| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/14/2005 04:02:56 PM · #701 |
Sorry, got this in my mail and I can't resist:
========
A teacher asked her students what religious objects they had in their homes.
One boy answered, "We have a picture of a woman with a halo holding a baby and every day my mother kneels in front of it."
The next little boy said, "We have a brass statue of a man seated with crossed legs and a Chinese face, and every day my parents burn an incense stick before it."
Then a third boy piped up, "In the bathroom we have a flat, square box with numbers on it. Every day my mother stands on it first thing in the morning and screams,'OH MY GOD!!!'" |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 04:09:32 PM · #702 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Ron is caught in his own argument (again). If we have free will, then our choices are our own, independent decisions. In that aspect, God is limited. If he's NOT limited in that aspect (instead wielding infinite ability to direct our choices), then we don't have free will. |
Shannon, this doesn't follow logically. If God has the power to grant free will, and has granted it, it is not a limitation of God that he has done so. If a scientist, for example, chooses to let an experiment run its course without input or corrections from him, this does not mean that he lacks the power to change the course of the experiment, or indeed to abort it at any time. In a sense, God is exercising HIS free will in this matter, by sharing it with us, is one way of looking at it.
Accepting for the sake of argument the existence of God, his omnipoetnce, and the fact that He chose to give man free will; accepting that for the sake of argument, then it's worth remembering that this free will only exists in the earthly, temporal plane, and His creation is much larger than that. According to the Bible, we will be called to accountability for our actions, and we will eventually pay the price for our transgresssions. As long as God is calling the shots in the end, there is no contradiction.
This begs the question, of course, of why He did any such thing as grant us free will in the first place, but that's a whole new tack to take.
Again, let me state that I am NOT arguing for this position; I am just looking at the logic of it from a Christian perspective. And I don't see the contradiction that you do.
Robt. |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 04:17:49 PM · #703 |
| Wouldn't we have free will if there were no God? If the argument is to explain the existence of free will, it would seem that the simplist answer (principle of Occam's Razor) is because there is no omnipotent being capable of limiting our actions. |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 04:21:14 PM · #704 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
If a scientist, for example, chooses to let an experiment run its course without input or corrections from him, this does not mean that he lacks the power to change the course of the experiment, or indeed to abort it at any time. |
Good analogy Bear, and I think it still applies. When an experiment is allowed to run its course, it is at least temporarily out of the control of the scientist. He may have the ability to stop or alter the experiment, but doing so automatically means the experiment is not being allowed to run its course. If the experiment is guided or directed in any way, then who is really calling the shots? |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 04:23:04 PM · #705 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by bear_music:
If a scientist, for example, chooses to let an experiment run its course without input or corrections from him, this does not mean that he lacks the power to change the course of the experiment, or indeed to abort it at any time. |
Good analogy Bear, and I think it still applies. When an experiment is allowed to run its course, it is at least temporarily out of the control of the scientist. He may have the ability to stop or alter the experiment, but doing so automatically means the experiment is not being allowed to run its course. If the experiment is guided or directed in any way, then who is really calling the shots? |
OOOh good reposte!
P:)))
|
|
|
|
11/14/2005 04:27:26 PM · #706 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by bear_music:
If a scientist, for example, chooses to let an experiment run its course without input or corrections from him, this does not mean that he lacks the power to change the course of the experiment, or indeed to abort it at any time. |
Good analogy Bear, and I think it still applies. When an experiment is allowed to run its course, it is at least temporarily out of the control of the scientist. He may have the ability to stop or alter the experiment, but doing so automatically means the experiment is not being allowed to run its course. If the experiment is guided or directed in any way, then who is really calling the shots? |
I don't see this changing the logic, Shannon. I don't see that the scientist has LESS power simply because he chooses not to exercise it in a given situation. What am I missing in your thesis?
Robt. |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 04:42:33 PM · #707 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Wouldn't we have free will if there were no God? If the argument is to explain the existence of free will, it would seem that the simplist answer (principle of Occam's Razor) is because there is no omnipotent being capable of limiting our actions. |
Depends on how you define "free will." And THAT requires defining "will." The arguemnt would go, "An ant, for example, has no will but only instinct, programmed behavior. An ant does not "make choices", he follows his programming. Even if he deviates from his programming, it's just that; a deviation, not a choice â an anomaly, as it were."
