HoosierGuy28

Mageth,

Sure, if you want to cut the sentence in half and read it out of its context. If you have to try to cut a sentence in half to try to prove a logical fallacy, that in reality doesn't matter anyway, then by all means, call it a logical fallacy. I won't lose any sleep over it.

Yes, I see you are dissecting things. Its already been noted. Unfortunately, you are still missing the point.

The sentence was inclusive, so there is no error, but if it will you feel better, we'll just pretend that it was.

I'm almost tempted to go look through the rest of the forums to see if you do this to everyone. I would be willing to bet that my assumption is correct.

Joel

DigitalDruid

sakrilege, very pertinent point. Thanks. Since Lord said "for it repenteth me that I have made them", he is repentent not only about creating man but the other animals too. So the beasts and fowls must have exrcised their freewill the wrong way to deserve divine wrath though Bible does not spell out exactly what they did wrong.

And though there is no mention of plants in this verse I think from the fig-tree episode it is fair to assume atleast some plants have freewill too! We have to read the bible "in its totality", right?

Now I can not help but wonder if, say, a cockroach, worm, and ant have freewill what actions on their part would be considered bad by God in their exercise of freewill? Perhaps if an ant bites me that would be immoral on its part since it dared to bite a being created in the image of God? What divine punishment would it receive? Is there a hell for ants? Or can an ant be "born again" so that it can avoid hell?

Also many insects have such ridiculously rudimentary nervous system it is hard to see where their freewill is tucked in.

If I was at a loss before now my head is reeling.

So I am not quite upto the task of speculating in what ways plants can exercise their freewill.

Perhaps Joel can help by throwing some light?

Mageth

Sure, if you want to cut the sentence in half and read it out of its context. If you have to try to cut a sentence in half to try to prove a logical fallacy, that in reality doesn't matter anyway, then by all means, call it a logical fallacy. I won't lose any sleep over it.

Your sentence included two clauses which can stand independently. Taken alone or together, in context or out-of context, you committed a classic argumentum ad numerum fallacy.

For your edification, from the SecWeb library reference desk, logic FAQ:

Compare that to your "billions of people" statement, why don't you? As I indicated at the end of the post, I didn't have to "try to prove" it; it obviously is.

Yes, I see you are dissecting things. Its already been noted. Unfortunately, you are still missing the point.

No, I get the point. You don't want to admit your "billions of people" claim is a logical fallacy.

The sentence was inclusive, so there is no error, but if it will you feel better, we'll just pretend that it was.

One thing I've learned is that it's always best to just admit when I'm wrong. Apparently you're still working on that.

I'm almost tempted to go look through the rest of the forums to see if you do this to everyone. I would be willing to bet that my assumption is correct.

(What do you mean by "do this"? Ask hard questions, call attention to faulty logic? Lots of people do that here.)

And doing so would make my argument invalid, how? You're close to committing another logical fallacy there, you know.

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

Mageth

I'm almost tempted to go look through the rest of the forums to see if you do this to everyone. I would be willing to bet that my assumption is correct.

I should take you up on this bet, you know, exactly as stated. How does $1000 sound?

K

Joel:

This is easy. I've posted it before, but I think it scared away the last Christian who claimed to have "evidence". S/he claimed to have empirical evidence. You haven't made that claim, so I wouldn't hold you to the same standard, but empirical evidence would be nice.

The evidence for God that I would find acceptable is the same evidence I would find acceptable for proving anything else.

1. It should be universally obtainable. The frame of mind of the observer should have absolutely nothing to do with the results.

2. Pains should be taken to remove all other variables from the equation. The evidence should clearly demonstrate the existence of God and should not have any other plausible explanation. If the desire is to prove the Christian God, then all other Gods would also have to be ruled out by the evidence.

3. If it is an experiment or test, it should be repeatable. Anyone who follows the same procedure, regardless of their beliefs, should obtain the same results.

Philosoft

Why is this? We make decisions all the time that don't involve the wholesale rejection of a creator concept. As a matter of fact, we make innumerably more decisions of this nature than we do of the creator-rejection kind. If we make 4 trillion free-will decisions over a period of time, this doesn't count as free will unless one of those decisions is whether to "reject God"?

If God made it so the knowledge of his existence was indisputable or intrinsic, we could still make 3.9 billion+ free-will decisions. Are you saying all those free-will decisions are somehow not free-will decisions unless one of them is whether to "reject God?"

<strong> I largely dispute this, but I'll assume it for the sake of argument. Is it enough to be able to do any evil or must all evil acts be permissible? Would our ability to do evil be so diminished by intrinsic knowledge of God that they would cease to be free-will decisions?

Cipher Girl

Joel you said
Actually, Amazon mentioned the response that I was going to address. If god is all knowing, free will cannot exist, since god will always know what our choices will be. If god is all powerful, then god could easily make us in such a manner that we would always choose what he wanted us to. And if god was all good, why would he make us a certain way, only to send us to hell?

I though a major part of christian doctrine was "original sin". According to most christians the second choice does not exist. It seems crazy that a god would create people in such as way as they would have to grovel for forgiveness over the mistakes of others in order not to be eternally tortured. And we're supposed to blame ourselves for the way god supposedly created us? That's like blaming the child for child abuse.

