| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/21/2011 06:28:12 PM · #1276 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
...you are showing arrogance by assuming your position to be the only possible correct one.... |
Heehee. Pot...kettle; kettle...pot. |
Agreed. Arguing from the perspective (as many here have) that science is the only source of objective truth is just as absolute as arguing from the perspective that religion is the only source of objective truth. The only difference is that the evidence provided by the science camp consists of numbers and equations, while the evidence provided by the religion camp consists of documented history and personal experiences. |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 06:38:35 PM · #1277 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
The only difference is that the evidence provided by the science camp consists of numbers and equations, while the evidence provided by the religion camp consists of documented history and personal experiences. |
Correction, the difference is that there IS evidence for science. You guys have spent months trying to rationalize away the complete LACK of evidence for religion. There is zero documented history of any of the supernatural claims of the Bible, and personal experience is only credible for that person. |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 06:38:48 PM · #1278 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
...you are showing arrogance by assuming your position to be the only possible correct one.... |
Heehee. Pot...kettle; kettle...pot. |
Agreed. Arguing from the perspective (as many here have) that science is the only source of objective truth is just as absolute as arguing from the perspective that religion is the only source of objective truth. The only difference is that the evidence provided by the science camp consists of numbers and equations, while the evidence provided by the religion camp consists of documented history and personal experiences. |
-singing- One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn't belong.
We cannot put "Documented History" and "personal experiences" on the same playing field as numbers and equations. Greek Mythology is "documented history". Aesop's Fables are "documented history". I once blacked out and had visions of giant monster aliens attacking me. That's a "personal experience". No drugs involved either. It was utterly bizarre, but I don't worship giant aliens.
I can do a math equation 300 times, and it still comes out the same. It's repeatable and provable. If I count 4 sticks, and then count 5 sticks, and then count all the sticks together, it will ALWAYS be 9 sticks. That's an absolute position, certainly, but it's an absolute position based on observational and testable FACT.
Vanity and arrogance don't really play a part of it.
Now, that's not to say all science is as easily replicatable as a simple math equation, but it IS based on the same methodology. Religion, however, simply isn't. You can see where the two go off on different paths.
Still, I'm not claiming a complete absence of arrogance and vanity on the part of atheists either. There's plenty of it to go around. Scalvert is one of the most arrogant people I've ever encountered. So is Louis. I'm pretty arrogant too.
However, to even TRY to put the things you're trying to compare on an even playing field is just pure insanity. It's foolish. It'll never work :D
Message edited by author 2011-02-21 18:40:02. |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 06:45:39 PM · #1279 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Since a number of people here appear to think that they know my beliefs, or how I would respond to certain statements, it seems pointless to even waste my time with this discussion. I'm not going to swim upstream against a torrent of presuppositions. I was enjoying the discussion but, while I can handle some rude remarks, I would rather forfeit the discussion than continue to participate in it with those who would choose to be disrespectful and blatantly vain.
Even if you've convinced yourself that you "know" what another person would think or say about a certain subject, please consider being respectful and keep your arrogant assumptions to yourself for the sake of the argument. It is better to end an argument by having the better argument or the most skill in debating than to end it by arrogance and vanity. |
Odd that you don't seem to be saying that we are misrepresenting your positions. You are apparently just miffed that we didn't let you state them yourself.
Pointing out anticipated responses based upon prior interactions is not "arrogant assumption," its informed observation. Those of us who have already gone a few rounds with you pretty much know where you stand and what you are going to say. As far as who is taking the argument seriously and who is attempting to end it by arrogance and vanity - it wasn't the atheist that told his rhetorical opponent that he was just ignorant of the counter-arguments and simply needed to "read more" on the basis of the (arrogant?) assumption that the opponent was not familiar with some particular piece of individually favored apologetics.
Really, your responses to scalvert on the free will v. omniscience/omnipotence issue above were so clearly the responses of someone in over their intellectual head attempting to cover for the fact by bravado that it was a little embarrassing to read. Scalvert can be a bit pedantically crass at times (sorry Shannon, much love an all, but still), but you can't say that he is "ignorant" of the arguments.
