ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 8th July 2019, 08:36 PM   #161
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,244
@Hans

Just read through your link over my commute. Nothing in it about Original Sin -- but that's fine, I guess you saw that in some other website, or elsewhere in this website.

I was reflecting over the reasoning on the page, and what seems incredible to me is how, in this day and age, so many very clever people with subtle minds (certainly cleverer and subtler than I am) continue to spend so much effort in trying to suss these things out, without actually making the connection, that all these difficulties are so easily resolved if only one realizes that all this, all of it, is fiction pure and simple.

Yet, inexplicably, they don't make this connection, all these smart people poring over these tomes and cogitating over these issues. Funny, that.

---

On a half-humorous note, this thought gives one pause : we seem to be especially 'blest', we who've seen the light of atheism, that seems to be so inexplicably hidden from these very smart people. Might we, after all, be mistaken in this?

But that self-doubt is no more than a passing indulgence. Because after all, a great many other smart men have seen the same light of atheism, so we aren't really all that special after all. We probably don't need to feel precious and defensive, after all, we atheists.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2019, 11:48 PM   #162
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,686
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
@IanS

Heh, no question of "anger"! But I do find your endless strawmanning disconcerting, and thought it right to set the record straight, with irrefutable evidence.

Your initial error was this: You interpreted "God created man without the capacity for free will" as "God created every individual man ...", when that actually applies only to Adam and Eve.

You seemed, and still seem, unable to understand that elementary error of yours. That PARTICULAR inconsistency you spoke of, simply does not apply.



That there are plenty of OTHER inconsestencies within the Bible is clear, includng an omnipotent God screwing up like this. I've said as much, plenty of times, throughout.



Your seeing religiosity in my posts, that again is inexplicable except in terms of the narrative I presented. It was a transparent ad hom.



It could be you are genuinely mistaken, sure. In which case, I ask you again, for the n-th time, how can you possibly expect to understand anything at all if you will not bother to read what is being said (as you say yourself, apparently glorying in your not reading what is being said to you)? The only other way of arriving at knowledge that I've heard of, is to eat apples!



Just read our exchanges -- as you should have done the first time itself -- or else go through my post summaries. What we've discussed, you and I, is elementary Bible-story stuff. Not at all difficult to understand!


i'm sorry but your above reply is just completely wrong lol.

First lets get the silly insult out of the way - I am not trying to straw-man anyone or anything. Thanks very much .

OK so the highlighted bit, which is the only point of substance - I was not under the impression that everyone after Adam & Eve had no freewill. Instead I was pointing out that people clearly did have what we call freewill, such that Paul for example and the various Popes etc. could ever after (after Adam & Eve) spend all day every day telling people what was right vs what is wrong in the eyes of God ... what I was putting to you there was, and is, that it's a contradiction in what Christians believe and say about the infallibility of God, if Paul and the Pope & all sorts of other people (everyone in fact) now has free will, when God made humans (according to you) specifically without any free will ... I am saying to you that has no credibile explanation in what you presented ...

... what you presented was only that Adam & Eve were specifically created to have no free will, but then they disobeyed God and got freewill anyway, and they then passed that freewill on to Paul and the Pope and everyone else, yes? Is that what you are saying? well , it IS what you are saying, that has been very clear ... and I am just pointing out that, that explanation is a contradiction in it's own terms with what those same Christians profess to believe for the properties of God ...

... I am saying that if God intentionally creates Adam & Eve with No Free Will, then there is no logical way that Adam & Eve can then gain freewill by themselves, and no logical way that any later descendents (such as Paul or the Pope) can ever gain freewill ... if you disagree with that, then you have to tell us how Adam and Eve ever got free will? ... how could that possibly happen? ...

... it cannot happen against Gods will and specific intention, so how could it possibly happen. It could not happen by eating any fruit, because that would be against God's wishes/intention .... so how did Paul or the Pope get free will according to what you have given as that Christian explanation/belief??

... note also (to repeat), Adam and Even cannot get free will by eating the forbidden fruit, because in order to do that they must already have enough freewill to disobey God and eat the fruit ... so in that explanation (your explanation, following Christian beliefs) we now have the contradiction of people who had no freewill, using freewill which did not have, to gain free will by disobeying God!! ... well that cannot work as a credible/logical/consistent argument, can it!
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2019, 12:15 AM   #163
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,686
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Very few will argue anything like that. Only Calvinists and a couple of other sects will actually argue anything even vaguely resembling the lack of free will, and even that more by virtue of predeterminism. (And no, I'm not trying to bring that thread into this one.) Pretty much everyone else is content to say that those first two humans may have been dumber than a sack of hammers, but most certainly had the free will to do what they did.

Edit: but basically Chanakya gave up on the idea that what Genesis describes is lack of free will about two pages ago. There's probably not much point in trying to get him to defend it, much less to figure out how some obscure Xian sect (that actually denies free will) would explain it.

OK, well that's good if Chanakya gave up his earlier claim of saying that (according to Christians) God first created humans without freewill ... because as I have tried repeatedly to say to him, that claim just leads to a major contradiction with what Christians today claim for their belief in God as the omnipotent all-powerful all-knowing creator of Man.

No matter how much we/Chanakya/anyone tries to twist that around, it simply cannot be fitted to the claim that Adam & Even later got freewill themselves by disobeying God.

So, OK, if he really did give up on that line of argument, then that's good. But I have to say I did not see where he admitted that he had made that mistake in what he had originally been arguing here for dozens of posts against me (and if he did give up that claim then I'm not sure why he is still arguing so vehemently and now getting within a micron of repeatedly saying that I am lying about him or lying about his posts/words. So that continues to look like a distinct lack of admission to any error ... "just sayin" ).

Last edited by IanS; 9th July 2019 at 12:17 AM.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2019, 12:19 AM   #164
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,383
@Chanakya
1. Well, to reiterate, the only kind that I was asking about was the "God doesn't stop you from doing it" kind. Because any other limits that your "programming" or the working of the universe put on your free will are equally there, whether God stops a Ted Bundy or not. E.g., a Ted Bundy still can't choose to hold his breath until he dies in both cases. So we can simplify those out of the equation, so to speak. The only relevant difference in free will between God stopping him and God not stopping him is just that: whether God stops him or not.

2. The "Biblical kind" actually if you go by actual theology, either they had it too, or you don't have it either. E.g., the Calvinists believe in predeterminism, so basically even what you do is just as pre-destined to happen and you still have no actual choice in it. There is no church I know of that actually says that eating the Apple is when they started to have free will.

3. I'm still not sure how the heck does lack of knowledge about anything, including good and evil, mean you don't have free will. Whatever philosophical considerations you apply to defining whether some choice counts as free will, I don't see how it stops counting as free will if you don't know what you're doing. You may not know some choice is better, and you may not know all the available choices, but you're still just as free or not free to pick one out of the available ones.