What I would like to see is physical evidence that can be independently verified by a skeptic. Do you know what the most unreliable evidence in court is? Eyewitnesses. That's because people's perceptions are so subjective and colored by their preconceptions. That's why something like DNA evidence is so much stronger.

Setting sarcastic mode.
I suppose its easy to let go of reason. Its soooo much easier than thinking.
Turning sarcastic mode off.

I have a lot of fun here on II, and you are definately a friendly character here. But be warned, we will make you think.

Have a great day.

DigitalDruid

Kosh &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; I also note that you sidstepped DigitalDruids questions concerning the depth of your comparative religions studies. Did you just take a class in it?

Joel &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; I've taken classes on various religions, along with purchasing literature and studying their media. No sidestepping there; I noted that in my previous post.

Joel,
Notwithstanding your cheery reply, I think quite nimble sidestepping going on there! Let me explain why I think so.

Again, my question was did you apply the same standard to the study of other religions that you recommend for Christianity. And your standard is - read the religious sources in entirety and talk to knowledgeable people. That’s what you recommended to me for a true understanding of Christianity. I was merely asking did you apply your own standard to the study of other religions before concluding that Christianity is superior to all?

Your standard entails reading the sources in entirety - not merely commentaries, class lessons, media etc. that you mention here. But you yourself mentioned that it is impossible to read the sources of such a large number of religions by one person. You even skipped some religions entirely by your own admission.

So it is clear that your comparative study of religions falls short of your own standard. Yet when I pointed this out you said : "Yes, I certainly do adhere to my own standards".

I can not figure out why it is so hard to admit the limitations of your study. You sure are aware that all credible studies, surveys, and research reports state their limitations. It is very important to state the limitations of a study when you state the conclusions. This is a standard practice. So based on the things you say you could not do I would say your list of limitations would look something like:

I did not at all study religions X, Y, Z.
I studies only n of the m Puranas..
I studies only n of the m Vedas.
I did not study the sources for Upanishads at all. Instead I read commentaries by X ( with a note on X’s affiliations).
I could not find a person knowledgeable in religions X,Y.Z for discussions.
…..
……
Etc. etc.

Considering the enormity of your study, I expect quite a long list of limitations. Only when you state the limitations (which as you yourself stated are many) a certain degree of confidence can be attached to the conclusions of your study when you state the result in this forum or elsewhere.

Also the methodology of a study is important and should be explicitly stated. Which set of criteria you used in the comparison? What alternative sets of criteria were not used? How did you ensure the criteria were not partial to a specific religion? What is the rationale of the scheme you used to attcah weights to the various criteria? How did you handle concepts that are not common to all religions - did you exclude or include them? why? Unless care is taken while choosing the criteria the conclusions would be spurious. When you report your conclusion to any forum, you should give the details of your methodology when asked. But the good news is I am not going to ask you about your methodology (yet). I would rather have you answer the long-pending question about the limitations of your study first.

For example if someone else did a study with less limitation than your study (say, consulted sources of more religions, used more neutral criteria), then that study’s conclusions (say, Hinduism is superior) would have a higher degree of credibility.

I am sure you are aware of all this as this is fairly standard practice. If you are after true knowledge that’s the way to go.

To sum up, when you state that your study concluded Christianity is superior in this forum or elsewhere, you should never fail to add that the study was subject to a large number of limitations ( as you yourself admit exist). That is the fair thing to do.

Again I am not inventing this procedure for your particular study; all studies that aspire to some credibility must state their limitations when they state their conclusion.

That’s all I am saying.

Regards.

[ October 25, 2002: Message edited by: DigitalDruid ]</p>

HoosierGuy28

Digital Druid,

I have not suggested any standards that I don't uphold for myself. If I am recalling correctly, I suggested that if you wanted to learn about Christianity, the best way to do that is through Christians and Christian resources. So, it is not impossible to back up my own standard. I follow that same standard when I study religions.

I don't recall suggesting that I went on some quest for religious superiority. I merely expressed the standard which I use to study various beliefs. I also believe the point I was trying to make was that you're not going to have a greater understanding of Christianity if the resources you are using are in opposition to Christianity. Hopefully, this gives some clarification on my position.

Of course, that is why I do not have to read every religious material of every religion on the planet Earth.

If you have a brown paper sack and it is filled with 500 pennies and 1 nickel, and your intention is to find the nickel; you're going to reach into the bag and pull out pennies until you eventually find the nickel. Of course, once you find the nickel, there is no need to continue reaching your hand into the bag to pull out pennies. Once you have verfied that you have the nickel, you have accomplished your goal and have no reason to continue your search. There is no reason for you to exhaust every penny in the bag.

Interesting question. I don't see any reason to assume that the fig tree had free will. It was a demonstration of what the disciples could do with their faith. It was also used as an example of the permanency of God's Word by contrasting it to the fig tree.

Thanks for the questions/responses.

Joel

HoosierGuy28

DigitalChicken,

If God controlled your beliefs, then you wouldn't have any free will. You have to choose for yourself. I assure you, that if you seek God with an open-heart, you will find Him.

Joel