Message edited by author 2011-02-21 18:47:54.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2011 06:57:30 PM · #1280 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Give me an example of an "absolute position" that I have promoted and explain why it is an absolute position. I understand what you're saying but I don't understand how/when I have been guilty of this. I would appreciate it if you could show me an example so that I can avoid doing the same thing in the future. |
The most recent examples: the claim that God is perfect, but wanted to create the universe or that God is omniscient/omnipotent yet free will exists. Any need, desire or want precludes the state of perfection because there wasn't complete satisfaction with status quo. Free will requires that choices are made by independent discretion rather than fate or control. If that choice is already known, then there is no free will because the outcome was fate. If the outcome is not known, then there cannot be omniscience, and if the choice is not controlled there can be no omnipotence since something is not directly controlled. It doesn't matter what your belief or argument- the concepts are completely incompatible with each other by definition. |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 07:04:00 PM · #1281 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
you can't say that he is "ignorant" of the arguments. |
Sure I can. It's not a disparagement, but a simple observation. I'm ignorant of diesel engine mechanics and neurosurgery, while even Bear_Music called Johnny on his apparent lack of knowledge regarding the evolutionary history of religion. That doesn't mean either of us are stupid. We just don't possess that particular knowledge.
EDIT- ah, I think I misread your post, but still worth pointing out that the term itself is not necessarily demeaning (or accurate).
Message edited by author 2011-02-21 19:07:19. |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 07:05:14 PM · #1282 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
you can't say that he is "ignorant" of the arguments. |
Sure I can. It's not a disparagement, but a simple observation. I'm ignorant of diesel engine mechanics and neurosurgery, while even Bear_Music called Johnny on his apparent lack of knowledge regarding the evolutionary history of religion. That doesn't mean either of us are stupid. We just don't possess that particular knowledge. |
Hehe. Shutterpuppy was saying that Johnny can't call YOU ignorant of the arguments :D |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 07:14:08 PM · #1283 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Shutterpuppy was saying that Johnny can't call YOU ignorant of the arguments :D |
Yeah, I figured that out. Of course he can CALL me ignorant, but it would probably be more effective to address the question with some counterargument that makes even a tiny bit of sense. |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 07:16:01 PM · #1284 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
you can't say that he is "ignorant" of the arguments. |
Sure I can. It's not a disparagement, but a simple observation. I'm ignorant of diesel engine mechanics and neurosurgery, while even Bear_Music called Johnny on his apparent lack of knowledge regarding the evolutionary history of religion. That doesn't mean either of us are stupid. We just don't possess that particular knowledge. |
Hehe. Shutterpuppy was saying that Johnny can't call YOU ignorant of the arguments :D |
Ha! - I had originally written that Shannon could be a bit knee-jerk in his responses, but took it out. Guess I should have left it in. ;)
But, also, I wasn't saying that the saying someone is ignorant is necessarily demeaning, just that it was inaccurate in that particular case.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2011 07:34:15 PM · #1285 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
I had originally written that Shannon could be a bit knee-jerk in his responses, but took it out. Guess I should have left it in. ;) |
:-) |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 07:47:36 PM · #1286 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Correction, the difference is that there IS evidence for science. You guys have spent months trying to rationalize away the complete LACK of evidence for religion. There is zero documented history of any of the supernatural claims of the Bible, and personal experience is only credible for that person. |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
We cannot put "Documented History" and "personal experiences" on the same playing field as numbers and equations. Greek Mythology is "documented history". Aesop's Fables are "documented history". I once blacked out and had visions of giant monster aliens attacking me. That's a "personal experience". No drugs involved either. It was utterly bizarre, but I don't worship giant aliens.
However, to even TRY to put the things you're trying to compare on an even playing field is just pure insanity. It's foolish. It'll never work :D |
It amazes me, after seeing comments like these, that the Christians are the ones being accused of putting forth "absolute positions." Claims like the ones above (i.e., biblical evidence is not actually evidence, documented history is not as good as scientific results, religious evidence does not compare to scientific evidence) are just as "absolute" as any of the claims that have been put forth by Christians in this forum.
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Odd that you don't seem to be saying that we are misrepresenting your positions. You are apparently just miffed that we didn't let you state them yourself. |
As I said, I'm forfeiting the discussion.
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Pointing out anticipated responses based upon prior interactions is not "arrogant assumption," its informed observation. Those of us who have already gone a few rounds with you pretty much know where you stand and what you are going to say. |
Perhaps you were just "observing" but it seemed like arrogance to me, since the assumptions being made about my beliefs were wrong. If some of the comments were based on observation, I would like to know which of my past comments were the ones being observed.