I mean, good grief, to take an actual example, first time I had sex, we might as well have been propecised in Luke 23:34: "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do." But we still had the same choice whether to do it or not, for example. However you think that decision goes in the brain, and whatever philosophical considerations you apply for whether that counts as free will or not, I don't see how not knowing what we were doing makes any difference.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 9th July 2019 at 12:20 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2019, 12:33 AM   #165
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,383
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
OK, well that's good if Chanakya gave up his earlier claim of saying that (according to Christians) God first created humans without freewill ... because as I have tried repeatedly to say to him, that claim just leads to a major contradiction with what Christians today claim for their belief in God as the omnipotent all-powerful all-knowing creator of Man.

No matter how much we/Chanakya/anyone tries to twist that around, it simply cannot be fitted to the claim that Adam & Even later got freewill themselves by disobeying God.
Not sure any more what his position is, but I don't think I've ever heard of any church holding that particular position. Presumably because of that contradiction. So unless he turns out to be the leader of a cult, well, it's not all that relevant.

Mind you, if you want exactly that kind of contradiction, there are at least two in Genesis anyway:


1. The first involves precisely Adam and Eve screwing over God's plan by eating that apple. Even without getting the free will debated involved too, there are a bunch of changes that happen there, as I've mentioned before, to what God had created. E:g., God apparently didn't design the wolf to eat lambs, but after the whole apple incident, that starts to happen.


2. The second is Cain murdering Abel. There's been a lot of theology written that effectively says that Abel invented murder, and effectively introduced that new element to the game. All over it. E.g., possibly leading even to Lucifer's revolt in heavens.

So, yeah, if you go strictly by the bible it is possible for humans to screw over God's plan in a major way, and make the whole thing go in a different direction than what God had designed.


The usual theological defenses there are that it's still part of God's plan because either:

A) God knew it would happen, and that was his plan. Like, basically, he deliberately left the cookie jar... err... tree unguarded around those two berks, knowing they'll not obey, and basically just to show them what happens when you disobey.

OR

B) God's plan includes room for such events, and it can still be on track by the next review... err... Apocalypse anyway.


Personally I find both problematic, but faith I guess does move mountains. Or at least make people stupid.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 9th July 2019 at 12:45 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2019, 07:38 AM   #166
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,244
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
i'm sorry but your above reply is just completely wrong lol.

First lets get the silly insult out of the way - I am not trying to straw-man anyone or anything. Thanks very much .

No insult intended. You know what a strawman is, surely? That three-post version of our past conversation, that you'd posted, misrepresented both your own past posts, as well as mine own. That latter misrepresentation is accurately described as a strawman.


Quote:
OK so the highlighted bit, which is the only point of substance - I was not under the impression that everyone after Adam & Eve had no freewill. Instead I was pointing out that people clearly did have what we call freewill, such that Paul for example and the various Popes etc. could ever after (after Adam & Eve) spend all day every day telling people what was right vs what is wrong in the eyes of God ... what I was putting to you there was, and is, that it's a contradiction in what Christians believe and say about the infallibility of God, if Paul and the Pope & all sorts of other people (everyone in fact) now has free will, when God made humans (according to you) specifically without any free will ... I am saying to you that has no credibile explanation in what you presented ...

That makes no sense at all. Here's what you'd said in your post #68, which was your first post addressed to me in this thread :
"If this God created humans so that humans could not tell good from evil (that seems like telling "right" vs "wrong"), then how did Paul or any gospel writers or any biblical preachers (or today, the Pope or anyone else) ever get to tell anyone what was "good" vs what was "evil"?

Those preachers and gospel writers were created (according to what you say above) without any knowledge of what was good vs what was evil; and yet they spent their entire time all day every day telling everyone what God regarded as "good" vs "evil" ... how did they know that if they were created so that they could not know it?"

Just read it, what you've yourself written. How on earth do you fit that convoluted rationalization you now present to those words of yours? Note that we've not even spoken of free will per se yet : the words you'd quoted there, as well as your own words, pertain simply to knowledge of good and evil. Again: just read your own words, man!


Quote:
... what you presented was only that Adam & Eve were specifically created to have no free will, but then they disobeyed God and got freewill anyway, and they then passed that freewill on to Paul and the Pope and everyone else, yes? Is that what you are saying? well , it IS what you are saying, that has been very clear ... and I am just pointing out that, that explanation is a contradiction in it's own terms with what those same Christians profess to believe for the properties of God ...

... I am saying that if God intentionally creates Adam & Eve with No Free Will, then there is no logical way that Adam & Eve can then gain freewill by themselves, and no logical way that any later descendents (such as Paul or the Pope) can ever gain freewill ... if you disagree with that, then you have to tell us how Adam and Eve ever got free will? ... how could that possibly happen? ...

... it cannot happen against Gods will and specific intention, so how could it possibly happen. It could not happen by eating any fruit, because that would be against God's wishes/intention .... so how did Paul or the Pope get free will according to what you have given as that Christian explanation/belief??

... note also (to repeat), Adam and Even cannot get free will by eating the forbidden fruit, because in order to do that they must already have enough freewill to disobey God and eat the fruit ... so in that explanation (your explanation, following Christian beliefs) we now have the contradiction of people who had no freewill, using freewill which did not have, to gain free will by disobeying God!! ... well that cannot work as a credible/logical/consistent argument, can it!

Let's not do this any more, please.

I've shown you clearly, with evidence, what we've said to each other. (Not that there should have been any need to!) I don't see what else I can do. As in this post itself, a portion of which I've responded to, you're clearly misrepresenting your own words, as mine as well. If you will read one thing, and now claim to have said some other thing, I really really don't see what else I can do.

No offense intended to you when I say that you're either deliberately misrepresenting our past conversion, or else -- I say this with no offense intended -- you're simply delusional.

Whatever. I don't know what you're getting from this conversation, but I've long ceased to derive either profit or pleasure from it.

Over and out, as far as I am concerned. Feel free to have the last word now, if you feel so inclined.

(In so far as our past posts are concerned, that is. No reason why we shouldn't discuss anything else going forward, other than those past posts of ours, whether in this thread or elsewhere -- if you're willing that is.)

Last edited by Chanakya; 9th July 2019 at 07:40 AM.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2019, 08:14 AM   #167
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,244
@Hans,

I get where you're coming from. As I'd said earlier, if you define free will as the sort of thing your cat possesses, then sure, I agree, Adam and Eve -- going by the Bible story -- had it too.

As for coercion-free free will, that is, programming-free free will (to harken back to our earlier conversation), I agree that too is something Adam and Eve did have. Provided we go by that cats-and-dogs kind of free will, like I'd said earlier.

