Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Milton · 08-07-2003, 12:00 PM

I was actually reminded of an exchange I had with a guy that came to my door the other day.

It pretty much went down the same road, where at the end, I was faced with an apparently unavoidable result. But then I stopped, and traced back to the beginning of the exchange, and found that I was being tricked.

Wyrdsmyth · 08-07-2003, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
Well, "wanted" is an imprecise term.

Is "ordained" somehow more precise?

Quote:

God's eternal purpose was not to have sin.

So how, if he's omnipotent and omniscient, was he unable to achieve his purpose?

Quote:

Sin is a condition, i.e., the result of disobedience. God ordains all that comes to pass. I have no problem saying that God is the ultimate "ground" of human disobedience, yet he is not the immediate cause of it.

But when you're omnipotent and omniscient, what is the difference between being the ultimate cause and the immediate cause? This is what I call the Cosmic Shell-game. Somehow, theologians must move the shells around fast enough to reconcile God being the author of everything, yet not being directly responsible for the bad stuff. And that is where terms like "ordained" come into play.

Quote:

[Original sin] It's genetic, i.e., spiritual heredity.

Well... which is it, genetic or spiritual? If your view is dualistic, that is to say that we are souls tethered to bodies, and God "makes" a soul to put in every newborn human, then how does that soul which God perfectly made become corrupt? This reasoning just doesn't make sense. How does one inherit the guilt of an ancestor? This seems to me a very archaic way to think, and one that was more common in the distant past. But we no longer hold descendents responsible for what their ancestors did. Clearly, it is unjust. If your father committed murder, I'm not going to put you in prison for his crime. To hold someone responsible for choices or deeds they didn't commit is the very definition of injustice.

Quote:

1. God declares all men to be sinners under judgement.
2. You are a man.
3. Therefore you are a sinner under judgement.

Correction:

1. Man declares that God declares all men to be sinners under judgement.
2. Another man asks to talk to God personally about this.
3. First man gives theological arguments, instead of leading the second man to the burning bush that speaks with the voice of God.

Quote:

Ah, but you are free to choose and you do choose; it's just that your choices are always consistent with your sinful nature. God does not force anyone to sin.

If I build a robot with a randomizer program inside of it, to every so often do something "bad," but I tell it it is always free to choose to do good or bad, then aren't I a liar? If it is in its nature to -- not always, but every so often, and without my directly causing it to happen -- do bad things, does that in some mystical way absolve me of responsibility for what happens?

Quote:

Well, as I showed by my "spy" analogy in a previous post, it is possible to use the free, sinful actions of an individual to carry out a plan without being responsible for those actions.

Your "spy" analogy failed, for reasons already pointed out.

Quote:

Have you ever read either Luter or Calvin on free will?

Yes.

Quote:

And just whom would God be accountable to? (actually, it should be "to whom would God be accountable," but that sounded awkward). You see, God is not on trial.

What is under scrutiny is not "God" as we don't have any god around to put on trial, only a concept of god advanced by religious people that is often inconsistent with other things they say.

Quote:

Well, of course they, and you, can be held accountable and God has declared that it is so. To whom will you appeal his verdict?

Correction, again. Men have said that God has declared that it is so. We never actually get the gods, only men talking about gods, speaking for gods, and defending the idea of gods.

theophilus · 08-08-2003, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jobar
Well, will wonders never cease!

theophilus:
Now, what are the implications of that statement for Free Will?

I can't seem to locate your little "jibe," so I guess I can't take offense. In any case, it's just a reflection of your evolutionary brainwashing.

I don't think I have ever seen a single sentence from you that wasn't completely humorless- and here you make two jokes, however small, in the same thread! Why, perhaps one day we'll have you laughing at Monty Python's Life of Bryan.

I don't need Monty Python, I've got you guys!

But, then again, perhaps I'm over-optimistic.

Actually, it's "overly" optimistic.

-------------------------------

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10
"Just to be clear then, god wanted sin?"

theophilus:
Well, "wanted" is an imprecise term. God's eternal purpose was not to have sin. Sin is a condition, i.e., the result of disobedience. God ordains all that comes to pass. I have no problem saying that God is the ultimate "ground" of human disobedience, yet he is not the immediate cause of it.

