| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/21/2011 10:57:55 PM · #1301 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
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. |
You're right, I got sloppy there. I was more interested in the parallels between Gilgamesh and Genesis (there are many) and kind of forgot to remind myself that the fundamental DIFFERENCE between them is poly- vs mono-theism. There's the interesting sense, also, that the Christian trinity derives from the Gilgamesh creation trinity you have described.
R. |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 11:11:09 PM · #1302 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
"Where did the 'even' come from?" he asked, peevishly. |
'Tis better than odd! |
|
|
|
02/21/2011 11:51:22 PM · #1303 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
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. |
I'm assuming that when you say "you've just eliminated..." you really mean that Boyd just eliminated... since all of this is his work. At any rate, is it actually necessary to know the final result of a project before you are able to start working on it (or "get the ball rolling" as you say)? I'm not sure how Boyd would answer this question but it would seem to me that humans have intelligently created many things without knowing what the final result would be. If humans can do that then God most certainly can as well.
I'm not quit sure what you are getting at when you say that God could not get worshippers unless "he knew the future result of every action." I don't see the connection between omniscience and worship. Care to elaborate? |
|
|
|
02/22/2011 12:14:16 AM · #1304 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
is it actually necessary to know the final result of a project before you are able to start working on it (or "get the ball rolling" as you say)? |
It is if you're creating a universe that will evolve over billions of years to include one particular species of mammal intended to glorify yourself. Humans created in "God's image" for the specific purpose of idolization (God apparently created narcissism, too) cannot be a case of not knowing what the final result would be. You're dodging around like a squirrel on roller skates, offering the 'most compelling position you've come across' and then immediately disowning it when the position turns out to be not so compelling after all. LOL |
|
|
|
02/22/2011 12:56:29 AM · #1305 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
It is if you're creating a universe that will evolve over billions of years to include one particular species of mammal intended to glorify yourself. Humans created in "God's image" for the specific purpose of idolization (God apparently created narcissism, too) cannot be a case of not knowing what the final result would be. |
Ah... you're assuming theistic evolution. I can see how theistic evolution would not work well with open theism.
Originally posted by scalvert:
You're dodging around like a squirrel on roller skates, offering the 'most compelling position you've come across' and then immediately disowning it when the position turns out to be not so compelling after all. LOL |
Nope. No dodging here. I said from the beginning that I do not agree with Boyd.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
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. |
It's hard to disown something when you never took ownership of it in the first place, wouldn't you say?
Perhaps you need a new pair of spectacles? |
|
|
|
02/22/2011 01:01:19 AM · #1306 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Nope. No dodging here. I said from the beginning that I do not agree with Boyd. |
Then why bother trotting out an explanation that YOU don't even buy? You're still dodging the question. |
|
|
|
02/22/2011 01:13:50 AM · #1307 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Nope. No dodging here. I said from the beginning that I do not agree with Boyd. |
Then why bother trotting out an explanation that YOU don't even buy? You're still dodging the question. |
I don't buy the explanation because I (unlike you) do not have a problem reconciling my free will and God's omniscience. Logically, it's an excellent theory and certainly the most compelling for those who demand an explanation for the dilemma of free will vs. predestination. I, however, do not demand such an explanation. Whether or not I have free will is a non-issue to me. It does not affect the way that I conduct my life, nor does it impact my decision making. I firmly believe that God is omniscient and while I'm not sure if I have free will or not, personal experience seems to suggest that I do. |
|
|
|
02/22/2011 01:30:43 AM · #1308 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Logically, it's an excellent theory and certainly the most compelling for those who demand an explanation for the dilemma of free will vs. predestination. I, however, do not demand such an explanation. |
There's nothing logical about Boyd's explanation, and after questioning my knowledge of an issue so basic that the theological world moved on decades ago it turns out that you don't have an answer at all- you simply ignore the blatant contradiction. |
|
|
|
02/22/2011 01:58:41 AM · #1309 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Logically, it's an excellent theory and certainly the most compelling for those who demand an explanation for the dilemma of free will vs. predestination. I, however, do not demand such an explanation. |
There's nothing logical about Boyd's explanation, and after questioning my knowledge of an issue so basic that the theological world moved on decades ago it turns out that you don't have an answer at all- you simply ignore the blatant contradiction. |
No, I don't ignore it. I've just come to a place where I'm comfortable living with what I believe about the "contradiction." It's a common misconception that Christians are people who simply ignore the dilemmas in the Bible. I would bet that Christians actually have spent more time questioning, wondering, and struggling over these dilemmas than non-Christians. They mysteries of the Bible either draw you in or turn you away, but I doubt that anyone who is serious about understanding the Bible ignores these mysteries.