However, there is another kind of free will. The kind that is predicated on knowledge and understanding, all that. Now I get what you're saying, that the free will is one thing, and the knowledge itself is another. That is correct too, in a sense. Nevertheless, in practice, as we use the word "free will", we do assume a basic minimal level of understanding, coherence, all that, don't we? Think Mens Rea in jurisprudence. Even leaving aside jurisprudence -- I'm far from any kind of expert in it, after all! -- even in our everyday conversations, if a small child ended up doing something extraordinarily heinous, like killing another small child, we do say, don't we, that they didn't really mean this in any way, simply because they probably don't understand what enormity is the taking of a life?

In that sense -- the sense that Darat had spoken of back in the first or second page -- I continue to think that, if we think of free will in that everyday sense, then obviously Adam and Eve did not have free will, per a reading of the Bible.

---

It does seem that it is difficult to answer the question "Did God give us free will?", with a clear "yes" or "no". It would depend on the reference one is going by, and also I suppose basis how we're defining free will.

And this ambiguity, when you think about it, isn't really surprising. After all we're speaking of things fictitious, given that God Himself is fictitious. Therefore our answer will depend on which fiction we're going by, right? Add to that confusion the fact that the term "free will", in this context, seems to admit of two separate senses.

---

So much for the Bible.

Now, exactly how relevant is what the Bible itself says?

As you've pointed out, it does not matter to Catholics. Now that raises other questions -- one of which questions you've yourself answered, albeit not very coherently (which incoherence I don't lay at your door ; that incoherence is clearly part of the RCC explanation itself!) -- but fair enough, Biblical references don't matter to Catholics.

Apparently there are folks, like Darat pointed out, who see us incapable of doing good, by virtue of some kind of programming. This was the first I'd heard of this, but I suppose that too would be a separate category of beliefs.

---

As for what you say about actual denominations actually taking this line, or not:

One would expect that the objection raised, basis that elementary fairy tale, would indeed attach to those who do go for a (more or less) literal rendering of the Bible.

But the actual real-world non-RCC denominations, do they really see this fairy tale -- and our dissecting of that tale -- as an impediment to the existence of free will? To be frank, I don't know! (I do have some hazy ideas, but I'm not anywhere close to sure. For instance, JWs, going by conversations I've had with some of them, do go in for a pretty literal interpretation. But like I said, I'm not sure of any of this.)

So, to squarely address your wondering to which denominations what I'm saying (about the objection derived from the Bible story) might apply : that I'm afraid I've no clue about, really.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2019, 12:02 PM   #168
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,383
I'm not sure wth jurisprudence has to do with it, and while I'm not a lawyer, I did ride one and am somewhat familiar with the domain. Their mens rea standard is aimed to establish the degree of evil intent involved, and has NOTHING to do with free will.

If a shingle falls off my house and kills a passer by, the degree of culpability can range from none whatsoever (e.g., nobody could really foresee that unusual sized hail would come and dislodge one) through negligence (I was advised that the roof was in bad shape, but didn't give a damn) all the way through premeditation (I actually went on the roof and waited with a shingle in hand for my rival to pass underneath to drop it on him.) While they come with different degrees of culpability, or none, but at no point it says I didn't have the free will to repair the roof.

It seems to me like you're making a hash by association of distinct concepts linked only by how much culpability they give one. But "free will" and "culpability" are not the same concept. They're not even equivalent. Just because the latter has an unfortunate talent of appearing in all threads about free will, doesn't mean that not being culpable of something means you had no free will. The implication only works in one direction. You can't flip it around.

So basically the problem exists only for you, and only because you make a hash of unrelated notions. For anyone who isn't confused about that, doesn't have that problem.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2019, 03:48 PM   #169
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,244
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I'm not sure wth jurisprudence has to do with it
I believe Mens Rea deals with intentionality. I thought this might serve as an example of how "knowledge of good and evil" might inform and define free will.

Quote:
... "free will" and "culpability" are not the same concept.
Culpability by virtue of intentionality, surely? That seems to spell out a connection. But it could be I'm mistaken in thinking this.

Quote:
So basically the problem exists only for you, and only because you make a hash of unrelated notions. For anyone who isn't confused about that, doesn't have that problem.
It could be you're right. I really know little enough about the subject, and may have ended up spouting off more pretend expertise than I actually possess. As people on the Internet sometimes tend to do, before turning back into pumpkins again when they log off.

Perhaps I should step back for a bit. Apologies for hijacking the thread!

Last edited by Chanakya; 9th July 2019 at 03:53 PM.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2019, 04:10 PM   #170
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,383
Yes, but what I'm saying that there's

- lack of culpability by lack of free will (e.g., if someone put an explosive collar around your neck and it blows up if you don't go on the roof and drop a shingle on that guy)

- lack of culpability by lack of intention (e.g., a reasonable person of average inteligence -- which is the general standard in justice -- would have no reason to believe that the roof needs any repairs, so you don't even qualify up to negligence as evil intent goes)

- lack of culpability by lack of mental ability (e.g., you're diagnosed as retarded and can't be expected to know anything about roofs. NB, your legal guardian might be responsible in your stead though.)

- lack of culpability by virtue of qualifying for some affirmative defense exception, e.g., self defense (e.g., the guy was shooting a gun at you, so you threw a shingle at him)

And a few others, depending on how fine we want to split the hairs.

But what I'm saying is that they are distinct reasons. You can't roll every single excuse from culpability into being the same as lack of free will.

Even the affirmative defenses like self defense don't say that you actually had no choice there. Sure as hell you had, especially when you qualify under some extension, such as defending someone else from an attacker, or under the castle doctrine. What is being argued is that your choice was not unreasonable.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 9th July 2019 at 04:16 PM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2019, 05:04 PM   #171
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,244
The question, as far as intentionality (not all of it, but certainly part of it) would center around asking: Did you know that the condition of your roof could result in someone's death?

-----

Take these two scenarios, then : you deliberately fixing your roof so it falls on and kills someone, vs you fixing your roof in such a way that (or leaving it untended such that), unforeseen by you, someone gets killed. Specifically: do you actually know that what you're doing (or neglecting to do) to that roof, can result in death?

That "knowledge of good and evil", as far as that roof of yours, would probably go a long way in determining your intentionality, and therefore the extent of your culpability.

You're seeing free will purely in terms of coercion or its absence, as in your bomb collar example, and indeed as you'd specified in so many words earlier on in (in either this thread, or the other one, I forget which) ; while I myself, while not disagreeing with that other definition, tend to think that intentionality (and therefore "knowledge of good and evil") is probably very much a part of free will in an everyday sense.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2019, 05:50 PM   #172
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,244
Actually, there seem to be four separate elements at play here :

There's free will, in your sense of whether or not there's coercion. Then there's intention, purpose. And there is knowledge (of the consequences of one's action or inaction). And a fourth element as well, programmability.

This "programmability" -- that was the topic of that other thread -- better describes God's inluence (or lack of influence) on our thinking, than coercion. Coercion is something entirely different. This programmability would partly (but only partly) be related to influence (as in "undue influence") as well as one's mental state.

