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 5th July 2019, 12:01 PM   #121
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,387
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
if one has to make a claim like that, then it just shows that such ideas of a God are a contradiction in their own terms
It does, yes. I have said as much to you, more than once.

Quote:
Either the claim is wrong, or else the God belief is wrong
Correct. My claim seems straightforward, evidenced, and sound. Therefore clearly God belief lacks internal consistency, at least at this elementary level.

Quote:
I am disputing Chanakya's claim of how we got any freewill
You are disputing it, but you aren't arguing your case, except by implying that this inconsistency in God beliefs isn't possible. That implied claim is yours to defend.

Quote:
I am saying instead that ... the reason why we have what appears to be freewill is due to Mankind's evolutionary history
I will repeat what I'd said early on in this thread: We're discussing here one aspect of the flat-earth worldview; we aren't claiming the earth is flat.
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 6th July 2019, 01:21 AM   #122
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,843
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
He has explained it using one of the sources Christians tend to use. That source has the creation of man without the ability to decide if something is good or bad, all they can do is follow what they are told. Which is how god made them. They then against god's wishes acquire the ability to know good from bad, to make their own judgements, in other words gain free will.

So one of the sources of Christianity shows that humans were not meant to have freewill.

That's the claim he/she is making.

Well that is still exactly the same problem! Did you not realise that when you wrote the above?

That still means God failed to do the precise thing that he intended to do!

How does the Christian God who creates everything, make a mistake as enormous as that??

And note that in making this claim Chanakya is presenting the God as (a) actually existing, (b) as the creator of Man, and (c) as the Christian God who is infallible!

The point is that his suggestion is incompatible with the Christian God. Either that suggestion/explanation is wrong, or else the God belief is wrong. They cannot both be right.
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 6th July 2019, 01:42 AM   #123
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,843
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
@IanS :

This discussion, as far as you are concerned, is beginning to take on a surreal aspect! Afraid you're smuggling in positively industrial quantities of straw in here!

If we were to discuss Tolkien, would you accuse me of some CT that upends evolution as we know it, would you accuse me of claiming that hobbits and elves and dwarves and orcs actually existed?

As far as the free will argument: I don't know if you've followed my exchanges with Hans and, earler on, with Darat: but I suppose there are two ways of looking at free will. At one level, even the lower animals can be thought to have free will, and that free will Adam and Eve did possess. But actual meaningful free will, in the sense that we commonly use that term, is predicated on a minimal basis of knowledge and understanding and coherence. That knowledge, and therefore free will in any meaningful sense, God clearly did not equip Adam and Eve with, nor intended for them to acquire: they munched their way to it in the teeth of God's plan and His command.

And that clearly shows that, per Biblical stories, there are limits to God's fore-knowledge of and control over his creation.

I'm at a loss to understand what you find confusing with this very straightforward argument.

OK, look at the highlight please - why are you bothering to say that God has anything to do with freewill? Why are you saying "God did X and God did Y & Z"?

Unless you believe that this God actually exists and did the things you just said he did, then leave that God belief entirely out of your argument about freewill!

If you wanted to explain something about what we call “freewill”, and if you don't believe that it has anything to do with a proposed God (who you believe does not exist?), then don't try to explain it by saying “God does X & Y & Z”. Because in that case God should not be part of your argument at all.

If the only reason that you mentioned God in your explantion of freewill was really to say that you believe the propsed God does not exist and that Chrsitian claims about freewill are contraditory and illogical, then that is what you should have said about it! What you should not have said is anything like "the explanation for freewill is that God did X,Y & Z".
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 6th July 2019, 02:03 AM   #124
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,387
*facepalm*

This thread is about free will in so far as it applies to the theodicy argument. As such, it is about free will as represented in theology/doctrine/belief, and specifically in Christian theology/doctrine/belief.

We're discussing the use of weaponry in Middle Earth. We're speaking of bows and arrows, and battle axes, and swords. We're speaking of magical swords that glow when in the presence of orcs. We're speaking of fighting eagles and trees that walk. We're speaking of magic staffs and magic incantations.

And no, we're NOT speaking of nukes or aircraft or drones or machine guns, nor of MMA or kung fu or nan chakus or shuriken. Not here, not 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 6th July 2019, 02:05 AM   #125
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,843
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
It does, yes. I have said as much to you, more than once.

Correct. My claim seems straightforward, evidenced, and sound. Therefore clearly God belief lacks internal consistency, at least at this elementary level.

