Posted by: Recalescence
May 8, 2008
(4 days and 22 hours ago)
|
|
Sav + A Few reasons why I do not believe in Free Will
|
You don't really have to read this Sav, except for the last bit because you were being insufferable. This started as a response and ended as a rant. It just seemed as if I had to explain every small detail in order to articulate my point. (Genesis 2:17) . . .you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die.” The word death means nothing to someone whom has never seen death. For example, the problem with the medical definition of "informed consent" is that it requires medical consent be given to a treatment that you most likely know nothing about. Hospitals do not expect a guardian to make a decision for a child which doctors themselves spend hours agonizing over. It is merely a legal document to waiver accountability, because a hospital's first interest is to preserve a hospital, because if a hospital is sued to oblivion, everyone dies. God has no need to protect himself in this instance, so this does not apply. Adam and Eve epitomized innocence. They were as children. My little cousin had no concept of death, until his hamster died. A child does not know that a fire will burn so he will continually reach for it until he develops a relationship between heat and pain. Sometimes it is necesssary for a parent to aid in helping a child establish that relationship, however this action is initiated to preserve life. You do not allow children to be exposed to temptation when you know that it will result in death. It is irresponsible. And it makes you a bad parent. And when the child dies, It is absolutely, without a doubt your fault. No, Adam and Eve cannot be held accountable because they could not establish the relationship disobedience = death = bad & obedience = life = good. Without the knowledge of good and evil: death and life, right and wrong mean positively nothing. All of mankind hold others accountable for what they do, ergo prisons. You are wrong. 1# Mankind holds each other responsible for ourselves because we are not all knowing; therefore in order to maintain a functional society, we must hold each individual accountable to his own merit and vice. God's ability to forsee makes all the difference.Because Jesus was able to see what Peter would do in no way removed Peters free will. To foresee something happen is one thing, to make it happen is another. Jesus did not make it happen he merely saw the choice Peter would make. 2# Yes, it did remove Peter's free will. God did cause Peter to do what he did, simply by creating the universe. You must not be so myopic. You must see the big picture. just because we have the illusion of free will, does not mean we have free will itself. Take this for example:I have a choice correct? Between apples and oranges. Its a free choice. But consider this, these must be a reason behind my choice, agreed? No choice is without reason. If there is no reason behind that choice, then that choice is arbitrary, and therfore not a choice. Therefore, the reasons are what control the choice. Now if the reasons behind that choice are beyond your control, then you do not control the choice. Therefore, the choice is not truly yours. Therefore, I have no free will. Following this, if you were an omniscient being, you would be able to see every single minute detail leading up to my choice. Think of it like falling dominoes, but worlds more complex! If you happened to have also started the universe, then you have started the first domino. No about 5^100000000000000000 dominoes down, you have a domino representing you. Now that domino MUST fall and the reason for its fall is the domino behind it. It is exactly like a choice, the domino behind it is the reason. Aside: falling. The factors are minute and approach a myriad. The important thing to remember is that all effects have a cause, we all beleive this at a near unconscious level. This is why we believe in God, we beleive that the universe must be caused. We believe that if you put 2 and 2 together it equals 4. if something does not have a cause, then it is arbitrary - haphazard. Which does not free will make. If you offered me a choice as simple as between paper or plastic, it has a reason. perhaps you think that plastic is less likely to break, perhaps you're a paper-phobe, perhaps you simply like the phonetic quality of "paper," perhaps you've been traumatized with those little paperbag puppets in kindergaten, perhaps you just like the way paper feels vs plastic, perhaps you like a's more than l's. there is always a reason, even when we are not able to see it. We see its effects, which is the "choice." ] Continued... Now, the domino, MUST fall. Not only that, but it can only fall when hit by its preceeding domino. A domino does not fall at random, some force must act upon it. The same is true of a choice. That