I guess I'm bundling all four as free will. While you're bundling the first and the fourth as free will (either that, or discounting the fourth altogether).

Which would best define free will, your approach, mine, or something else? Have to think about that!
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2019, 12:15 AM   #173
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,383
Except what I'm saying is that you're the only one who thinks that knowledge even has anything to do with free will. CAN you choose to do or not to do X? Is anything preventing you from making either choice? If the answers are respectively yes and no, then you have free will. Perfect knowledge of the consequences was never a requirement, nor even possible. It being the RIGHT choice is also not a requirement.

And actually even intent is only linked in as much as whatever choice it was, it was your choice. Whether every single consequence was planned and intended is fully irrelevant. E.g., I sure as heck didn't intend to be dumped when I told a schizophrenic ex-GF that I'm not in fact a wizard. It may have been foreseeable, but it sure wasn't intended. But that doesn't change the fact that (A) it was my choice, and (B) yes, I intended to tell her that.

So it seems to me like the whole detour is about as relevant as if I were to redefine my cat to be a horse.

But again, you seem to just be confusing the notions of culpability and free will. They only have an implication in one direction, not in both. They are not equivalent. Not having a choice may imply being not culpable, but it doesn't work in the other direction. Not everything that makes you not culpable implies you have no free will.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2019, 01:49 AM   #174
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,686
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
No insult intended. You know what a strawman is, surely? That three-post version of our past conversation, that you'd posted, misrepresented both your own past posts, as well as mine own. That latter misrepresentation is accurately described as a strawman.

Quote:
OK so the highlighted bit, which is the only point of substance - I was*not*under the impression that everyone after Adam & Eve had no freewill. Instead I was pointing out that people clearly did have what we call freewill, such that Paul for example and the various Popes etc. could ever after (after Adam & Eve) spend all day every day telling people what was right vs what is wrong in the eyes of God ... what I was putting to you there was, and is, that it's a contradiction in what Christians believe and say about the infallibility of God, if Paul and the Pope & all sorts of other people (everyone in fact) now has free will, when God made humans (according to you) specifically without any free will ... I am saying to you that has no credibile explanation in what you presented ...

That makes no sense at all. Here's what you'd said in your post #68, which was your first post addressed to me in this thread :
"If this God created humans so that humans could not tell good from evil (that seems like telling "right" vs "wrong"), then how did Paul or any gospel writers or any biblical preachers (or today, the Pope or anyone else) ever get to tell anyone what was "good" vs what was "evil"?

Those preachers and gospel writers were created (according to what you say above) without any knowledge of what was good vs what was evil; and yet they spent their entire time all day every day telling everyone what God regarded as "good" vs "evil" ... how did they know that if they were created so that they could not know it?"

Just read it, what you've yourself written. How on earth do you fit that convoluted rationalization you now present to those words of yours? Note that we've not even spoken of free will per se yet : the words you'd quoted there, as well as your own words, pertain simply to knowledge of good and evil. Again: just read your own words, man!

No! Of course it makes perfect sense! Which bit do you think is not making sense? Which bit do you think is a contradiction to any of the other parts of what I said?

Are you saying that because you raised two different ideas, where you first began talking about freewill by saying God intentionally first created Man without freewill, and then where in later posts you started to talk about Adam & Eve gaining (not just freewill) but knowledge of “Good vs Evil” … and where I was continuing to make the same argument to you about both freewill and about Good vs Evil … is that what you claiming to be a mistake by me?

Look – I have been explaining to you why it's the exact same problem. Firstly, it is clearly a contradiction to say that God made a mistake so that Mankind (starting with Adam & Eve) got freewill when God specifically did not intend that to happen. But then secondly … if Adam & Eve eat the fruit and thereby gain the ability to decide for themselves what is “Good vs Evil”, then again they are obtaining the freewill that allows them to make that judgement … it's the exact same thing with the exact same fatal contradictory problem …

… the problem is, in both cases, Mankind gains an ability which God had not intended … the infallible God makes a mistake … in fact, he makes a whopping mistake immediately with his only entire purpose in the whole universe (ie where the creation of Man is supposed to be Gods entire purpose for the whole universe).

To put that in the context of Paul and the Pope (and all Christians) preaching to everyone what is “Right vs Wrong” (ie “good vs evil”) … they can only get that knowledge if God has made that huge mistake … but God is omnipotent, all-powerful and all-knowing … he cannot make a mistake as fundamental as that … it's a contradiction. It would actually put mere Men above God ... ie Man now decides what is truly Good vs Evil, and God no longer has a say in the matter!

In brief summary – as soon as you claim God made a mistake when allowing Man to gain freewill and/or to decide for himself right vs wrong, then you have a fatal contradiction with the Christian claim of an infallible God.


Edit to add - I have not read the rest of your post yet (beyond what I replied to above), I may read it at some later time. But to be honest the disputes here have become tedious and absurd to the point of me losing not just interest in this forum, but also respect for many people on this forum making continued arguments about all sorts of things which they cannot reasonably substantiate when the problems are clearly pointed out. That is just a waste of everyones time and goodwill when it reaches that stage in post after post and page after page.

Last edited by IanS; 13th July 2019 at 02:28 AM.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2019, 02:01 AM   #175
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,383
As I was saying, even the evangelicals basically try to handwave it as:

1. it was a part of God's plan in the first place. I.e., God knew those berks would get into his tree the instant he left them alone with it. Kinda how you'd leave the cookie jar seemingly unguarded to show your kids that nope, you can't trust them.

OR

2. God's plan is flexible enough to allow for such events and still stay on track.

Additionally, I'd still advise you to leave the Pope out of it. At least as early as the 1950 papal encyclical Humani Generis, but actually that's just what they've been saying since at least the 19'th century, there was no frikken garden, no apple, and they're even forgetting Eve entirely. They're ok with evolution making our bodies, as long as their God made the souls. Original sin is even defined in the Catholic encyclopaedia by now as whatever Adam did that pissed God off. (Though not in those exact words) And they don't even need a hand-made Adam in a Garden of Eden for that. The 'genetic Adam' that is the biological ancestor of all living humans is enough for that. They don't even go for the genetic Eve, presumably since that one didn't even live at the same time.

TL;DR version: we have a common ancestor, and that ancestor did something to really piss God off. That's it. That's all the Original Sin. No apple, no unintended learning good and evil, no Godly mistake.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 13th July 2019 at 02:02 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2019, 02:51 AM   #176
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,261
Just a note folks, Hans is talking about the current show bible for the long running "We are the real Christians" show. Other networks have started their own rival shows over the years and their show bibles are very different.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2019, 03:35 AM   #177
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,383
Well, I'm open to whichever theology someone wants to talk about, as long as the discussion is actually anchored in reality in some way. Be it the reality of what the book says, or what some sect's theology says, or whatever.