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Really, your responses to scalvert on the free will v. omniscience/omnipotence issue above were so clearly the responses of someone in over their intellectual head attempting to cover for the fact by bravado that it was a little embarrassing to read. Scalvert can be a bit pedantically crass at times (sorry Shannon, much love an all, but still), but you can't say that he is "ignorant" of the arguments. |
I am not the best debater, I will admit that. But to conclude that someone is "in over their intellectual head" based on that person's skills in debate is--I'll say it again--arrogant. I have read (and written) quite a lot on the subjects of foreknowledge, free will, predestination, omniscience, etc. and I would wager that I have read/studied these subjects more than most of those involved in this discussion.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Give me an example of an "absolute position" that I have promoted and explain why it is an absolute position. I understand what you're saying but I don't understand how/when I have been guilty of this. I would appreciate it if you could show me an example so that I can avoid doing the same thing in the future. |
The most recent examples: the claim that God is perfect, but wanted to create the universe or that God is omniscient/omnipotent yet free will exists. Any need, desire or want precludes the state of perfection because there wasn't complete satisfaction with status quo. Free will requires that choices are made by independent discretion rather than fate or control. If that choice is already known, then there is no free will because the outcome was fate. If the outcome is not known, then there cannot be omniscience, and if the choice is not controlled there can be no omnipotence since something is not directly controlled. It doesn't matter what your belief or argument- the concepts are completely incompatible with each other by definition. |
So in other words, all propositions about God and all Christian doctrines are "absolute propositions?" And how is it that my claim that "God must be perfect" is absolute but your claim that "God must be imperfect" is not?
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
you can't say that he is "ignorant" of the arguments. |
Sure I can. It's not a disparagement, but a simple observation. I'm ignorant of diesel engine mechanics and neurosurgery, while even Bear_Music called Johnny on his apparent lack of knowledge regarding the evolutionary history of religion. That doesn't mean either of us are stupid. We just don't possess that particular knowledge. |
Hehe. Shutterpuppy was saying that Johnny can't call YOU ignorant of the arguments :D |
For the record... I didn't call anyone ignorant. I've been pointing out arrogance, not ignorance. |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 07:54:20 PM · #1287 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I have read (and written) quite a lot on the subjects of foreknowledge, free will, predestination, omniscience, etc. and I would wager that I have read/studied these subjects more than most of those involved in is discussion. |
That's kind of like bragging about being the most knowledgeable iridologist on the site, or that your reading makes you the authority on how alien abductions work. It ain't what you've read, it's the substance of your position. |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 08:17:35 PM · #1288 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
So in other words, all propositions about God and all Christian doctrines are "absolute propositions?" And how is it that my claim that "God must be perfect" is absolute but your claim that "God must be imperfect" is not? |
God is perfect/omniscient/omnipotent/eternal/the standard of morality, etc. are all absolute claims. They are positive and unsupported assertions of superlatives. The fact that "want" indicates some unfulfilled need or desire, and is therefore imperfect, is not a claim. That's just what the term means. Likewise, I'm not making any ontologically positive claim that omniscience precludes free will, it simply does by definition. If I am free to make a choice and can go either way by my own volition, then the choice cannot be known beforehand and omniscience cannot exist. If the decision WAS known beforehand, then I was going to make that choice all along and it's fate rather than free will. The terms are mutually exclusive. |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 08:21:33 PM · #1289 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
you can't say that he is "ignorant" of the arguments. |
Sure I can. It's not a disparagement, but a simple observation. I'm ignorant of diesel engine mechanics and neurosurgery, while even Bear_Music called Johnny on his apparent lack of knowledge regarding the evolutionary history of religion. That doesn't mean either of us are stupid. We just don't possess that particular knowledge.
EDIT- ah, I think I misread your post, but still worth pointing out that the term itself is not necessarily demeaning (or accurate). |
As long as literalism is supposed to apply, "stupid" (from the same root as "stupify") means unable to speak -- obviously none of the regular participants in this thread qualify for that description. |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 08:33:20 PM · #1290 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
you can't say that he is "ignorant" of the arguments. |
Sure I can. It's not a disparagement, but a simple observation. I'm ignorant of diesel engine mechanics and neurosurgery, while even Bear_Music called Johnny on his apparent lack of knowledge regarding the evolutionary history of religion. That doesn't mean either of us are stupid. We just don't possess that particular knowledge.