Jobar: theo... honestly, can't you see just how this short paragraph contradicts itself twice?

If "God's eternal purpose was not to have sin" and "God ordains all that comes to pass", that can mean *nothing but* that God is powerless to prevent sin, or else desires it.

You have to distinguish between "means" and "ends." God's purpose (end) is not sin, but the presence of sin is a means to the end.

If God is the "ground" of human disobedience, how can he be anything *other* than its cause?

God is the ground of our existence, so there is nothing that happens apart from him. God is the ultimate "cause" of all things, but that does not mean he is the proximate cause.

Failure to study is the proximate cause of a student's failing an examination, but the ultimate cause is the teacher, i.e., if he hadn't given the test, the student couldn't have failed.

theophilus · 08-08-2003, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyrdsmyth
About the same as when a theist says, "the devil made me do it." Usually its more metaphorical than metaphysical.

You're confusing theists with Flip Wilson; I've never heard even the most ardent Pentacostals claim that the devil "made" them do anything.

"The human tailbone is the thorn in the flesh of creationism."

A great example of circular reasoning. The human tailbone only a "thorn" if it is know to be the remains of an arborial tail and we know that it is the remains of an arborial tail because we know that men evolved from apes and we know that he evolved from apes because he has the remains of an arborial tail, etc., etc., etc.

Sometimes, I just quote myself. "I'd brainwash everyone in the entire world to think for themselves, question, and criticize, if I could." Look, there's another one by yours truly.

It would have been better if you had thought more before disgorging yourself of that self-contradictory statement.

Wyrdsmyth · 08-08-2003, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
You're confusing theists with Flip Wilson; I've never heard even the most ardent Pentacostals claim that the devil "made" them do anything.

Again, the point shoots over your head. It was a metaphor. I know most people don't mean it literally when they say that, and that was why I used that phrase as an example.

Quote:

A great example of circular reasoning. The human tailbone only a "thorn" if it is know to be the remains of an arborial tail and we know that it is the remains of an arborial tail because we know that men evolved from apes and we know that he evolved from apes because he has the remains of an arborial tail, etc., etc., etc.

I must have missed it... What is the more plausible, alternate explanation for the human tailbone, according to creationists?

spacer1 · 08-09-2003, 09:31 AM

1.
Theists find the world perfect because they believe God exists.

Atheists find the world imperfect because they don't believe God exists.

Or:

2.
Theists believe God exists because they find the world perfect.

Atheists don't believe God exists because they find the world imperfect.

However, I believe it's:

Theists find the world perfect because they believe God exists. (1)

Atheists don't believe God exists because they find the world imperfect. (2)

Wyz_sub10 · 08-11-2003, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
A great example of circular reasoning. The human tailbone only a "thorn" if it is know to be the remains of an arborial tail and we know that it is the remains of an arborial tail because we know that men evolved from apes and we know that he evolved from apes because he has the remains of an arborial tail, etc., etc., etc.

This isn't the reasoning used - you have it backwards. No one postulated that humans descended from apes and then made the pieces fit.

It was because of the presence of such vestigal "parts", not to mention fossil evidence and the less-discussed embryotic development pathways, that led to and reinforced the idea of common ancestry.

Your allegation isn't supported by history, but more to the point, there would be no value - scientific or otherwise - to taking that approach.

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

08-07-2003, 12:00 PM	#91
Milton Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Atlanta,GA,USA Posts: 172	I was actually reminded of an exchange I had with a guy that came to my door the other day. It pretty much went down the same road, where at the end, I was faced with an apparently unavoidable result. But then I stopped, and traced back to the beginning of the exchange, and found that I was being tricked.

08-09-2003, 09:31 AM	#96
spacer1 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 564	1. Theists find the world perfect because they believe God exists. Atheists find the world imperfect because they don't believe God exists. Or: 2. Theists believe God exists because they find the world perfect. Atheists don't believe God exists because they find the world imperfect. However, I believe it's: Theists find the world perfect because they believe God exists. (1) Atheists don't believe God exists because they find the world imperfect. (2)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.