Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mageth · 04-16-2002, 09:19 AM

I said:
My understanding is that there will be no "free will" in heaven. Do you agree with this position?

luvluv replied:
No, heaven is a place where only people who have deided to voluntarily do God's will are allowed to go. Everybody there is doing God's will, but they are doing it freely.

If the only option one has in heaven is doing god's will, then one doesn't have "free will" in heaven.

I said:
Isn't a key tenet of Xianity giving up one's will and yielding to God's will? So is losing one's free will to God "hell?"

luvluv replied:
No because you cannot lose your free will to God without cultivating self-control.

You're just describing how one gives up one's free will to god. This doesn't answer my question. You said: "It is the loss of free will that constitutes hell, it doesn't really matter what you lose your free will to." So why is giving up one's free will to God not "hell," if this statement is true?

tronvillain · 04-16-2002, 09:27 AM

Koyaanisqatsi:

It is logically impossible for three onces to be one hundred and ten pounds, but there is nothing logically impossible about starting with three ounces and ending up with one hundred and ten pounds. While it is not logically possible to have more than you have, it is logically possible to have more than you had.

tronvillain · 04-16-2002, 09:29 AM

Again, you apparently simply do not understand the concept of logical possibility. It is not the same as physical possibility.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas · 04-16-2002, 09:38 AM

Koy,

Quote:

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi:
False as I have conclusively demonstrated.

Please answer the following questions:[*] How is it logically possible to provide more loaves and fishes than you have? Logic dictates that if you have one hundred people and wish to give them each a loaf and a fish, you would need one hundred loaves and one hundred fish. If you only have five loaves and five fish, how is it logically possible to give one hundred poeple one hundred loaves and one hundred fish?[*] How is it logically possible to convert the mass of a rib into the mass of a fully grown woman? The comparative mass and chemical elements are insufficient to convert into a 110 pound woman.[*] How is it logically possible to change water into wine? Wine consists of water, but water does not consist of wine. From what elements in the water would fermented grape juice come?[*] How is it logically possible to build a human male out of dirt? That one is self-explanatory.[*] How is it logically possible to exist outside of existence in order to create existence? Likewise.[*]How is it logically possible to resurrect from being dead for three days and three nights (though, that, of course, has never been demonstrated even in myth

) and...
<ol type="A">[*] not be brain dead?[*] not be immediately recognized?[*] ascend bodily into outer space (and what would the logical purpose be of doing such a logically impossible thing)?[/list=a]

These are all examples of logically impossible events, not simply empirical improbabilities.

Unless of course you can explain the logical possibility of any of these events to me?

By the way, ineffable magic is not a logically possible answer to any of these questions.

(edited for formatting - Koy)

[ April 16, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]

Examples of logical impossibilities:

-False valued true...T AND T = F
-3 valued 5...5 + 5 = 6, 3!=5.
-Colorless color
-Square circle
-Married bachelor
...ad infinitum

I don't think 'man created out of dust' is a logical impossibility. Depending on ones interpretation of 'created' one could just as easily say evolution proposes man was 'created out of dust' consider man evolved from single-celled creatures. However, I don't think you feel evolution is a logical impossibility.

Thoughts and comments welcomed,

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Koyaanisqatsi · 04-16-2002, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tronvillain:
Koyaanisqatsi:

It is logically impossible for three onces to be one hundred and ten pounds, but there is nothing logically impossible about starting with three ounces and ending up with one hundred and ten pounds. While it is not logically possible to have more than you have, it is logically possible to have more than you had.

Although we're going way off track with this (and it's my fault, I grant), to even attempt to qualify this we'd have to turn to what is written in the Bible.

As always, it will be less than helpful:

Quote:

Genesis 2:22
And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

So, literally, God took a rib (let's call it three ounces of material) and made a woman (110 pounds of material) out of that rib.

So, how is it logically possible to turn three ounces into one hundred and ten pounds?

I don't mean, start with three ounces and then simply add external mass or somehow magically "expand" the existing mass or other magical thinking, I mean how is it logically possibly to extract one hundred and ten pounds out of three ounces?