Where is the line drawn? Some believe that NO animals have "free will" because they are not truly "conscious" as we define consciousness. These folks would say that dogs and cats, for example, are incapable of making "choices", because to make a choice (as opposed to exercise an option) requires an awareness of consequences. They would say that what appears to our antropomorphic nature to be awareness of consequences in a dog or a cat is simply a matter of programming, as it were.
When Karma bolts out the door and across the street into the woods, which she used to do, she wasn't exercising a choice but following an instinct. When I finished programming her, I essentially succeeded in burying that instinct underneath a more powerful, learned behavior. Or so the theory goes... I donno.
As an interesting sidelight, the scientist Julian Jaynes, in his book "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Brain" (how's THAT for a title?) makes a compelling case for the theory that within historical time man was not truly conscious, did not have "consciousness" as we define it now. According to Jaynes, all higher organisms have bicameral brains, including man, and within historical time as our mental faculties have developed we have broken down the barrier between the two sides of the brain and this is where true consciousness came into being.
He claims that a careful study of such things as the Iliad and the Odyssey prove conclusively that the ancient Greeks still had fully bicameral brains, and that the change came sometime after that. When an acient Greek "heard the Gods talking" he was actually "hearing" one side of his brain talking to the other side, and for him the voices were "real", not imaginary in any sense. A modern-day schizophrenic, then, is one who does not have our more integrated brain, and this is why they "hear voices."
What relevance this has to anything under discussion, I do not know, but I thought I'd throw it up there :-)
Robt. |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 04:54:18 PM · #708 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
I don't see that the scientist has LESS power simply because he chooses not to exercise it in a given situation. |
If the scientist reserves the ability to pull the plug on the experiment, then it isn't really being given the freedom to run its course because there is the possibility of intervention at any point. If the scientist is directly responsible for all parameters and conditions of the experiment- all the way down to the physical laws, environmental conditions, instincts and genetic tendencies - then the outcome is known and the experiment is pointless.
Actually, all outcomes are certain (omniscience), so we're free to choose, but our choices are already known.
Message edited by author 2005-11-14 17:01:47. |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 04:58:26 PM · #709 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
...dogs and cats, for example, are incapable of making "choices", because to make a choice (as opposed to exercise an option) requires an awareness of consequences. ...When I finished programming her, I essentially succeeded in burying that instinct underneath a more powerful, learned behavior. |
How did you program her without an awareness of consequences? Any sort of punishment/reward training would be useless unless the animal was aware that good things or bad things would happen. |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 04:58:52 PM · #710 |
| And to think that I have been accused of using circular logic. |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 04:59:30 PM · #711 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by bear_music:
I don't see that the scientist has LESS power simply because he chooses not to exercise it in a given situation. |
If the scientist reserves the ability to pull the plug on the experiment, then it isn't really being given the freedom to run its course because there is the possibility of intervention at any point. If the scientist is directly responsible for all parameters and conditions of the experiment- all the way down to the physical laws, environmental conditions, instincts and genetic tendencies - then the outcome is known and the experiment is pointless. |
So your argument is not that God is not omnipotent, so much as it is that our will is not truly "free" if He IS omnipotent? In other words, if God is the scientist we don't really have free will, in the sense that if He can take it away it was never really "free" in the first place?
R. |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 05:02:38 PM · #712 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by bear_music:
...dogs and cats, for example, are incapable of making "choices", because to make a choice (as opposed to exercise an option) requires an awareness of consequences. ...When I finished programming her, I essentially succeeded in burying that instinct underneath a more powerful, learned behavior. |
How did you program her without an awareness of consequences? Any sort of punishment/reward training would be useless unless the animal was aware that good things or bad things would happen. |
There's a difference between "awareness" and "programming". The issue is, is the animal THINKING "If I do this I'm gonna get yelled at, better not do it!" versus having had programmed into her a new instinct, as it were, NOT to run across the street. This is a very real distinction.
R. |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 05:08:22 PM · #713 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
...if God is the scientist we don't really have free will. |
Yup. According to the dictionary, Free Will = "The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will." So are we unconstrained or not? If we're unconstrained, then there can be no intervention. If there can be no intervention...