But saying that the Pope would or should have a problem with what Adam and Eve did in the Garden Of Evil is... not very anchored in reality. The Pope's theology doesn't include a garden, an apple, or even an Eve. And even Adam is just some distant genetic ancestor. So essentially talking about how the Pope should have a theological problem with the actions of Adam and Eve in a literal reading of Genesis 2, is just about on par with saying he should have a theological problem with the actions of the Jedi in Star Wars
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 13th July 2019 at 03:42 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2019, 03:56 AM   #178
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,686
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
As I was saying, even the evangelicals basically try to handwave it as:

1. it was a part of God's plan in the first place. I.e., God knew those berks would get into his tree the instant he left them alone with it. Kinda how you'd leave the cookie jar seemingly unguarded to show your kids that nope, you can't trust them.

OR

2. God's plan is flexible enough to allow for such events and still stay on track.

Additionally, I'd still advise you to leave the Pope out of it. At least as early as the 1950 papal encyclical Humani Generis, but actually that's just what they've been saying since at least the 19'th century, there was no frikken garden, no apple, and they're even forgetting Eve entirely. They're ok with evolution making our bodies, as long as their God made the souls. Original sin is even defined in the Catholic encyclopaedia by now as whatever Adam did that pissed God off. (Though not in those exact words) And they don't even need a hand-made Adam in a Garden of Eden for that. The 'genetic Adam' that is the biological ancestor of all living humans is enough for that. They don't even go for the genetic Eve, presumably since that one didn't even live at the same time.

TL;DR version: we have a common ancestor, and that ancestor did something to really piss God off. That's it. That's all the Original Sin. No apple, no unintended learning good and evil, no Godly mistake.

OK, but as far as the Pope is concerned – it doesn't matter if since the 1950's (or earlier) successive Popes have declared that the Adam and Eve story is untrue. Because the point that I was making to Chanakya about that, was simply to say that the Pope today (or at any date) has the freewill (so-called “freewill”) to exercise his judgement as to what he believes is Good vs Evil (Right vs Wrong) in this world, and Popes are constantly preaching about that to everyone (as Paul and the others did … as Jesus also did!) … but that requires their God to be making a fundamental error when he created Man … and that is simply not compatible with what the Pope, Paul or any Christians today (or since biblical NT times) say about the omnipotent infallibility of God.

The other point about that, is – if in more recent times the Popes have said that the garden of Eden story is no longer to be believed, then they are re-writing the original biblical claims about God. That is – in biblical times, 2000-3000 years ago (NT & OT), Christians certainly were preaching the creation story of Adam & Eve and the infallibility of God, were they not? Afaik, that (like everything else) was supposed to be revealed to the prophets by God himself (otherwsie we could never have known any such creation story at all) … but even if you are the Pope, you cannot 2000 to 3000 years later decide that the original prophets were wrong in what they were told by God! Those biblical claims are fixed for all time; because they were declared to be the word of God himself. If you/we/anyone (inc. the Pope) has to change it later by 1950 (or whenever), then you no longer have any credible claim about the validity of the holy bible, God, or the prophets or anyone else ever receiving revelations from God.

All I am saying is that as soon as it's admitted that God made a mistake of such proportions when creating Man, then all claims about any infallibility or omnipotence of God are lost.

Last edited by IanS; 13th July 2019 at 03:58 AM.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2019, 04:39 AM   #179
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,686
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
As I was saying, even the evangelicals basically try to handwave it as:

1. it was a part of God's plan in the first place. I.e., God knew those berks would get into his tree the instant he left them alone with it. Kinda how you'd leave the cookie jar seemingly unguarded to show your kids that nope, you can't trust them.

OR

2. God's plan is flexible enough to allow for such events and still stay on track.

Additionally, I'd still advise you to leave the Pope out of it. At least as early as the 1950 papal encyclical Humani Generis, but actually that's just what they've been saying since at least the 19'th century, there was no frikken garden, no apple, and they're even forgetting Eve entirely. They're ok with evolution making our bodies, as long as their God made the souls. Original sin is even defined in the Catholic encyclopaedia by now as whatever Adam did that pissed God off. (Though not in those exact words) And they don't even need a hand-made Adam in a Garden of Eden for that. The 'genetic Adam' that is the biological ancestor of all living humans is enough for that. They don't even go for the genetic Eve, presumably since that one didn't even live at the same time.

TL;DR version: we have a common ancestor, and that ancestor did something to really piss God off. That's it. That's all the Original Sin. No apple, no unintended learning good and evil, no Godly mistake.

Hans, that link which you gave to the Pope's (the current Pope?) so-called “encyclical(s)” is very long. Can you just quote the passage which you are using to say that the Pope rejects the Adam & Eve story (or rejects certain parts of it)?

I did read down very quickly as far as paragraphs 5 and 6, and I stopped there because even as early as paragraph two, he is claiming that “the truths of God” “ completely surpass the sensible order and demand self-surrender and self-abnegation...”, he is playing the universal “get-out-of-jail-free-card” of saying that mere mortal Man cannot understand what is true, and that only Go knows that.

And then by paragraph 5 & 6, the Pope is very clearly also disputing evolution. I really do not even need to explain or comment any further on any of that that, because it's all absolutely clear as highlighted below -

http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi...i-generis.html

para-2 …. The truths that have to do with God and the relations between God and men, completely surpass the sensible order and demand self-surrender and self-abnegation in order to be put into practice and to influence practical life.” ….

5. "If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold, he will easily discover the principle trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism."

6. "Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences."

Last edited by IanS; 13th July 2019 at 04:42 AM.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2019, 05:33 AM   #180
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,383
Look around point 35.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2019, 07:24 AM   #181
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,244
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Except what I'm saying is that you're the only one who thinks that knowledge even has anything to do with free will. CAN you choose to do or not to do X? Is anything preventing you from making either choice? If the answers are respectively yes and no, then you have free will. Perfect knowledge of the consequences was never a requirement, nor even possible. It being the RIGHT choice is also not a requirement.

And actually even intent is only linked in as much as whatever choice it was, it was your choice. Whether every single consequence was planned and intended is fully irrelevant. E.g., I sure as heck didn't intend to be dumped when I told a schizophrenic ex-GF that I'm not in fact a wizard. It may have been foreseeable, but it sure wasn't intended. But that doesn't change the fact that (A) it was my choice, and (B) yes, I intended to tell her that.

So it seems to me like the whole detour is about as relevant as if I were to redefine my cat to be a horse.

But again, you seem to just be confusing the notions of culpability and free will. They only have an implication in one direction, not in both. They are not equivalent. Not having a choice may imply being not culpable, but it doesn't work in the other direction. Not everything that makes you not culpable implies you have no free will.

Hans, you appear not to have understood my position at all, not to have followed my argument at all. No doubt the lack is mine, in not having spelt out my position clearly enough. Let me try again.


You keep insisting that free will, as it applies to us humans, is exactly the same as free will as it might apply to your cat. Now at one level that definition is correct. I have myself clearly expressed agreement upthread with that view of yours, more than once if I recall correctly. And I have also expressed my unreserved agreement – again, more than once -- that going by that particular definition of free will, sure, God did give us free will.