You are disputing it, but you aren't arguing your case, except by implying that this inconsistency in God beliefs isn't possible. That implied claim is yours to defend.

I will repeat what I'd said early on in this thread: We're discussing here one aspect of the flat-earth worldview; we aren't claiming the earth is flat.

OK, well I just read the above after making my other two replies. And in the above I don't think we are in much disagreement at all now.

But the point I have been trying to make to you is that according to the above you never actually believed what you presented as the Christian belief of God making a mistake over giving humans freewill. But you failed to mention that! You failed to mention that what you'd just said was incompatible with what those same Christians also said about the infallibility of God.

If you did not believe what you had just presented as the Christian idea of God making a mistake over freewill, then you should have immediately finished that sentence by saying why that Christian idea of freewill is actually incompatible with what those same Christians believe about that God being infallible.

Unless you do that, when you write as you did, you are yourself presenting a contradiction. I.e, writing one thing when you really meant something quite different (the complete opposite in fact).
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 6th July 2019, 02:20 AM   #126
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,387
Heh, you mean a disclaimer along the lines of: "We're discussing Tolkien, but we do not actually believe that the Silmarillion contains the true origin story of the cosmos", something like 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 6th July 2019, 04:20 AM   #127
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,629
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
These people (Christians) are not idiots. They certainly have a properly functioning brain. And many them have at least as high an IQ and at least as many degrees and doctorates as anyone here. Their brains have not fallen out.
Yes, well, applying any amount to intelligence to immovable fantasy premises still produces garbage results. Garbage in, garbage out, you know.
__________________
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 6th July 2019, 04:29 AM   #128
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,843
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Heh, you mean a disclaimer along the lines of: "We're discussing Tolkien, but we do not actually believe that the Silmarillion contains the true origin story of the cosmos", something like that?

We are not discussing anything written by a bloke named Tolkien . That's no part of anything here.

Look - when you first said (and just roughly from memory) "God clearly did not intend Man to have freewill, but when Adam & Eve ate the forbidden fruit they gained freewill despite what God wanted", all that I said to you as a reply to that, is that the explanation which you had just given in that quote (we can check your precise words if you want) does not make sense because it admits God is making errors, and that is contrary to what those same Christians believe and what they actually claim for the infallibility of God.

But instead of you replying to that by saying that you agreed it is illogical & contradictory for Christians to make the claim in your quote, you then replied disputing that and saying it was not a contradiction or irreconcilable for Christians to make that claim about God allowing humans to gain freewill when he (God) specifically tried to do the complete opposite of making them without freewill.

That's why we have been arguing about it! I.e. because you did not accept me saying that it was contradictory and illogical if Christians made the claim that you produced to say ""God clearly did not intend Man to have freewill, but when Adam & Eve ate the forbidden fruit they gained freewill despite what God wanted".


And that's important if we are talking about whether or not Christian/religious claims about God are likely to be true. Because with a claim like the above quote about freewill, it shows those Christian claims and beliefs are contradictory and fatally flawed. IOW - if that is the argument for how God gave humans freewill, then that argument fails.
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 6th July 2019, 04:42 AM   #129
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,843
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Yes, well, applying any amount to intelligence to immovable fantasy premises still produces garbage results. Garbage in, garbage out, you know.

Well they (religious people) believe something that is now contrary to all known evidence from science. The sensible honest thing for educated religious people to have done as the 20th century developed, would have been to distance themselves from beliefs in literal miracles and the supernatural existence of a intelligent almighty creator.

However, as we know, billions of Christians all around the world, really do not accept science wherever it clashes with their God beliefs (and that clash is on almost every aspect of their religion now). But that does not mean that the rest of us heathens (atheists) should allow them to keep getting away with making illogical contradictory claims about their God (claims which very often are completely contradicted by what we now "know" from science ... evolution for example).
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 6th July 2019, 04:54 AM   #130
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,764
IanS, Chanyaka clearly isn't Christian and is discussing the Christian views in their own terms, not as a true account of the universe. He/She is analysing their internal consistency or lack thereof, just as one might do with a work of fantastical fiction, hence the Tolkien references.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma 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 6th July 2019, 05:02 AM   #131
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,387
@IanS

That isn't how your part of the conversation went. I too am speaking from memory, but what you did is make a ham-handed attempt at an argumentum ad absurdum. You said that because my argument showed that God had made a mistake, therefore my argument is "fatally flawed ". Do you realize your clear-as-day error in (implicit) reasoning?