(I can understand your POV on this one, too) ;-)
Message edited by author 2005-11-14 17:20:32. |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 05:10:09 PM · #714 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
The issue is, is the animal THINKING "If I do this I'm gonna get yelled at, better not do it!" versus having had programmed into her a new instinct, as it were, NOT to run across the street. |
So how would you accomplish the second without the first? |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 05:23:44 PM · #715 |
"The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will."
I can agree with that definition. But to ME there two keys in the definition worth noting:
1) the definition does NOT say that free choices that are unconstrainable, only unconstrained. Big difference.
2) the definition also says unconstrained by. The fact that choices are unconstrained by divine will, does not mean that devine will is not able to constrain, only that it does not constrain. Big difference.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2005 05:29:59 PM · #716 |
I just have to put my 2 cents in......
I think it's assinine that a woman can marry her house, or a man can marry his horse.... but a human can't marry a human because they are the same sex? Where is the common sense in that?!?
What is so wrong with 2 humans that are in love being joined together as a couple? What is wrong with these said couples sharing a life and raising a family? That is just like saying a Jew can't marry a German! If they are in love.... who the hell cares? Love is Love!
I think it's rediculous that people are so damn quick to judge others by what sexual preference they have! They think that they are dirty, or sick in the head. They think that homosexuals are bad people. If that is true.... then why do homosexual relationships last longer than most heterosexual ones? Why do the children grow up better and have a better outlook on life? Probably because homosexuals are more open to everything and anything.... they aren't as arrogant as the heterosexuals are!
And if it comes down to reproduction and all that.... maybe that is what we need. Since they can't have children of their own... they are adopting the children of the world who don't have a family of their own, instead of over populating the world and bringing more children into the world that can't be cared for!
If people wouldn't be so damn judgemental... this country would be a much better place. But everyone is so nosey and so quick to point out everyone elses mistakes! Grow up and love one another!
Grrrrrrrrrrrr.
Lorrie
|
|
|
|
11/14/2005 05:30:28 PM · #717 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Shannon, this doesn't follow logically. If God has the power to grant free will, and has granted it, it is not a limitation of God that he has done so. If a scientist, for example, chooses to let an experiment run its course without input or corrections from him, this does not mean that he lacks the power to change the course of the experiment, or indeed to abort it at any time. In a sense, God is exercising HIS free will in this matter, by sharing it with us, is one way of looking at it.
Accepting for the sake of argument the existence of God, his omnipoetnce, and the fact that He chose to give man free will; accepting that for the sake of argument, then it's worth remembering that this free will only exists in the earthly, temporal plane, and His creation is much larger than that. According to the Bible, we will be called to accountability for our actions, and we will eventually pay the price for our transgresssions. As long as God is calling the shots in the end, there is no contradiction.
This begs the question, of course, of why He did any such thing as grant us free will in the first place, but that's a whole new tack to take.
Again, let me state that I am NOT arguing for this position; I am just looking at the logic of it from a Christian perspective. And I don't see the contradiction that you do.
Robt. |
I do agree with you that scalvertâs position does not necessarily follow, but I would say that the problem to which he is alluding arising when you try to combine the concepts of an omnipotent being, freewill and who bears the weight of responsibility for the use of freewill.
I contend that an omnipotent, omniscient being giving the power of freewill to an entity for use in performing ârightâ or âwrongâ actions is not entirely blameless for the actions of said entity.
Going back to RonBâs electrical power plant example, letâs say that I run the power plant. There is no other way of accomplishing anything ârightâ or âwrongâ without the electric power that I supply down to the little town of Whosit. Every single electrical appliance in the town of Whosit runs on the power the power from my plant, but not only that, every single appliance can be controlled from my plant. The power doesnât just go into the house and then I donât what happens to it. I know exactly which power is going where and for exactly what purpose and I have the ability to turn off the power to individual appliances if I so chose.
Imaging that in the town of Whosit there is a âwickedâ man with a woman strapped to a log that is about to go through a giant electrical log cutter like in the old silent melodramas. In Whosit, sending a woman through a log cutter is considered âwrong.â As the power man, I am not helpless in this situation. I could turn off the power to the electrical log cutter or anything other electrical appliance that the âwickedâ man tries to use to kill the woman. However, I decide that, although I could act and prevent this âwrongâ and have received credit many times for stopping and saving people from various âwrongsâ around the city of Whosit, that to stop this saw would be interfering with their free use of my electrical power in Whosit.