There are plenty of contradictions that atheists or scientists face, too. Take the properties of light for example. Is light a wave or is light a particle, or is it both? Some fascinating theories have been proposed but there is no perfect solution. At least with Christianity the dilemmas don't really go anywhere. I know the mysteries that I have to deal with, and I know the questions that Christianity can answer and the questions that it can't. With science, the game is always changing. There will be more mysteries to solve next yet. Tomorrow some questions might be answered, but those answers might lead to dozens of new questions. Science just doesn't answer enough of my questions and while it might answer more in the future, I have no idea when that will be. |
|
|
|
02/22/2011 04:34:30 AM · #1310 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
There are plenty of contradictions that atheists or scientists face, too. Take the properties of light for example. Is light a wave or is light a particle, or is it both? Some fascinating theories have been proposed but there is no perfect solution. At least with Christianity the dilemmas don't really go anywhere. I know the mysteries that I have to deal with, and I know the questions that Christianity can answer and the questions that it can't. With science, the game is always changing. There will be more mysteries to solve next yet. Tomorrow some questions might be answered, but those answers might lead to dozens of new questions. Science just doesn't answer enough of my questions and while it might answer more in the future, I have no idea when that will be. |
Correct me if I'm wrong, but am I correctly reading you say "I would rather stick my head in the sand about the issues I face than have a system that answers the questions that face it, because such answers may require further investigation."
If that's where your comfort is... why do you even need any source of truth at all? Why not just say "meh, beats me?" and call it a day?
I'm legitimately asking this.
Message edited by author 2011-02-22 05:08:47. |
|
|
|
02/22/2011 04:53:44 AM · #1311 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
That's fine.
My point appears to have been accepted: humans have invented thousands of religions, and there appear to be rational reasons for this. I don't think that this is particularly controversial.
My resulting challenge is to identify the reason why Judeo-Christianity should be believed when (as we all agree) humans show such propensity for inventing gods and religions and then persuading huge proportions of the population to believe in them? |
I presume that I wasn't the cause of the upset. No-one seems to disagree that most religions are made up by people.
Many or even most religions have god(s), holy men, swathes of followers, documented ancient history, miracles, holy artefacts, religious ceremonies, highly persuasive personal accounts, prayer, internally coherent theories... etc. And we appear to agree that these are all made up by people for rational reasons - but we disagree on the possible exception of one religion from all these others.
I merely want to know what distinguishes Judeo-Christianity from the made up religions.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2011 08:45:22 AM · #1312 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
There are plenty of contradictions that atheists or scientists face, too. Take the properties of light for example. Is light a wave or is light a particle, or is it both? |
It behaves as both. How is that a contradiction or even something an atheist faces? For that matter, the ONLY concept common to atheists is that gods don't exist, and there has never been anything to contradict that. |
|
|
|
02/22/2011 08:46:10 AM · #1313 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
I merely want to know what distinguishes Judeo-Christianity from the made up religions. |
Judeo-Christian parents. |
|
|
|
02/22/2011 09:38:17 AM · #1314 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
For the record... I didn't call anyone ignorant. I've been pointing out arrogance, not ignorance. |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
This is an elementary argument. I suggest picking up a copy of "Divine Forknowledge: Four Views" edited by James Beilby and Paul Eddy. Then when you can come back with a more thoughtful argument you won't seem so ignorant on the question of the compatibility of omniscience and free will. Clearly you haven't read much on this topic. |
|
|
|
|
02/22/2011 12:20:06 PM · #1315 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but am I correctly reading you say "I would rather stick my head in the sand about the issues I face than have a system that answers the questions that face it, because such answers may require further investigation." |
I will correct you. Like I said, I don't ignore the questions. I've struggled with them, and still do, but I can live with the fact that I will never have the complete answer. Science doesn't answer my questions any better than Christianity. There might be some questions that science answers more completely, but less satisfactorily. I prefer Christianity because the material being studied doesn't change, only my understanding of it does. With science, the material being studied changes all the time. Sure, you could say that science studies the whole universe, but you could also say that no physicist was studying black matter 200 years ago.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
There are plenty of contradictions that atheists or scientists face, too. Take the properties of light for example. Is light a wave or is light a particle, or is it both? |
It behaves as both. How is that a contradiction or even something an atheist faces? For that matter, the ONLY concept common to atheists is that gods don't exist, and there has never been anything to contradict that. |
So it's a contradiction for God to be both omniscient and allow free will, but it is not a contradiction for light to be both a particle and a wave? This is not necessarily something an atheist faces. I also referred to contradictions that scientists face.