As for your other objection, allow me to point out to you -- again -- that this thread is about the theodicy argument. It is literally about what Christian doctrine has to say about free will, and our thoughts on that.

Anyway, enough of this I-said-you-said routine. I suppose we understand each other now -- that is, you understand where I'm coming from, and I understand you've realized your error, right?

(Sorry, couldn't resist putting in that last bit! )
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 6th July 2019, 06:20 AM   #132
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,629
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Well they (religious people) believe something that is now contrary to all known evidence from science. The sensible honest thing for educated religious people to have done as the 20th century developed, would have been to distance themselves from beliefs in literal miracles and the supernatural existence of a intelligent almighty creator.

However, as we know, billions of Christians all around the world, really do not accept science wherever it clashes with their God beliefs (and that clash is on almost every aspect of their religion now). But that does not mean that the rest of us heathens (atheists) should allow them to keep getting away with making illogical contradictory claims about their God (claims which very often are completely contradicted by what we now "know" from science ... evolution for example).
And I'm telling you that that's literally what they did. They jettisoned about 99% of the OT overboard as just metaphor... for something or another, they don't even know for what or how that works as a metaphor, but they're sure it's one. They're totally not claiming that all those miracles actually happened.

More to the point, sure, they'll still claim that God created the universe and humans, and he's powerful and all that. But they've dropped the idea of an actual Garden Of Eden, or an Adam and Eve, or the whole talking snakes in magic trees business. Sure, they're OK with God working through evolution, or however he wishes.

So if you want to catch them with specifically the question of whether Adam and Eve had free will, or anything else related to the events in Genesis, all you'll get is a "we don't take that literally" answer. They don't actually believe there even were an Adam and Eve in the first place. They're just God's fictive characters in a grand allegorical piece of fiction. They're not sure what exactly it's an allegory for, but they're sure it is one.

So the whole "but how do you explain Adam and Eve, then?" line of inquiry is going nowhere with the RCC. Is all I'm saying.
__________________
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 6th July 2019, 06:24 AM   #133
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,629
And here, have it from the highest authority, the Pope himself: Evolution is real, the Big Bang is a fact, and God didn't just say a few magic words to create it all.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...c-9822514.html

I hope the Pope is authoritative enough to settle the whole silly argument of knowing better than the RCC what they REALLY believe in
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 6th July 2019 at 06:26 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 6th July 2019, 06:32 AM   #134
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 87,158
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Well that is still exactly the same problem! Did you not realise that when you wrote the above?



That still means God failed to do the precise thing that he intended to do!



How does the Christian God who creates everything, make a mistake as enormous as that??



And note that in making this claim Chanakya is presenting the God as (a) actually existing, (b) as the creator of Man, and (c) as the Christian God who is infallible!



The point is that his suggestion is incompatible with the Christian God. Either that suggestion/explanation is wrong, or else the God belief is wrong. They cannot both be right.
And?
__________________
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 6th July 2019, 06:37 AM   #135
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 87,158
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
OK, look at the highlight please - why are you bothering to say that God has anything to do with freewill? Why are you saying "God did X and God did Y & Z"?



Unless you believe that this God actually exists and did the things you just said he did, then leave that God belief entirely out of your argument about freewill!



If you wanted to explain something about what we call “freewill”, and if you don't believe that it has anything to do with a proposed God (who you believe does not exist?), then don't try to explain it by saying “God does X & Y & Z”. Because in that case God should not be part of your argument at all.



If the only reason that you mentioned God in your explantion of freewill was really to say that you believe the propsed God does not exist and that Chrsitian claims about freewill are contraditory and illogical, then that is what you should have said about it! What you should not have said is anything like "the explanation for freewill is that God did X,Y & Z".
You seem to have forgot the premise of this thread, which is the theological explanations for free will.

The discussion here is the equivalent of fans discussing the world an author has created.

Only you seem to be jumping in and saying "but it's not real" as if that negates the entire point of the discussion.

None of the people you have been recently interacting with think it is a real world we are discussing. We are discussing an author's world.
__________________
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 6th July 2019, 07:21 AM   #136
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,387
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
IanS, Chanyaka clearly isn't Christian and is discussing the Christian views in their own terms

What IanS does not seem to realize is that my beliefs, or his, or yours -- or lack of them -- is entirely irrelevant, an out and out non sequitur.

It does not matter in the least if all of us participating in this thread were practicing Catholics, what matters is our arguments and our evidence and/or reasoning in support of those arguments.