How much responsibility do I hold for not stopping the sawing in half (âwrongâ) of the young woman in Whosit when I could have easily flipped a switch to stop it and have, if rumors are to be believed, stopped many such âwrongâ acts in the past? If God creates a situation in which sin can occur, how much responsibility does he hold if sin does occur?
|
|
|
|
11/14/2005 05:53:19 PM · #718 |
If god is omnipotent than we don't really have free will because he knows what weâre going to do. That being said, he knew all the death and suffering humans would inflict on themselves and the planet. He knew all throughout human history humans would destroy themselves in horrific and terrifying ways, torture, rape and commit genocide, often times in his name. He knew Hitler would do his thing and Alexander the Great. Therefore one could say, he knowingly created all this suffering and injustice on purpose.
Is this a good god?
|
|
|
|
11/14/2005 05:57:09 PM · #719 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
If god is omnipotent than we don't really have free will because he knows what weâre going to do. That being said, he knew all the death and suffering humans would inflict on themselves and the planet. He knew all throughout human history humans would destroy themselves in horrific and terrifying ways, torture, rape and commit genocide, often times in his name. He knew Hitler would do his thing and Alexander the Great. Therefore one could say, he knowingly created all this suffering and injustice on purpose.
Is this a good god? |
Lets just say for a minute I agree with your statement on omnipotent. Lets say He did know the potential for human tragedy. How does that have anything to do with what he created? Actually after reading your statement I think you have nailed down free will. He created and we destroyed because we have the free will to do so. I know you are going to go to sleep at some point does that mean I must take responsibility for your actions?
|
|
|
|
11/14/2005 06:11:49 PM · #720 |
And to think,
just 35 years ago it was still illegal in some parts of the united states to enter into an interracial marriage.
Message edited by author 2005-11-14 18:12:17.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2005 06:44:49 PM · #721 |
Originally posted by res0m50r:
Lets say He did know the potential for human tragedy. How does that have anything to do with what he created? I know you are going to go to sleep at some point does that mean I must take responsibility for your actions? |
That may well be the most bizarre statement of this entire thread. If you created the need for sleep, then yes, you bear some responsibility for that action.
If I as a parent take my daughter to the ice cream parlor and tell her she can order whatever she wants, then I am granting her the power of choice. It's true that I do not lose my ability to veto her choice, and if she chooses a 42-flavor, half-ton banana split, she's not getting it. Now, if I KNEW that she was going to order that before I made the offer, have I really given her the power of choice? |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 07:08:56 PM · #722 |
Originally posted by nsoroma79:
I just have to put my 2 cents in......
I think it's rediculous that people are so damn quick to judge others by what sexual preference they have! They think that they are dirty, or sick in the head. They think that homosexuals are bad people. If that is true.... then why do homosexual relationships last longer than most heterosexual ones?
|
They don't. A 2004 study published by the Population Association of America related to registered partnered couples in Sweden and Norway ( where homosexual partnership is legal ) reported ( table 5 on page 28 ) that the divorce rate among male homosexual partnerships was 1.5 times higher than for heterosexual partnerships, and that the divorce rate for female homosexual partnerships was 2.67 times higher than for heterosexual partnerships.
The full report can be read ( ref: here ( table 5, page 28 )
Originally posted by nsoroma79:
Why do the children grow up better and have a better outlook on life? |
There is no substantive, scientifically conducted, statistically credible study that supports your contention. Even the most "optimistic" ( read: favorable toward same-sex unions ) studies can only say that it appears that they are "equal". NONE of them say "better". |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 07:15:34 PM · #723 |
Originally posted by ericlimon:
And to think,
just 35 years ago it was still illegal in some parts of the united states to enter into an interracial marriage. |
Yeah. That is something to think about. What's more frightening to me, though is to think that in another 35 years it will be legal, in some parts of the U.S., for a 40 year old man to have sex with a consenting 9 year-old ( male or female ), or a horse ( but only if it's in the privacy of his own barn ).
Message edited by author 2005-11-14 19:16:20. |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 07:19:01 PM · #724 |
| We already covered underage marriage and nobody is suggesting interspecies marriage. That's as relevant to this conversation as marrying a banana. |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 07:20:28 PM · #725 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
We already covered underage marriage and nobody is suggesting interspecies marriage. That's as relevant to this conversation as marrying a banana. |
HEY I LOVE BANANAS!
:)
P
|
|