EDIT- ah, I think I misread your post, but still worth pointing out that the term itself is not necessarily demeaning (or accurate). |
As long as literalism is supposed to apply, "stupid" (from the same root as "stupify") means unable to speak -- obviously none of the regular participants in this thread qualify for that description. |
Errr, on the same "literalism" subject, nobody here is actually speaking, are they? ;) |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 08:34:42 PM · #1291 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
As long as literalism is supposed to apply, "stupid" (from the same root as "stupify") means unable to speak -- obviously none of the regular participants in this thread qualify for that description. |
*Disclaimer: Cliff Claven was a fictional character. Any resemblance to real people living or dead is purely coincidental. ;-) |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 08:45:30 PM · #1292 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I have read (and written) quite a lot on the subjects of foreknowledge, free will, predestination, omniscience, etc. and I would wager that I have read/studied these subjects more than most of those involved in is discussion. |
That's kind of like bragging about being the most knowledgeable iridologist on the site, or that your reading makes you the authority on how alien abductions work. It ain't what you've read, it's the substance of your position. |
I don't claim to be an authority on these issues but many of positions that I take on them are the same positions that many scholars (who are authorities) have taken. I may not be able to articulate the arguments for these positions as well as the true authorities can, but that doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Likewise, I'm not making any ontologically positive claim that omniscience precludes free will, it simply does by definition. If I am free to make a choice and can go either way by my own volition, then the choice cannot be known beforehand and omniscience cannot exist. If the decision WAS known beforehand, then I was going to make that choice all along and it's fate rather than free will. The terms are mutually exclusive. |
This argument is so old that I'm questioning (again) just how much you actually have read about free will/predestination. If you've read anything on these topics that was produced in the last 30 years then you would not be asking these questions, you'd be asking much more difficult ones. The discussion on free will/predestination in the field of theology (and even in the science and psychology fields) has advanced way beyond this elementary argument. If you were to walk into a physics discussion with a question about gravity while everyone else was discussing relativity, quantum mechanics, dark matter, and gamma ray bursts, you would be accused of the same thing. |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 08:52:33 PM · #1293 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
... The only difference is that the evidence provided by the science camp consists of numbers and equations, while the evidence provided by the religion camp consists of documented history and personal experiences. |
Really now... and there exist records of the 40 day rainfall, and the co-existence of two of every species on an arc, and a talking serpent...do tell where one can find them. Oops, I forgot, it's in the bible right?
Ray |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 08:59:54 PM · #1294 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by scalvert:
I'm not making any ontologically positive claim that omniscience precludes free will, it simply does by definition. If I am free to make a choice and can go either way by my own volition, then the choice cannot be known beforehand and omniscience cannot exist. If the decision WAS known beforehand, then I was going to make that choice all along and it's fate rather than free will. The terms are mutually exclusive. |
This argument is so old that I'm questioning (again) just how much you actually have read about free will/predestination. If you've read anything on these topics that was produced in the last 30 years then you would not be asking these questions, you'd be asking much more difficult ones. |
Then it should be a cinch for you to answer the basic premise. I've read quite a lot on the subject, and we've even had some try to dance around that elephant in the room in these forums (none successfully). I triple dog dare you with whipped cream and a cherry on top to explain how any decision can truly be free will if every outcome is known beforehand with absolute certainty.
A magical entity tells you to pick a number between 1 and 100. If he knows it will be 45, then you don't really have free will: you were destined to pick 45 before you were even born. If he doesn't know what number you were going to pick, then he's not omniscient: there was something he didn't know. It's as simple as that. |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 09:11:34 PM · #1295 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I have read (and written) quite a lot on the subjects of foreknowledge, free will, predestination, omniscience, etc. and I would wager that I have read/studied these subjects more than most of those involved in is discussion. |
That's kind of like bragging about being the most knowledgeable iridologist on the site, or that your reading makes you the authority on how alien abductions work. It ain't what you've read, it's the substance of your position. |
I don't claim to be an authority on these issues... |
You've missed my point. Just as well. |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 09:34:37 PM · #1296 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Then it should be a cinch for you to answer the basic premise. I've read quite a lot on the subject, and we've even had some try to dance around that elephant in the room in these forums (none successfully). I triple dog dare you with whipped cream and a cherry on top to explain how any decision can truly be free will if every outcome is known beforehand with absolute certainty. |
The most compelling position that I have come across (not the view that I personally hold, however) is Gregory Boyd's position in God of the Possible. Boyd is a proponent of Open Theism. Basically, Boyd argues that God does not know what our future free will choices will be because we haven't made them yet. This view allows God to still be omniscient because he knows everything that there is to know. It also allows for humans to have free will because their choices have not been made and, therefore, do not exist to be known. Instead of knowing a definite future, God knows an infinite future. God knows all of the possible decisions that each person could make and he knows all of the possible outcomes of each of those possible decisions. Thus, at least according to Boyd, God has to know more in an Open Theist position than he does in any other positions. God knows everything that exists to be known, and so is omniscient, and future human decisions do not exist to be known, so humans have free will. Like I said, I don't personally agree with this position for certain reasons, but as far as I can tell it is the only position that provides a logical solution to the free will vs. predestination problem.