To try to dismiss an argument as "religious", is a blatant ad hominem fallacy, and is probably an attempt -- whether instinctive, un-thought-out, or deliberate -- to avoid having to squarely address the argument.

It should not matter at all, even if I *were* a practicing Catholic (or a Christian of any other denomination), who was actually discussing his actual beliefs (as opposed to, like you say, merely analyzing this as fiction).
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 6th July 2019, 06:11 PM   #137
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,764
Absolutely.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma 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 7th July 2019, 12:25 AM   #138
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,843
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
IanS, Chanyaka clearly isn't Christian and is discussing the Christian views in their own terms, not as a true account of the universe. He/She is analysing their internal consistency or lack thereof, just as one might do with a work of fantastical fiction, hence the Tolkien references.

Yes I know he is not religious, he told me that in one reply (after I had said his earlier post sounded like the usual religious mumbo-jumbo). But do you not see the problem? The problem is that he said that God made a mistake when he allowed humans to gain free will ... and I replied to him saying that would be a contradiction to what Christians believed about the infallibility of God ... he then replied saying it was NOT a contradiction, and not a "fatal flaw" in the Christian beliefs about God ... that is the issue -

- is it a contradiction or not, if Christians claim that the reason we have free will is because God made a mistake??


And we are talking about a huge mistake - it's a mistake that God is claimed to have made with the one specific reason that he ever did anything at all, ie to make humans on Earth as his entire purpose for anything ... and yet he makes a serious mistake with it.

Actually, in a post just above, Chanakya finally did say that he agrees with me saying that claim of God making such a mistake is a contradiction. But it's taken him all those 5 or 6 exchanges of posts to finally agree to that!

He could have agreed it straight away when I first objected to it. But he didn't lol. He did the very opposite and said it was not a contradiction and not a fatal flaw in Christian claims if they said an infalliable God made such huge mistakes.

Last edited by IanS; 7th July 2019 at 12:26 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 7th July 2019, 12:37 AM   #139
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,843
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
@IanS

That isn't how your part of the conversation went. I too am speaking from memory, but what you did is make a ham-handed attempt at an argumentum ad absurdum. You said that because my argument showed that God had made a mistake, therefore my argument is "fatally flawed ". Do you realize your clear-as-day error in (implicit) reasoning?

As for your other objection, allow me to point out to you -- again -- that this thread is about the theodicy argument. It is literally about what Christian doctrine has to say about free will, and our thoughts on that.

Anyway, enough of this I-said-you-said routine. I suppose we understand each other now -- that is, you understand where I'm coming from, and I understand you've realized your error, right?

(Sorry, couldn't resist putting in that last bit! )

OK, just re. the highlight - No! what I said was that the argument presented by you, which you later said was NOT your own argument but actually just an argument used by Chrsitians, was/is fatally flawed due to contradiction (it contradicts their other beliefs about God).

And you then replied saying it was NOT a contradiction for Chrsitians to say that. And that is the problem!

Look – lets clear this bit up, did you or did you not, say it was NOT in fact a contradiction and not a fatal flaw in any Christians argument when they claim (according to you) that God made a mistake allowing humans to have free will?
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 7th July 2019, 12:47 AM   #140
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,843
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
And here, have it from the highest authority, the Pope himself: Evolution is real, the Big Bang is a fact, and God didn't just say a few magic words to create it all.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...c-9822514.html

I hope the Pope is authoritative enough to settle the whole silly argument of knowing better than the RCC what they REALLY believe in

OK, well I cannot see that link unless I disable my ad blocker. But I know what the Pope probably says. He probably says the same as Rowan Williams (the previous Archbishop of Canterbury) ... he probably says that he does not deny evolution, but says in that case God must have chosen the method of evolution as his deliberate way of creating Man ... and I actually said exactly that to you in a post several pages back! So it's not new for you to post that.

That of course is still claiming that God is the intentional and deliberate creator of Man.

But iirc, that is also a change from what earlier Popes and Archbishops had claimed over the last century. Afaik, it is only very recently that the last couple of Popes and the last two Archbishops have finally & reluctantly agreed that evolution of humans is probably correct (although they still insist that God deffinitely made Man). But lets be clear – that is certainly not something the Pope is now broadcasting strongly to his congregation, he is not openly telling them that they need to know about evolution as evidence that perhaps God never made Man after all ... he is a million miles from doing that!)