is the nature and basis of psychology and Freudian theory. Our attitudes and choices are determined by an accumilation of experiencial and genetic factors. To the point, if your domino gets knocked down, whose fault is it? Not the previous domino, the previous domino was influenced by all of the preceeding dominoes. The fault can only rest with the uncaused cause. The one who knocked down, voluntarily the first domino. That would be God. Selective foreknowledge means that, rather than all history from creation onward being a mere rerun of what had already been foreseen and foreordained, God could with all sincerity set before the first human pair the prospect of everlasting life in an earth free from wickedness. His instructions to his first human son and daughter to act as his perfect and sinless agents in filling the earth with their offspring and making it a paradise, could thus be expressed as the grant of a truly loving privilege and as his genuine desire toward them-not merely as the giving of a commission that, on their part, was foredoomed to failure. God’s arranging for a test by means of “the tree of the knowledge of good and bad” and his creation of “the tree of life” in the garden of Eden also would not be meaningless or cynical acts, made so by his foreknowing that the human pair would sin and never be able to eat of “the tree of life.” Gen 1:28; 2:7-9, 15-17; 3:22-24. Sav, quit spilling your bathos all over the place. Selective foreknowledge means that God refused to access the future to see the consequences of his actions in order to escape accountability thereby reverting into a petulant child. What you could not gain by a logical debunk you chose to gain by restating the status quo in a euphemism? As I said before, a student is still responsible for his tests if he chooses not to study, a buisinessman is responsible for keeping his appointments when he chooses nto to look at his schedule. God responsible for the future, even when he chooses not to look. Which is, by definition, insincere.
|
There are 19 Replies:
|
|
Message
|
Person and Time
|
|
I thought you were an atheist for some reason. |
|
Draconum Tamer
|
May 8, 2008
(4 days and 21 hours ago)
|
|
|
I'm a maltheist. God is an evil bastard. |
|
Recalescence
|
May 8, 2008
(4 days and 21 hours ago)
|
|
|
I've always held that if the Abrahamic God were proven, I'd rather burn in hell than worship Him. |
|
Smiling Apple
|
May 8, 2008
(4 days and 21 hours ago)
|
|
|
So you openly hate God but still believe in him? That must suck since you also believe you're going to burn in hell because of it =/ |
|
Draconum Tamer
|
May 8, 2008
(4 days and 21 hours ago)
|
|
|
No, I'm actually an atheistic agnostic, I was just seeing if you were paying attention. :) |
|
Recalescence
|
May 8, 2008
(4 days and 21 hours ago)
|
|
|
I'm never paying attention. |
|
Draconum Tamer
|
May 8, 2008
(4 days and 21 hours ago)
|
|
|
Listen up! I am only going to say this once Humans have free will,Well to a certain extent anyway.God is merely part of an evolving order of the universe,God indicates the current(or past or future) state , rather like a complex cosmic clock, But we are participants in the process,Not causes of it.We have choices and alternatives inspired bye fate not ruled by it. Perhaps it would be more leveling to degrade one self into believing that free will is all fiction and we should succume to a life in which we have no say because it would'nt matter blah blah blah.But God show's us path's and it's up to us to choose what path will take. |
|
Celtwanderer
|
May 8, 2008
(4 days and 20 hours ago)
|
|
|
Listen up! I am only going to say this once Humans have free will,Well to a certain extent anyway.God is merely part of an evolving order of the universe,God indicates the current(or past or future) state , rather like a complex cosmic clock, But we are participants in the process,Not causes of it.We have choices and alternatives inspired bye fate not ruled by it. Perhaps it would be more leveling to degrade one self into believing that free will is all fiction and we should succume to a life in which we have no say because it would'nt matter blah blah blah.But God show's us path's and it's up to us to choose what path will take. |
|
Celtwanderer
|
May 8, 2008
(4 days and 20 hours ago)
|
|
|
Listen up! I am only going to say this once Unwarranted self-importance |
|
Draconum Tamer
|
May 8, 2008
(4 days and 20 hours ago)
|
|
|
And hilariously enough, he said it twice. |
|
Xhin
|
May 8, 2008
(4 days and 20 hours ago)
|
|
|