But is your definition the only valid definition? More importantly, is your definition, while no doubt technically correct, at all apt for this discussion? I myself would say NOT. Here’s why:

Remember : the subject of this thread, that you yourself have started, isn’t whether we have free will; it is free will specifically as it applies to the theodicy argument. In that other thread, where we were all discussing the truth value of determinism (except for David Mo, who was discussing its effects -- but that’s neither here nor there), sure, your particular definition is exactly the definition we need and want. But in this thread, and in a discussion on theodicy, I’d go so far as to say that free will, as you insist on defining it, is irrelevant.

The theodicy argument is, basically, an attempt to reconcile evil with God’s omni-everything, right? And one way of doing that, is by saying that one reason why evil happens is because God gave us free will, and He did that because … reasons.

And yet, this argument, this position, simply does not work unless free will is joined with “the knowledge of good and evil”. In the absence of this “knowledge of good and evil”, it simply does not matter whether we have free will or not, at least not in the theodicy sense. Free will for what, after all, in the absence of that knowledge? We’d be like innocent infants, or animals, without that knowledge : unknowing, and therefore incapable, either of good or of evil. Our free will, in the absence of that knowledge, would relate to wholly trivial and inconsequential things, that would not impact the theodicy argument at all, one way or the other.

Which is why I keep saying that free will as you define it, while technically not incorrect, is an irrelevancy as far as this discussion on theodicy.

For this discussion on theodicy, the only kind of free will that matters is what I’ve referred to earlier upthread as “true free will” or “free will in a meaningful sense”, in other words, free will coupled with the knowedge of good and evil.

If you insist on sticking your technically correct definition of free will as simply the absence of coercion (which definition was very apt in so far as that other thread) to this thread also, then “free will” as such will cease to be the defining feature of the theodicy argument. Sure, that (limited, narrow) “free will” will still be necessary to framing the argument: but in as much as that free will clearly is fact, in the background as it were, our possessing it will be just as inconsequential to the theodicy argument as our possessing life, for instance -- necessary to the argument itself, obviously, but inconsequential.

Do you see what I mean, now?

It is not so much redefining a horse to mean a cat, or vice versa -- to use your particular analogy -- as qualifying a horse to mean a racehorse, or qualifying a dog to mean a pit bull or some other breed that is known to sometimes kill random people, in order to make that category relevant to some particular discussion.

If we insist on going with your particular definition of free will, then the theodicy argument ceases to be of the nature of “Why did God give us free will?”. Instead, the theodicy argument then morphs to asking instead: “Why did God give us the knowledge of good and evil?” The “free will” part simply then, with your particular definition, recedes to the background as it were.

In order for the theodicy argument to work, and in order for “free will” to remain the central lynchpin as far as the theodicy argument, this free will must -- MUST -- be predicated on a certain minimal basis of knowledge, of understanding, of coherence. Your cats-and-dogs kind of free will not do here: in order to apply to our discussion on theodicy, what we need is free will that is based on the knowledge of good and evil. What I referred to, upthread, as “true free will”, as well as, at another time, as “free will in any meaningful sense”.


-------


Did God intentionally imbue us with that kind of “true free will”, with “free will in any meaningful sense”? The Bible story clearly shows that He did not.

That was my short point. At that point your raise another objection. At that point you go on to ask which particular Christian denominations actually do follow the argument I’m putting forward, and to wonder if I’m about to start a cult of my own with a radical new theological idea. That’s a good question -- the former, not the latter! I don’t know the answer to that (former) question, and I myself have joined you, upthread, in asking it. I too would be interested in the answer. But raising that question does not in any way take away from my argument, does it?


-------


As far as my attempts to explain my meaning by taking the analogy of Mens Rea : well, it could be that I may have gone too far in equating the intentionality aspect of Mens Rea with free will (as opposed to simply intention) ; but equally, you seem to have erred by bending too far toward the other extreme by seemingly equating it simply with culpability in general (as opposed to culpability simply by virtue of intention).

In any case, at this point I ought, by rights, to be presenting references showing the different meanings and usages of Mens Rea, and basing my arguments on those references. And I’m afraid I don’t really have either the time or inclination to go down that route at this time, so I’ll pass on that.

Yep, that’s a cop out, absolutely! In so far as I refuse (at this time) to join discussion in earnest, absolutely, I effectively concede it, that particular point. We can revisit this discussion on Mens Rea as it might apply to free will later on, if I feel inclined to take the trouble later on -- and of course if you too feel inclined to go on with me on this at that time -- but for now, allow me to simply withdraw that particular argument. It wasn’t really central to my larger argument (that free will, as it applies to the theodicy argument, necessarily incorporates the knowledge of and capacity for good and evil). I merely presented is as analogy, as metaphor. And, in as much as I would appear to have done this without clearly thinking through its full implications, I withdraw it for now.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2019, 07:36 AM   #182
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,244
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
... essentially talking about how the Pope should have a theological problem with the actions of Adam and Eve in a literal reading of Genesis 2, is just about on par with saying he should have a theological problem with the actions of the Jedi in Star Wars

Although you don't actually quote me or specifically refer to me, that bit seems to refer to our earlier discussion on this, so that I must point out that that's a strawman. (If that comment of yours was just a general observation, with no connection to anything we've said to each other, then my apologies -- although in that case the context of that comment of yours would appear to need some explanation.)

Pointing out that one particular source that many Christians do take literally specifically rules out God giving us free will in any meaningful sense, is very different from demanding that the the Pope should also take that line (or, for that matter, that Abu Bakr al Bagdadi or the Dalai Lama should take that line).

Last edited by Chanakya; 13th July 2019 at 07:39 AM.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2019, 07:44 AM   #183
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,244
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
No! Of course it makes perfect sense! Which bit do you think is not making sense? Which bit do you think is a contradiction to any of the other parts of what I said?

Are you saying that because you raised two different ideas, where you first began talking about freewill by saying God intentionally first created Man without freewill, and then where in later posts you started to talk about Adam & Eve gaining (not just freewill) but knowledge of “Good vs Evil” … and where I was continuing to make the same argument to you about both freewill and about Good vs Evil … is that what you claiming to be a mistake by me?

Look – I have been explaining to you why it's the exact same problem. Firstly, it is clearly a contradiction to say that God made a mistake so that Mankind (starting with Adam & Eve) got freewill when God specifically did not intend that to happen. But then secondly … if Adam & Eve eat the fruit and thereby gain the ability to decide for themselves what is “Good vs Evil”, then again they are obtaining the freewill that allows them to make that judgement … it's the exact same thing with the exact same fatal contradictory problem …

… the problem is, in both cases, Mankind gains an ability which God had not intended … the infallible God makes a mistake … in fact, he makes a whopping mistake immediately with his only entire purpose in the whole universe (ie where the creation of Man is supposed to be Gods entire purpose for the whole universe).