Last edited by IanS; 7th July 2019 at 12:56 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 7th July 2019, 01:14 AM   #141
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,843
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
What IanS does not seem to realize is that my beliefs, or his, or yours -- or lack of them -- is entirely irrelevant, an out and out non sequitur.

It does not matter in the least if all of us participating in this thread were practicing Catholics, what matters is our arguments and our evidence and/or reasoning in support of those arguments.

To try to dismiss an argument as "religious", is a blatant ad hominem fallacy, and is probably an attempt -- whether instinctive, un-thought-out, or deliberate -- to avoid having to squarely address the argument.

It should not matter at all, even if I *were* a practicing Catholic (or a Christian of any other denomination), who was actually discussing his actual beliefs (as opposed to, like you say, merely analyzing this as fiction).
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Absolutely.

Well, the above is now a completely different subject, but just re. that first highlight – actually, No! No, our beliefs are not “entirely irrelevant”. In anything we say or do, our “beliefs” are absolutely vital and central to all of our functioning as living people/creatures. The beliefs determine almost all that we do (some of the things we do seem to be automatic responses, such as breathing, heartbeats etc.) But overall, in general terms of all our decision making, our beliefs are “everything”.

But I now understand that when you first said that God made a mistake over freewill, you were not a Christian giving that as your own personal belief and as the belief of Christians in general. I understood that with one of your early replies when you said you are not in fact a Christian, and that you were merely giving what you think is an explanation that Christians give.

OK, that's fine. But you still continued after that to insist that any such Christian view is not in contradiction with other Christian beliefs about the infallibility of God. And I have only ever been pointing out to you why I think that very clearly is a contradiction with what almost all Christians believe about God as the almighty creator of everything.


Anyway, apart from all that – in a post at the top of this page (post 121 ) you did finally say that you agree it is actually a contradiction for Christians to say God made a mistake like that. So as far as I am concerned that is the end to that particular dispute or misunderstanding. We agree it is a contradiction.

Last edited by IanS; 7th July 2019 at 01:16 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 7th July 2019, 01:26 AM   #142
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,629
@IanS
But the point still remains that you can't use Adam and Eve in pretty much any theological argument against the RCC. You could just as well try to argue why God let the Jedi use the Force, or why does God allow Magneto to run around unchecked. Genesis is just as much fiction for the RCC as the X-Men comics are.

For the RCC, Genesis is just an allegoric novel, Adam and Eve never actually existed, there was no magical apple, no magical talking snake, nor any of the rest of the stuff in there. So pretending you can still use Adam and Eve to argue that God never intended humans to have free will, just fails epically, because that never happened in their doctrine.
__________________
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 8th July 2019, 01:15 AM   #143
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,843
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
@IanS
But the point still remains that you can't use Adam and Eve in pretty much any theological argument against the RCC. You could just as well try to argue why God let the Jedi use the Force, or why does God allow Magneto to run around unchecked. Genesis is just as much fiction for the RCC as the X-Men comics are.

For the RCC, Genesis is just an allegoric novel, Adam and Eve never actually existed, there was no magical apple, no magical talking snake, nor any of the rest of the stuff in there. So pretending you can still use Adam and Eve to argue that God never intended humans to have free will, just fails epically, because that never happened in their doctrine.

Well first of all I have never (never at all anywhere on the entire internet, or anywhere else) offered any argument at all about Adam & Eve (no comments at all ever from me about that). Here I have only replied (just once I think) when Chanakya mentioned that he was talking about Adam & Eve (but I was certainly not making any argument about any belief in Adam & Eve).

But secondly re. the highlight - it was of course NOT Me who made that argument saying quote "God never intended humans to have free will" ; it was Chanakya who made that argument! ...

... the argument I made was against him saying that!


Anyway – I don't want this last series of disputes with Chanakya to kill the thread. We have (I think) sorted it out now – we do now agree it's a contradiction if Christians explain free will by saying that God made a mistake when he allowed that.

I know (I think?) you were not asking in this thread whether we actually do have what we call “freewill”. And we do have another recent/current thread about that. But maybe we should continue here down that route as the more enduring & problematic question … do we really NOT have the option to choose what we do at any one moment in life? … is every minute action of humans, all animals, and even every subatomic particle in the universe, actually all predetermined by everything that has happened historically since the Big Bang? …

… actually, I think the answer is No; no, it's not predetermined in that way. And I think the science actually supports that (ie freewill not determined). Plus I think what we call freewill is probably an illusion or misnomer (misunderstanding) anyway … that is, the entire concept is yet another mistaken mess created by mere word-arguments from philosophy. Philosophy strikes again, making yet another mess of time-wasting self-indulgent mistakes for people to argue about lol .
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 8th July 2019, 01:52 AM   #144
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,629
Well, I didn't say you've made that argument, but nevertheless, it was in the context of that subthread. I'm just saying it goes nowhere with the RCC either way.
__________________
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 8th July 2019, 01:56 AM   #145
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,629
That said, I'm not particularly interested in predeterminism here. Though I suppose it would put the kibosh on god omniscience, as in, actually knowing the future. But that's probably a topic of its own.