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
For the record... I didn't call anyone ignorant. I've been pointing out arrogance, not ignorance. |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
This is an elementary argument. I suggest picking up a copy of "Divine Forknowledge: Four Views" edited by James Beilby and Paul Eddy. Then when you can come back with a more thoughtful argument you won't seem so ignorant on the question of the compatibility of omniscience and free will. Clearly you haven't read much on this topic. |
|
Yea... my memory doesn't go back that many posts. |
|
|
|
02/22/2011 02:59:01 PM · #1316 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
So it's a contradiction for God to be both omniscient and allow free will, but it is not a contradiction for light to be both a particle and a wave? |
Correct. Particles and waves are not inherently exclusive: "current scientific theory holds that all particles also have a wave nature (and vice versa). This phenomenon has been verified not only for elementary particles, but also for compound particles like atoms and even molecules." |
|
|
|
02/22/2011 05:01:00 PM · #1317 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
So it's a contradiction for God to be both omniscient and allow free will, but it is not a contradiction for light to be both a particle and a wave? |
Correct. Particles and waves are not inherently exclusive: "current scientific theory holds that all particles also have a wave nature (and vice versa). This phenomenon has been verified not only for elementary particles, but also for compound particles like atoms and even molecules." |
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as if you're arguing that "particles and waves are not inherently exclusive because particle natures and wave natures both exist." This would be like saying "predestination and free will are not inherently exclusive because predestination and free will both exist." That sounds more like a theory than a proven fact to me. Oh! Wait... it IS just a theory!
Originally posted by scalvert:
"current scientific theory holds..."
|
|
|
|
|
02/22/2011 05:11:22 PM · #1318 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as if you're arguing that "particles and waves are not inherently exclusive because particle natures and wave natures both exist." This would be like saying "predestination and free will are not inherently exclusive because predestination and free will both exist." That sounds more like a theory than a proven fact to me. Oh! Wait... it IS just a theory!Originally posted by scalvert:
"current scientific theory holds..." |
|
You have that wrong two ways:
1. He's arguing that a single object can display BOTH particle and wave behaviors; they aren't mutually exclusive and they can be found in tandem. This is a known fact, it can be observed.
2. You persist in misunderstanding the term "theory" in its scientific application. A "theory" is not a wild guess that may or may not prove out, it is a description of observed reality. A "hypothesis" is closer to what you think a "theory" is: if a hypothesis can be proved out by observation and testing, it is on the way to becoming a bona fide theory.
R. |
|
|
|
02/22/2011 05:18:32 PM · #1319 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as if you're arguing that "particles and waves are not inherently exclusive because particle natures and wave natures both exist." |
You're wrong. There is nothing to preclude particles from behaving like waves, but you can't be all-knowing and also not know something.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
That sounds more like a theory than a proven fact to me. Oh! Wait... it IS just a theory! |
And ignorant. |
|
|
|
02/22/2011 05:20:40 PM · #1320 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Correct me if I'm wrong.. |
You're wrong. Stick to your knitting. |
|
|
|
02/22/2011 06:57:47 PM · #1321 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
You have that wrong two ways:
1. He's arguing that a single object can display BOTH particle and wave behaviors; they aren't mutually exclusive and they can be found in tandem. This is a known fact, it can be observed. |
I'm arguing something similar. Just as light can be BOTH particle and wave, God can be BOTH determinative and consenting.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
2. You persist in misunderstanding the term "theory" in its scientific application. A "theory" is not a wild guess that may or may not prove out, it is a description of observed reality. A "hypothesis" is closer to what you think a "theory" is: if a hypothesis can be proved out by observation and testing, it is on the way to becoming a bona fide theory.