To put that in the context of Paul and the Pope (and all Christians) preaching to everyone what is “Right vs Wrong” (ie “good vs evil”) … they can only get that knowledge if God has made that huge mistake … but God is omnipotent, all-powerful and all-knowing … he cannot make a mistake as fundamental as that … it's a contradiction. It would actually put mere Men above God ... ie Man now decides what is truly Good vs Evil, and God no longer has a say in the matter!

In brief summary – as soon as you claim God made a mistake when allowing Man to gain freewill and/or to decide for himself right vs wrong, then you have a fatal contradiction with the Christian claim of an infallible God.


Edit to add - I have not read the rest of your post yet (beyond what I replied to above), I may read it at some later time. But to be honest the disputes here have become tedious and absurd to the point of me losing not just interest in this forum, but also respect for many people on this forum making continued arguments about all sorts of things which they cannot reasonably substantiate when the problems are clearly pointed out. That is just a waste of everyones time and goodwill when it reaches that stage in post after post and page after page.

Be the change you want to see, in that case?

Last edited by Chanakya; 13th July 2019 at 07:47 AM.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2019, 08:00 AM   #184
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,383
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Although you don't actually quote me or specifically refer to me, that bit seems to refer to our earlier discussion on this, so that I must point out that that's a strawman. (If that comment of yours was just a general observation, with no connection to anything we've said to each other, then my apologies -- although in that case the context of that comment of yours would appear to need some explanation.)
Actually, it was about Ian's recent message #174, and more specifically, quote, "To put that in the context of Paul and the Pope (and all Christians) preaching to everyone what is “Right vs Wrong” (ie “good vs evil”) … they can only get that knowledge if God has made that huge mistake". Yeah, no, the Pope doesn't have to acknowledge any huge mistake by God, because they have just decided that that whole chapter of Genesis never happened

But yeah, not everything is about you
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2019, 08:40 AM   #185
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,686
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Look around point 35.


OK, I looked in para-35, and it certainly says nothing of the sort there (not a single word against what I have said here). I then looked down as far as para-41 in case you meant from 35 onwards, and again not one iota of any such claims there. Just for the record and to help people here who cannot be bothered to check & look this stuff up, here is what para-35,36,37 say -

http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi...i-generis.html


35. It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.

36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]



What you see there is a huge amount of obscurantist pseudo-religious double-speak, which is mostly however (just as I said here several pages back), a clear and absolute denial of evolution. So I think we can get rid of any idea that the Pope or Catholic Christianity as a whole (where the Pope is the authority for what is said as Catholic Christian belief), is accepting of evolution in any honest way at all.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2019, 08:49 AM   #186
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,244
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Actually, it was about Ian's recent message #174, and more specifically, quote, "To put that in the context of Paul and the Pope (and all Christians) preaching to everyone what is “Right vs Wrong” (ie “good vs evil”) … they can only get that knowledge if God has made that huge mistake". Yeah, no, the Pope doesn't have to acknowledge any huge mistake by God, because they have just decided that that whole chapter of Genesis never happened

My bad. Thanks for explaining the context.

And, as to what you say there, agreed.


Quote:
But yeah, not everything is about you

No no, why should it have to be?
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2019, 11:23 AM   #187
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,383
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
What you see there is a huge amount of obscurantist pseudo-religious double-speak, which is mostly however (just as I said here several pages back), a clear and absolute denial of evolution. So I think we can get rid of any idea that the Pope or Catholic Christianity as a whole (where the Pope is the authority for what is said as Catholic Christian belief), is accepting of evolution in any honest way at all.
1. Well, I didn't say that the Catholic position was perfectly scientific or anything. The elder gods know I've repeatedly called it stupid. Even in this thread.

All I'm saying is that AT LEAST for the last 70 years or so -- un-scientific as it may be in other aspects of that dogma -- they no longer believe that there was a literal garden of Eden, an apple, or a talking snake. Sure, they're unscientific in demanding that God created the souls, but they're still ok with billions of years of evolution creating the bodies. Hell, they even gave up on Eve entirely.

So to reiterate, demanding that their theology acknowledges a problem with what Adam and Eve did in a literal reading of Genesis 2 is as silly as demanding that they acknowledge a problem with the Jedi codex. Both are just as much allegoric fiction for the RCC.

So basically what you're doing now is, "look! look! they're still unscientific about SOMETHING ELSE!" Yes, well, you're welcome to that red herring. True as it may be.

2. There have been a couple more popes since 1950, you know? I only mentioned that one as the first which explicitly allows for evolution -- except for souls, duly noted -- not as the final word ever since
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2019, 02:02 AM   #188
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,686
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
1. Well, I didn't say that the Catholic position was perfectly scientific or anything. The elder gods know I've repeatedly called it stupid. Even in this thread.

All I'm saying is that AT LEAST for the last 70 years or so -- un-scientific as it may be in other aspects of that dogma -- they no longer believe that there was a literal garden of Eden, an apple, or a talking snake. Sure, they're unscientific in demanding that God created the souls, but they're still ok with billions of years of evolution creating the bodies. Hell, they even gave up on Eve entirely.

So to reiterate, demanding that their theology acknowledges a problem with what Adam and Eve did in a literal reading of Genesis 2 is as silly as demanding that they acknowledge a problem with the Jedi codex. Both are just as much allegoric fiction for the RCC.

So basically what you're doing now is, "look! look! they're still unscientific about SOMETHING ELSE!" Yes, well, you're welcome to that red herring. True as it may be.

2. There have been a couple more popes since 1950, you know? I only mentioned that one as the first which explicitly allows for evolution -- except for souls, duly noted -- not as the final word ever since

Well, Han's look, lets be honest here - there was nothing in your link (certainly not around para-35, which which is what you offered), to say in any way at all that the Pope was claiming that God had not created Mankind, nor any word whatsoever about claiming that the first humans were deliberately created without freewill, and nor in fact even anything at all about Adam & Eve not existing! There was not one iota of any of that in the link and the paragraphs that you gave to say that ... it gave precisely 0% support for what you had claimed.

And lets be clear too, that it was (and has been) Chanakya, and NOT ME!, who introduced Adam & Eve with the claim that they were the ones who obtained freewill by eating forbidden fruit. My argument against him was never about anything to do with Adam & Eve or any forbidden fruit, it was only to say that his original claim of saying that God first deliberately created Mankind to have no freewill, and then saying that they got freewill themselves anyway against what God had specifically intended, was claiming an impossibly huge error by God which is simply not compatible with what those same Christians claim for God as the infallible supernatural creator of all the universe.

I was not necessarily talking about any Adam & Eve stories at all. But it was Chanakya who then introduced Adam & Eve by saying it was they who got freewill by eating the fruit. To which I replied that it's irrelevant how any Adam or Eve were claimed get freewill when that claim meant a clear mistake being made by a God who Christians today claim to have infallible capability far beyond making simple obvious errors like that.