I'm really just interested here in how the excuses for why God doesn't stop evil even work. In that context, all other conditions (e.g., the uncertainty particle and all) being equal, giving you free will really just means "god is not stopping you." All other limits or lack thereof on free will are equal regardless of whether god stops a serial killer or not. The only extra free will that God gives a Ted Bundy or BTK serial killer is just that God isn't stopping them.

Which, to reiterate my original problem with it, then makes the whole "god isn't stopping it because it's important that people have free will" be equivalent to "god isn't stopping it, because he isn't stopping it." Which struck me as rather lame.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 8th July 2019 at 02:00 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 8th July 2019, 03:22 AM   #146
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 87,158
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
That said, I'm not particularly interested in predeterminism here. Though I suppose it would put the kibosh on god omniscience, as in, actually knowing the future. But that's probably a topic of its own.

I'm really just interested here in how the excuses for why God doesn't stop evil even work. In that context, all other conditions (e.g., the uncertainty particle and all) being equal, giving you free will really just means "god is not stopping you." All other limits or lack thereof on free will are equal regardless of whether god stops a serial killer or not. The only extra free will that God gives a Ted Bundy or BTK serial killer is just that God isn't stopping them.

Which, to reiterate my original problem with it, then makes the whole "god isn't stopping it because it's important that people have free will" be equivalent to "god isn't stopping it, because he isn't stopping it." Which struck me as rather lame.
It's the old canard "It's God's will"
__________________
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 8th July 2019, 03:52 AM   #147
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,843
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
That said, I'm not particularly interested in predeterminism here. Though I suppose it would put the kibosh on god omniscience, as in, actually knowing the future. But that's probably a topic of its own.

I'm really just interested here in how the excuses for why God doesn't stop evil even work. In that context, all other conditions (e.g., the uncertainty particle and all) being equal, giving you free will really just means "god is not stopping you." All other limits or lack thereof on free will are equal regardless of whether god stops a serial killer or not. The only extra free will that God gives a Ted Bundy or BTK serial killer is just that God isn't stopping them.

Which, to reiterate my original problem with it, then makes the whole "god isn't stopping it because it's important that people have free will" be equivalent to "god isn't stopping it, because he isn't stopping it." Which struck me as rather lame.

OK . ..... Well just on that question -

- I am of course the last person to defend Christian/religious views or to offer Christians a verbal way out of that dilemma, but I suppose Christians could say that the reason why God gave us free will, is because he decided it was essential for each of us to learn for ourselves what is evil or immoral in this world, and to learn for ourselves what are the good, moral, compassionate and honest things to do.

Next question might then be "Is there some reason why it would not have been better for God to have made us all eternally moral, honest and compassionate in the first place? And just off the top of my head I cannot think why this God would not have done that.
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 8th July 2019, 06:14 AM   #148
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,387
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
... do you not see the problem? The problem is that he said that God made a mistake when he allowed humans to gain free will ... and I replied to him saying that would be a contradiction to what Christians believed about the infallibility of God ... he then replied saying it was NOT a contradiction, and not a "fatal flaw" in the Christian beliefs about God ... that is the issue -

...

Actually, in a post just above, Chanakya finally did say that he agrees with me saying that claim of God making such a mistake is a contradiction. But it's taken him all those 5 or 6 exchanges of posts to finally agree to that!

He could have agreed it straight away when I first objected to it. But he didn't lol. He did the very opposite and said it was not a contradiction and not a fatal flaw in Christian claims if they said an infalliable God made such huge mistakes.

Originally Posted by IanS View Post
OK, just re. the highlight - No! what I said was that the argument presented by you, which you later said was NOT your own argument but actually just an argument used by Chrsitians, was/is fatally flawed due to contradiction (it contradicts their other beliefs about God).

And you then replied saying it was NOT a contradiction for Chrsitians to say that. And that is the problem!