Originally posted by scalvert:
A magical entity tells you to pick a number between 1 and 100. If he knows it will be 45, then you don't really have free will: you were destined to pick 45 before you were even born. If he doesn't know what number you were going to pick, then he's not omniscient: there was something he didn't know. It's as simple as that. |
Now you're just repeating yourself. This analogy is almost the same as the analogy of rolling the die that you used before. |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 09:41:07 PM · #1297 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I have read (and written) quite a lot on the subjects of foreknowledge, free will, predestination, omniscience, etc. and I would wager that I have read/studied these subjects more than most of those involved in is discussion. |
That's kind of like bragging about being the most knowledgeable iridologist on the site, or that your reading makes you the authority on how alien abductions work. It ain't what you've read, it's the substance of your position. |
I don't claim to be an authority on these issues... |
You've missed my point. Just as well. |
Well I wasn't necessarily responding to your main point. I just wanted to make sure that people don't think that I consider myself an expert. |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 10:25:24 PM · #1298 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Basically, Boyd argues that God does not know what our future free will choices will be because we haven't made them yet. This view allows God to still be omniscient because he knows everything that there is to know. It also allows for humans to have free will because their choices have not been made and, therefore, do not exist to be known. |
Congratulations... you've just eliminated the possibility of a divine creator since he would have to know that which doesn't exist yet. The only way an "intelligent designer" could get the ball rolling to eventually achieve the current universe containing those coveted worshippers is if he knew the future result of every action. So now you get to choose between not knowing future events (no divine creator or complete omniscience) or knowing future events (no free will). Any way you cut it, you're going to conflict with a claimed characteristic of God. |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 10:41:42 PM · #1299 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
...even Bear_Music called Johnny on his apparent lack of knowledge regarding the evolutionary history of religion. |
"Even" Bear_Music? Sheesh... I've always been fascinated by comparative religion. In my California library I had at lest 25-30 books on the stuff. I studied it in college.
"Where did the 'even' come from?" he asked, peevishly.
R. |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 10:49:42 PM · #1300 |
Going back a bit Bear, I had to refresh myself on Gilgamesh (it had been a while), but I gotta say it's not fundamentally montheistic any more than paganism is fundamentally monotheistic because Zeus is the head god. This was something I found, but you can feel free to correct me from your point of view:
The Babylonians compiled separate Sumerian descriptions of the creation of the universe into a new version that was to become known as the Enuma Elish . The Enuma Elish begins by describing heaven and earth as already existing but with these places not yet having meaning because the gods had not yet given them names. According to the Enuma Elish, the world began with the salt waters and the fresh waters not yet separated, and with the fertile marshlands not yet having appeared. The Enuma Elish describes creation as birth: a godly male in the form of fresh waters, called Apsu, mated with a goddess in the form of salt waters, called Tiamat, and the goddess Tiamat gave birth to a variety of gods and to the earth and all things upon it. The gods born of Tiamat grew and multiplied and became rivals of one another. Eventually the gods born of Tiamat chose one of their number as king of the universe. This was Marduk, the god of light, who could perform miracles. According to the Enuma Elish the other gods called out to Marduk, declaring: "Say but to destroy or create and it shall be."
Marduk, as king among the gods, did what kings did on earth: he went forth and battled his enemies -- demon gods. According to the Enuma Elish, in pursuing these demon gods, Marduk created the winds from the north, south, east and west so that his enemy might not escape him. Then in victory he surveyed the heavens and added to Tiamat's creations. He created the firmament and stars. He designated the zones of constellations of stars and thereby created the year. He made the moon shine, and he created vegetation. Then, seeing wars among other gods, and knowing that the defeated served the victorious, Marduk decided to create humankind. No god, he decided, should be a servant. Instead, it would be the place of humans to serve the gods.
|
|