IOW - it does not matter whether a Pope today (or since 1950, or whatever you had said), claims that we should no longer believe that Adam & Eve existed (though your link and para-35 says no such thing from that Pope). That's all completely irrelevant ... what matters here is whether Christians can make claims of saying that God made a huge mistake with the one-&-only thing that he was trying to do, ie to create Mankind as his very specific and single purpose for the entire universe, and still also claim that God is the infallible intentional creator of the entire universe who could not possibly be so stupid and such an obvious failure as to make unbelievable blunders like that.

But as I said before - the only reason that any of this should be interesting to anyone, is that such claims of a blunder by God, completely undermine and completely contradict the properties which those same Christians claim for the God being all-powerful, all knowing, omnipotent etc. IOW - as soon as any Christians claim that God made such a huge mistake as that, then all their other claims about an omnipotent infallible God evaporate (lost, gone, ended).
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2019, 10:14 AM   #189
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,244
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
saying that they got freewill themselves anyway against what God had specifically intended, was claiming an impossibly huge error by God which is simply not compatible with what those same Christians claim for God as the infallible supernatural creator of all the universe.
That's perhaps the tenth time you're saying this. Do you have a point there, that you're trying to make? Beyond the entirely obvious observation, that no one here is contesting, that God-beliefs are riddled with inconsistencies?

Quote:
I replied that it's irrelevant how any Adam or Eve were claimed get freewill when that claim meant a clear mistake being made by a God who Christians today claim to have infallible capability far beyond making simple obvious errors like that.
That amazing argumentum ad absurdum again! Explain, please, how that is "irrelevant", in terms of what you've said here.



By the way, I love that neat trick of yours, where every time you lack cogent counter-argument, you grandly claim you've not bothered to read what has been said to you. You've done that twice already in this short thread, the first time claiming what was said is "religious nonsense", and the second time that it detracts from goodwill, or something like that. Would you show us that trick again, a third time? You know, in lieu of a cogent answer to the question asked?



ETA:

Originally Posted by IanS View Post
... as soon as any Christians claim that God made such a huge mistake as that, then all their other claims about an omnipotent infallible God evaporate (lost, gone, ended).
Only if the Christians in question take it literally, the source material that the original argument is drawn from. Not otherwise. Many -- like the RCC -- don't take this particular source material literally at all.

The religious tend to be unfazed by inconsistencies within their belief systems; but for a great many Christians, RCCs for example, this isn't even an inconsistency at all.

So my original argument, and yours as well, isn't exactly some universal take-down of the Christian faith. Unfortunately.

Last edited by Chanakya; 15th July 2019 at 10:34 AM.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2019, 01:11 PM   #190
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,383
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Well, Han's look, lets be honest here - there was nothing in your link (certainly not around para-35, which which is what you offered), to say in any way at all that the Pope was claiming that God had not created Mankind, nor any word whatsoever about claiming that the first humans were deliberately created without freewill, and nor in fact even anything at all about Adam & Eve not existing! There was not one iota of any of that in the link and the paragraphs that you gave to say that ... it gave precisely 0% support for what you had claimed.
So, basically more and even irrelevant red herrings? Trying to collect the whole set or what?

Let's see:

- "that the Pope was claiming that God had not created Mankind" Considering that I most certainly didn't make THAT claim AND that such a broad claim wouldn't contradict Chanakya's claim anyway... Who cares? And really, if after this many messages and clarifications, THAT is what you understood as being the claim, frankly, learn to read. And follow the actual discussion for a change, rather than repeating your own list of canned points.

- "nor any word whatsoever about claiming that the first humans were deliberately created without freewill" Considering that I was telling you for the last few messages precisely that the RCC does NOT make that claim... if you were actually thinking that document is supposed to be proof that it DOES... yeah, learn to read, silly.

- "and nor in fact even anything at all about Adam & Eve not existing" Not the ones in the garden of Eden in any case. Which was my actual point.

Originally Posted by IanS View Post
And lets be clear too, that it was (and has been) Chanakya, and NOT ME!, who introduced Adam & Eve with the claim that they were the ones who obtained freewill by eating forbidden fruit. My argument against him was never about anything to do with Adam & Eve or any forbidden fruit, it was only to say that his original claim of saying that God first deliberately created Mankind to have no freewill, and then saying that they got freewill themselves anyway against what God had specifically intended, was claiming an impossibly huge error by God which is simply not compatible with what those same Christians claim for God as the infallible supernatural creator of all the universe.

I was not necessarily talking about any Adam & Eve stories at all. But it was Chanakya who then introduced Adam & Eve by saying it was they who got freewill by eating the fruit. To which I replied that it's irrelevant how any Adam or Eve were claimed get freewill when that claim meant a clear mistake being made by a God who Christians today claim to have infallible capability far beyond making simple obvious errors like that.

IOW - it does not matter whether a Pope today (or since 1950, or whatever you had said), claims that we should no longer believe that Adam & Eve existed (though your link and para-35 says no such thing from that Pope). That's all completely irrelevant ... what matters here is whether Christians can make claims of saying that God made a huge mistake with the one-&-only thing that he was trying to do, ie to create Mankind as his very specific and single purpose for the entire universe, and still also claim that God is the infallible intentional creator of the entire universe who could not possibly be so stupid and such an obvious failure as to make unbelievable blunders like that.

But as I said before - the only reason that any of this should be interesting to anyone, is that such claims of a blunder by God, completely undermine and completely contradict the properties which those same Christians claim for the God being all-powerful, all knowing, omnipotent etc. IOW - as soon as any Christians claim that God made such a huge mistake as that, then all their other claims about an omnipotent infallible God evaporate (lost, gone, ended).
And considering that the RCC doesn't make such a claim, all I'm saying is: you can stop going on and on about what the Pope would have to admit. And no, I don't care about what irrelevant other faults you can find with the RCC. It's irrelevant for the topic here. You can start your own thread if THAT is what you want to discuss.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 15th July 2019 at 01:21 PM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2019, 01:19 PM   #191
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,383
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Edit to add - I have not read the rest of your post yet (beyond what I replied to above), I may read it at some later time. But to be honest the disputes here have become tedious and absurd to the point of me losing not just interest in this forum, but also respect for many people on this forum making continued arguments about all sorts of things which they cannot reasonably substantiate when the problems are clearly pointed out. That is just a waste of everyones time and goodwill when it reaches that stage in post after post and page after page.
Well, I'm glad you made the above italic, because it saves me the bother of highlighting it myself. Because that is the problem. YOUR problem.

In just about any thread, that's the problem with your posts. You don't actually bother to read or comprehend, before you jump to answer something missing the point by a mile. I was under that impression for a long time, but here I have confirmation from you. Thanks.

And yes, you make threads extremely tedious to read through.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:03 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.