Look – lets clear this bit up, did you or did you not, say it was NOT in fact a contradiction and not a fatal flaw in any Christians argument when they claim (according to you) that God made a mistake allowing humans to have free will?

Originally Posted by IanS View Post
... But you still continued after that to insist that any such Christian view is not in contradiction with other Christian beliefs about the infallibility of God. And I have only ever been pointing out to you why I think that very clearly is a contradiction with what almost all Christians believe about God as the almighty creator of everything.


Anyway, apart from all that – in a post at the top of this page (post 121 ) you did finally say that you agree it is actually a contradiction for Christians to say God made a mistake like that. So as far as I am concerned that is the end to that particular dispute or misunderstanding. We agree it is a contradiction.

That’s simply not true, IanS, all of this you’ve said here.

You’ve gone to a great deal of trouble to present an elaborate account of our conversation, but that account is no more than an out-and-out fabrication. And unfortunately for you, this is very easily borne out by simply going back to our actual posts here.

This endless evidence-free I-said-you-said routine, that you seem to have fixated on, is getting us nowhere. This is going to be tedious, but I think I’d best put a stop to this once and for all by going back to our actual posts, and presenting, complete with evidence of the links to our respective posts, the actual course of our conversation here.

  1. My post #56, addressed to Darat : relevant portion paraphrased for brevity : I say that given that God originally created mankind without the knowledge of good and evil, and therefore without the capacity for free will in any meaningful sense -- and that Adam and Eve munched through to it against God's wishes -- then it would appear that to ask why God gave us free will is moot.

  2. Your post #68, in response to my post #56 : relevant portion paraphrased for brevity : You ask -- clearly understanding neither my argument nor the elementary biblical story quoted – how, if Paul, et al, were created without the knowledge of good and evil, they were able to pontificate so widely on that subject.

  3. My post # 71, responding to your post #68 : paraphrased : I point out your very elementary error, that it was Adam and Eve who were created without the knowledge of good and evil. Paul, et al, were born with that knowledge. Therefore, the particular inconsistency that you spoke of here, simply did not obtain.

  4. Your post #76, in response to my post #71 above : paraphrased : Far from acknowledging your obvious error, that I’ve pointed out, you double down on it. And you try to obfuscate the issue by trying that ham-fisted argumentum ad absurdum I spoke of earlier. How, you ask me incredulously, could an all-powerful God have possibly made that error? In as much as you show God to have committed that error, your argument is clearly flawed. And you go on to accuse me, wholly erroneousl, of other unspecified logical errors.


  5. My post #85, responding to your post #76 above :
    I’m not going to paraphrase this post of mine, nor will I take up space by copying it verbatim. I boldface this portion to draw attention here, because in this post I very clearly show up, point by point, all of the errors that your post #76 is riddled with. I boldface this to draw attention here, because this is the post, to avoid responding to which you’ve been tapdancing away furiously ever since then.



  6. Your post #93, in response to my post #85 above : paraphrased : No doubt finding yourself at a loss for words now, and no doubt desperate to somehow save face, you simply claim, without substantiation, that most of my post #85 is “religious nonsense”, that you cannot be “bothered” with. And you double down on your earlier ham-handed argumentum ad absurdum attempt : How on earth, you ask again, could an all-powerful God possibly have such an elementary error as that?

  7. My post #95, in response to your post #93 above : paraphrased : If, as you say, you cannot be bothered to read my post, you cannot possibly hope to understand what is being said, can you?

  8. Your post #97, in response to my post #95 above : paraphrased : You double down, yet again, on that argumentum ad absurdum attempt ; and, once again, you try to dismiss my earlier post #85 as “religious beliefs”, that you are not “interested in”.

  9. My post #99, in response to your post #97 : paraphrased : I point out that you’re making up stuff, and urge you to go back and read what I’ve actually written, if at all you are interested in continuing this discussion.

  10. Your post #102, responding to my post #99 above : paraphrased : That crazy argumentum ad absurdum attempt again : You ask me, again, how an all-powerful God can go around making mistakes.

Yeah, that’s sufficient trawling through past posts, I guess. This absurd conversation continues for a few posts more, in that same vein, until we come to this present page (page 4).

At this point, other posters, who have noticed your weirdly obtuse repetition of strawman arguments, start weighing in, pointing out to you how egregiously mistaken you are.

Whereupon now, in these last few posts I’ve quoted right now, you try to present an entirely fabricated version of our conversation. Which fabrication of yours is easily shown up if one is willing to take the effort of actually referencing and linking to our actual posts, as I’ve done just now.