As for me, I believe that both our actions are determined by ourselves and that they are also determined by whatever environmental factors are set up for them. I posted a lengthy proof of my beliefs a while back, including such conclusions as that consciousness is equatable to the entire universe, our actions can never be determined by a computer/human, and both free will and determinism explain choice simultaneously. No one refuted it. Just because we choose our fates, does not mean that we have no nature; and just because nature determines our fates does not mean we have no say in the matter. Rather, what nature chooses for us cannot possibly be against our wishes, since our wishes are the exact same as nature's, considering that we ARE the universe itself. |
|
Xhin
|
May 8, 2008
(4 days and 19 hours ago)
|
|
|
agreed?[/quote] Every subject comes down to a substance. Either cause and effect go on forever (which basically means the same thing as cause and effect doesn't exist) or there is an uncaused cause. Theists say God is the uncaused cause. I say we are the uncaused cause. If reason caused the action then no "choice" was involved. Yea I used to think like a determinist. ......then I realized THROUGH logic that logic is f&*)ed up.... Unfortunately if I typed every premise that went through my head and turned a rational determinist into an irrational existentialist my fingers would fall off. So either you're just gonna have to think I broke down and went nuts (in a way I guess you'd be right,) OR you're going to have to take my claim on faith. Personally I'd recommend the me going nuts one. I'll give you a sneak peak though: If everything were a chain reaction we would not be living creatures but dead reactors. If everything were spontaneous we would not be living creatures but dead chaos. If the universe is monistic (all is one and one is all) then it has no meaning as things need counterparts to give them meaning. If the universe is pluralistic we'd have an paradox found in the fact pluralism means "many is one." So that would screw things up too. |
|
Beckett
|
May 8, 2008
(4 days and 19 hours ago)
|
|
|
Listen up!... Listen up, find a viable counterargument or fuck off you syberian cyber pig. As for me... Find it again so I can read it plz. Every subject... Yes, that is my ultimate conclusion, we don't exist, or existance is the mathematical equivalent of zero. Yea... I've actually been tempted to go down that path. Then I saw you. If logic is illogical, then both logical logic and illogical logic are illogical. So you might as well just use the logical logic so people won't think you're a crazy little cunt. If everything.... What's wrong with being meaningless? |
|
Recalescence
|
May 8, 2008
(4 days and 18 hours ago)
|
|
|
So you might as well just use the logical logic so people won't think you're a crazy little cu.nt. There is no such thing as illogical logic. Not in the way you used the term. There is logic as a guide and logic as a tool. I use logic as a tool and keep it in its place as a tool for MY madness that people call my humanity. If people think I'm a crazy little cu.nt that's awesome. Being a logical sane objecitve person gets old after a while. Why should logic not be our guide? Because language is logics guide and language is a conception of man. So in the end you wind up right back at the existentialism you were born with. |
|
Beckett
|
May 8, 2008
(4 days and 17 hours ago)
|
|
|
What's wrong with being meaningless? Nothing! Don't you see? That's the conclusion I chose. That's what happened to me. Monism led me to nihilism which suddenly lead me to existentialism. |
|
Beckett
|
May 8, 2008
(4 days and 17 hours ago)
|
|
|
I think I'm going to automatically disagree with any big word that ends in ism |
|
Draconum Tamer
|
May 8, 2008
(4 days and 16 hours ago)
|
|
|
"VOI TUTTI SONO DEL NUMBING DI MENTE" Did'nt expect such a violent post from some of you, BTW I used the term listen up because as you can very well tell on these forum's most people will wholeheartedly disagree or rather disaprove of the way you think.And I really did not feel up to repeating my view is all... "MAGGIO CHRIST 'E CON VOI TUTTI" |
|
Celtwanderer
|
May 8, 2008
(4 days and 16 hours ago)
|
|
|
Why you assume that they did not know what death is is untrue. Animals die all the time, there is no mystery there. You don't really have to read this Sav, except for the last bit because you were being insufferable You give an opinion but I am insufferable becasue mine differs from yours? Are you not as unbending as I? Then insufferable would cut both ways here. You believe we are not free moral agents and I agree with Gods word that we are. To offer something very desirable to another person on conditions known beforehand to be unreachable is recognized as both hypocritical and cruel. The prospect of everlasting life is presented in God’s Word as a goal for all persons, one possible to attain. After urging his listeners to ‘keep on asking and seeking’ good things from God, Jesus pointed out that a father does not give a stone or a serpent to his child that asks for bread or a fish. Showing his Father’s view of disappointing the legitimate hopes of a person, Jesus then said: “Therefore, if you, although being wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more so will your Father who is in the heavens give good things to those asking him?” Matt 7:7-11. Thus, the invitations and opportunities to receive benefits and everlasting blessings set before all men by God are bona fide. (Matt 21:22; James 1:5, 6) Because of their free will God can in all sincerity urge men to ‘turn back from transgression and keep living,’ as he did with the people of Israel. (Eze 18:23, 30-32) Logically, he could not do this if he foreknew that they were individually destined to die in wickedness and indeed if it was impossible for them to do so. Yes there is always a reason for a persons choice and that reason is the same for everyone, namely, (James 1:14-15) "But each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his OWN desire. Then the desire, when it has become fertile, gives birth to sin; in turn, sin, when it has been accomplished, brings forth death." But you seem to feel God created us as robots, programmed for assured failure and not success. The Bible teaches on the other hand that Adam and Eve were created perfect with the ability to always choose right every time, thus they lacked nothing that would preclude them from gaining everlasting life instead of death. The Bible gives many examples of imperfect people who chose right and remained faithful to God, how much easier would it have been for a perfect one like Adam? You feel that Gods way of making us is unloving and I believe it was the best way. I view life as a gift that I will show appreciation for by drawing attention to the one who gave it. Peace |
|
savusadarda
|
May 9, 2008
(4 days and 2 hours ago)
|
|
|
There is no such thing as illogical logic. Not in the way you used the term. Yes, there is. You are self admittantly bereft of logic. Therefore, the opposite of what you say must be logical. Being a logical sane objecitve person gets old after a while. Yes, but your not supposed to hit that stage again until your 40s. Why you assume that they did not know what death is is untrue. Animals die all the time, there is no mystery there. Why would you assume that humans were immortal and animals weren't? Did not sin bring death into the world? The wages of sin is death. To say that animals died is to say that animals are capable of sin. Either that, or God unjustly bestows death upon animals. What makes an animal less than a human? You do not believe in a soul, therefore the only differenciation is intelligence. Because animals are not intelligent, again, God cannot hold them accountable. What logically follows from the elimination of the soul, is that the death caused by sin devolved onto all animals as it does to all humans, because we are materially the same. You give an opinion but I am insufferable becasue mine differs from yours? I think you are insufferable because your opinion differs from mine and is illogical. Just as I think that Hitler is insane because his opinion differs from mine and is debauched. I can't respect opinions that I cannot understand; what good is respect if it is indiscriminant? Does Satan deserve the same respect as God? Hirohito as Ghandi? Samauri Jack as Dr. King? Do you respect the culture of cannibals and racists? Or do you only respect them as long as they're not eating you? Logically, he could not do this if he foreknew that they were individually destined to die in wickedness and indeed if it was impossible for them to do so. Therefore, you logically assume that the text which you rely on is illogical or that God is hypocritical and cruel; you don't assume that there is some way that it is possible because it would facilitate what you believe. You have gone on to quote Bible verses to show God's supposed policy, but they are irrelevant as long as you remain in my vicious circle: If God has selective foreknowledge, then he is accountable for all things both negative and positive which occurs subsequent to creation; and in addition, we do not have free will. Resolve this enigma, and then begin addressing the benevolent character of God. Yes there is always a reason And then there is subsequently a reason for that desire, which is just as beyond our control as the choice itself. You can continue to rephrase what I believe controvertly, and what you believe with euphemism in a in order to either secure yourself or evoke an emotional response but surely you see that it just won't fly with me. I'm not having this argument to beat you, or to persuade you, or to castigate you. I'm testing the merit of this percieved truth, because I like truth. If you can't break the vicious circle which makes your truth illogical, and continue to quote Bible verses that I've been learning since I was 2, then you're useless to me. And you should just stop responding. |
|
Recalescence
|
May 9, 2008
(over 3 days ago)
|
|
|