You have three ounces. You have one hundred and ten pounds. Without adding anything externally to that three ounces, how do you go from three ounces to one hundred and ten pounds?

tronvillain · 04-16-2002, 09:46 AM

What exactly about that passage specifies that nothing else was used?

tronvillain · 04-16-2002, 09:48 AM

Anyway, I suggest you content yourself with physical impossibility rather than resorting to these controtions in an effor to create logical impossibility.

Koyaanisqatsi · 04-16-2002, 09:50 AM

Nevermind. This is not the right thread for this discussion.

SOMMS, if you want to limit God to only that which is logically possible, you go girl.

Tron, you're right, it doesn't specify that God didn't start with a rib and then simply inserted that rib into an already existing fully grown woman.

I still say it's what you had mentioned previous. You can't have three ounces and have it be one hundred and ten pounds, but a pointless spiral into what is not written or what is implied is all we'll get out of this.

Back to the free will paradox.

[ April 16, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]

tronvillain · 04-16-2002, 10:05 AM

It doesn't specify that cells didn't pop into existence out from the rib to create a fully grown woman either.

It's been pointed out to me that you may simply be arguing against supernaturalism and that it is not logically possible for something to violate the physically possible. If that's all you're saying, then I'll point out that we can never be sure we know what is physically possible.

MadMordigan · 04-16-2002, 10:12 AM

Everybody there is doing God's will, but they are doing it freely.

Which, in fact, DESTROYS the freewill argument against the problem of evil. If it is possible to have a population of individuals with free will that consistently chooses not to do evil things, then the only reason we do not have this state of affairs now is the God chose not to make it so.

04-16-2002, 09:50 AM	#68
Koyaanisqatsi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me. Posts: 6,508	Nevermind. This is not the right thread for this discussion. SOMMS, if you want to limit God to only that which is logically possible, you go girl. Tron, you're right, it doesn't specify that God didn't start with a rib and then simply inserted that rib into an already existing fully grown woman. I still say it's what you had mentioned previous. You can't have three ounces and have it be one hundred and ten pounds, but a pointless spiral into what is not written or what is implied is all we'll get out of this. Back to the free will paradox. [ April 16, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-16-2002, 09:19 AM	#61
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	I said: My understanding is that there will be no "free will" in heaven. Do you agree with this position? luvluv replied: No, heaven is a place where only people who have deided to voluntarily do God's will are allowed to go. Everybody there is doing God's will, but they are doing it freely. If the only option one has in heaven is doing god's will, then one doesn't have "free will" in heaven. I said: Isn't a key tenet of Xianity giving up one's will and yielding to God's will? So is losing one's free will to God "hell?" luvluv replied: No because you cannot lose your free will to God without cultivating self-control. You're just describing how one gives up one's free will to god. This doesn't answer my question. You said: "It is the loss of free will that constitutes hell, it doesn't really matter what you lose your free will to." So why is giving up one's free will to God not "hell," if this statement is true?

04-16-2002, 09:27 AM	#62
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	Koyaanisqatsi: It is logically impossible for three onces to be one hundred and ten pounds, but there is nothing logically impossible about starting with three ounces and ending up with one hundred and ten pounds. While it is not logically possible to have more than you have, it is logically possible to have more than you had.

04-16-2002, 09:29 AM	#63
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	Again, you apparently simply do not understand the concept of logical possibility. It is not the same as physical possibility.

04-16-2002, 09:46 AM	#66
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	What exactly about that passage specifies that nothing else was used?

04-16-2002, 09:48 AM	#67
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	Anyway, I suggest you content yourself with physical impossibility rather than resorting to these controtions in an effor to create logical impossibility.

04-16-2002, 10:05 AM	#69
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	It doesn't specify that cells didn't pop into existence out from the rib to create a fully grown woman either. It's been pointed out to me that you may simply be arguing against supernaturalism and that it is not logically possible for something to violate the physically possible. If that's all you're saying, then I'll point out that we can never be sure we know what is physically possible.

04-16-2002, 10:12 AM	#70
MadMordigan Beloved Deceased Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 2,704	Everybody there is doing God's will, but they are doing it freely. Which, in fact, DESTROYS the freewill argument against the problem of evil. If it is possible to have a population of individuals with free will that consistently chooses not to do evil things, then the only reason we do not have this state of affairs now is the God chose not to make it so.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.