R. |
I don't think that I've misunderstood what a "theory" is. All I said was that a theory isn't a "proven fact." A theory is the most logical explanation based on observation (as scalvert's link seems to describe). Scientists have observed that light possesses both wave properties and particle properties and thus have developed the theory that it is possible for light to be both a particle and a wave at the same time. However, scientists do not yet know exactly how this is possible. Similarly, theologians have observed that God is both determinative and consenting. God preordains some things and allows people to make free will choices in other things. This has lead to the "theory" that God is both determinative and consenting. And, as scientists do not yet fully understand light, theologians do not yet fully understand God's omniscience.
The irony in this thread is that we spend so much time discussing how humans cannot have free will if God is omniscient, yet science has almost the exact same dilemma. While classical physics supports determinism, quantum physics supports indeterminism (and thus allowing for free will). Evolutionary Biology also faces a similar dilemma. Biology would seem to support determinism, but biology can not explain the seemingly random and unpredictable human conscience. |
|
|
|
02/22/2011 07:36:49 PM · #1322 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I don't think that I've misunderstood what a "theory" is. All I said was that a theory isn't a "proven fact." A theory is the most logical explanation based on observation (as scalvert's link seems to describe). Scientists have observed that light possesses both wave properties and particle properties and thus have developed the theory that it is possible for light to be both a particle and a wave at the same time. However, scientists do not yet know exactly how this is possible. Similarly, theologians have observed that God is both determinative and consenting. God preordains some things and allows people to make free will choices in other things. This has lead to the "theory" that God is both determinative and consenting. And, as scientists do not yet fully understand light, theologians do not yet fully understand God's omniscience. |
There is that annoying little tidbit that light is actually proven to exist.......
|
|
|
|
02/22/2011 08:16:29 PM · #1323 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I don't think that I've misunderstood what a "theory" is. All I said was that a theory isn't a "proven fact." |
You have. A scientific theory *IS* a proven fact (as Bear noted, guesses in science are called hypotheses). Germ theory, atomic theory, heliocentric theory, the theory of evolution and wave-particle duality have all been conclusively proven. Theories about gods are the "guess" concept that you incorrectly attribute to scientific theories, and are neither proven nor even falsifiable.
God cannot be "all-knowing," yet not know what choice you're going to make. You can't escape this basic fact even by imagining that he "allows" himself to not know because he would have already known everything right from the start. |
|
|
|
02/22/2011 08:27:09 PM · #1324 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
With science, the game is always changing. There will be more mysteries to solve next yet. Tomorrow some questions might be answered, but those answers might lead to dozens of new questions. Science just doesn't answer enough of my questions and while it might answer more in the future, I have no idea when that will be. |
What are your questions? Go on, throw them out to us atheist-scientists so we can have a stab. |
|
|
|
02/22/2011 09:24:01 PM · #1325 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I will correct you. Like I said, I don't ignore the questions. I've struggled with them, and still do, but I can live with the fact that I will never have the complete answer. Science doesn't answer my questions any better than Christianity. There might be some questions that science answers more completely, but less satisfactorily. I prefer Christianity because the material being studied doesn't change, only my understanding of it does. With science, the material being studied changes all the time. Sure, you could say that science studies the whole universe, but you could also say that no physicist was studying black matter 200 years ago.
|
What, pray tell, does this mean?
If you're asking a question and you've already the answer in mind, why ask the question?
You're not asking how the universe came to be, but how can you justify God.
People of religion would do well to discontinue attempts to justify their beliefs by use of logic and science. After all, the defining attribute of religion (faith) is the disregard and departure from such approaches. Why is it that you think you can amend the two? Doing so is just as silly as attempting to prove free will and God's omniscience- they are incompatible. Religion is faith, science is not. Neither will prove the other. You cannot and will not prove God exists. And even if you did, your religion would become corrupted by the fact that there is no longer faith. Religion depends upon mystery. |
|
