro-Life






                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Metro State Atheists View Post
                      Ok...but by what mechanism does faith or rationalism lead to knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt?
                      - Chalmer
                      There is none.

                      You will never find proof that God exists, that is why it is called faith.

                      However, you will not find proof that God does not exist either. You cannot prove a negative.

                      And, as I have pointed out, a good amount of your knowledge (that has nothing to do with God) is based on some faith whether you want to admit it or not.
                      (1 Cor 1:13 KJV) Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Granite View Post
                        This argument certainly puts human free will at a premium, doesn't it? More than relieving suffering, the almighty thinks we creatures of dirt and ash deserve to agonize and agonize one another. I'm not sure if this kind of clinical detachment and hands-off sadism is touching or torturous.
                        God does not think that we should agonize and be agonized by each other. Look at what Jesus had to say about how we are to treat each other. God allows us our freedom to choose to agonize each other and He does not interfere with that choice for His own reasons. Sometimes as a parent you see your child doing something that you know will result in a scraped knee. You tell them to stop but you don't physically stop them and sure enough, they end up with a scraped knee. They learn that the next time Mom and Dad tell them not to do something that they should listen. I think that it is similar with God. We learn more from our failures than we do our success.
                        Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version)

                        But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

                        What are my fruits today?

                        Cityboy With Horses A blog about what happens when you say, "I Promise"

                        "Moral standards" are a lot like lighthouses: they exist to help us stay on course as we sail through life. But we have to steer BY them, but not directly AT them. Lest we end up marooned on the shoals of perpetual self-righteousness.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                          It illustrates the inference by demonstrating how it could have been objectively stated.

                          We aren't agreeing that it is such.
                          The only change your version makes is to move from the particular to the general. It doesn't exclude the particular in the process. It just removes the focus of the statement on the specific.

                          If God gives us freewill unrestrained by his sense of good, then he is permitting us to commit evil, where he might have done otherwise. That is to say that he puts a higher premium on unrestrained freewill than on eliminating or preventing evil. I don't know of a plainer way to put it.

                          Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                          You're playing a fine game with language.
                          I don't think it's a language game at all. It's very straight-forward reasoning. I think you're trying to make an impossible distinction.

                          Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                          If I give you a gun it doesn't follow that I mean for you to rob a liquor store, even if you subsequently do.
                          The difference here is that as an ordinary human, your knowledge and your power are limited. You can't know that a man would rob a liquor store if you give him a gun, and you can't necessarily stop him even if you do know, so your moral and legal liability are limited. How does the moral scenario you state change if the man tells you ahead of time that he's going to use the gun to rob a liquor store? Or if he gives you the opportunity to stop him at no risk to yourself?

                          On the other hand, God, given his traditionally granted traits of omniscience and omnipotence, could both know that we would commit evil given freewill, and could prevent us from doing so.

                          Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                          Not really. Equal to would suffice and if free will is the unavoidable consequence of sentience then...there you are.
                          Well, the fact that he allows evil to exist entails a de facto choice on the part of God in favor of freewill over prevention of evil in at least some cases. It may be possible that there are cases in which he would act to prevent evil at the cost of freewill, in which case we might be tempted to ask where he was during the Holocaust, but that's really out of scope for the discussion at hand.
                          Global warming denialists are like gravity denialists piloting a helicopter, determined to prove a point. We may not have time to actually persuade them of their mistake.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by tetelestai View Post
                            There is none.

                            You will never find proof that God exists, that is why it is called faith.

                            However, you will not find proof that God does not exist either. You cannot prove a negative.

                            And, as I have pointed out, a good amount of your knowledge (that has nothing to do with God) is based on some faith whether you want to admit it or not.
                            I would be happy to admit it if you could give me an example. And if there is no mechanism, it seems a little silly to call it knowledge. If I find that I do have faith in something, I'll stop believing it. I've done it before.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by CabinetMaker View Post
                              God does not think that we should agonize and be agonized by each other. Look at what Jesus had to say about how we are to treat each other. God allows us our freedom to choose to agonize each other and He does not interfere with that choice for His own reasons. Sometimes as a parent you see your child doing something that you know will result in a scraped knee. You tell them to stop but you don't physically stop them and sure enough, they end up with a scraped knee. They learn that the next time Mom and Dad tell them not to do something that they should listen. I think that it is similar with God. We learn more from our failures than we do our success.
                              What person in their right mind would not heal or prevent the agony of a loved one if it was within their power to do so?




                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Metro State Atheists View Post
                                I would be happy to admit it if you could give me an example. And if there is no mechanism, it seems a little silly to call it knowledge. If I find that I do have faith in something, I'll stop believing it. I've done it before.
                                Why does faith scare you so much?

                                Is it afraid of being wrong?
                                (1 Cor 1:13 KJV) Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X