ETA : TLDR version :
The account of our conversation that you’ve presented in the three posts quoted here, is an out and out fabrication. The actual course of our conversation I’ve presented above, in this post, with evidence, with links to our actual posts. The actual conversation, it consisted of you making an error-ridden strawman argument, that you kept doubling down on ; as well as a very ham-handed effort at an argumentum ad absurdum. When the errors in your arguments were clearly pointed out, you then tried to save face by simply dismissing my arguments as “religious nonsense”. Now that even that rhetorical trick does not seem to be working for you, you now try to invent a wholly made-up version of our conversation.

Last edited by Chanakya; 8th July 2019 at 06:26 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 8th July 2019, 06:55 AM   #149
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,387
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
...For the RCC, Genesis is just an allegoric novel, Adam and Eve never actually existed, there was no magical apple, no magical talking snake, nor any of the rest of the stuff in there. So pretending you can still use Adam and Eve to argue that God never intended humans to have free will, just fails epically, because that never happened in their doctrine.

Indeed. As epeeist, our resident RCC, had clearly spelt this out in the course of our conversation upthread.

While what you say is clearly true, nevertheless here's the thing:

  1. What of those folks who do take the Bible literally? Clearly this elementary argument shows they have no grounds to forward reasons for God giving us free will. Do they then jettison the whole theodicy and free will business entirely?


  2. Like you say, and like epeeist had said upthread, Catholics do not go for a literal reading of the Bible. However, the question then arises (as I'd asked of epeeist upthread): Where then do they draw the line in treating the Bible metaphorically? If the exploits of Adam and Eve are metaphor, then what of the Original Sin itself? Is that also metaphor? If it is, then what is the whole point of Christianity itself per this Bible-is-metaphor line, given that we've been taught that Jesus came down to save us from Original Sin? After all, no original sin would equate with no necessity of redemption of this non-existent original sin.

    One cannot really jettison this argument, without also answering that question. (And perhaps they have indeed answered it, given the long history of theology within the RCC, to which clever enough minds have applied themselves. I was asking epeeist if he might be aware of any such explanation/rationalization.)


  3. In any case, within RCC doctrine, then, the question Myriad had raised way upthread would still apply: the next-level why: Why does God want this relationship (that is predicated on free will) with his creatures?

    I'd put forward a speculation about this upthread, an attempt to answer that question. But that's nowhere near respectful enough of God to pass muster with the faithful. It would be interesting to know if the RCC itself has actually has hazarded any answer to this next-level-why question. (Which, again, they perhaps may well have, given the whole army of often very clever people who'd applied themselves to nonsensical questions like these over so many centuries.)
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, 09:16 AM   #150
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,629
I can answer your question 2 at the very least.

Yes, Original Sin is still a part of the package.

And thanks to previous popes, one they can't even get rid of, like, ever. Because when they proclaimed the immaculate conception ex-cathedra as an infallible doctrine, that means the immaculate conception of Mary. I.e., that not any old gal with cooties was good enough for God, he had to magically make one free of that Original Sin. I.e., if they ever get rid of Original Sin, they say that a previous papal infallible pronouncement is basically bogus. And not even another pope can ever revoke a previous case of papal infallibility.

And WHY they don't want to ever open THAT can of worms is that it's infallible because it comes straight from the Holy Spirit, which is to say, straight from God. That's why it totally, absolutely can't ever be wrong. And if they ever want to override one instance of papal infallibility with another, that would boil down to God telling a pope, "oh, by the way, I've been taking the piss out of you guys before. The thing I told that other pope guy? Totally bogus. All three of us laughed our ass off watching that pope actually proclaim it infallible truth. Here's how it REALLY happened." And once you open the can of worms that God can tell us total BS, THAT leads to all sorts of fun stuff, the least of them being the fact that from that point on any papal or cardinal council declaration of doctrine ever can be bogus.


That said, their take is currently basically that humans at some point in our early history did something that counted as Original Sin and it totally pissed god off. In fact, so hard, that he didn't save anyone for the next 99% of our species existence. (You know, 200,000 years old species and Jesus only came 2000 years ago.) And he still won't forgive you unless your REALLY brown-nose Jesus.

(Not to mention bad enough that he wouldn't even touch a normal woman with a ten foot di... err... pole. He had to have Mary custom made. THAT's infallible.)

And Genesis is just somehow a metaphor for that.

They're not sure what exactly it was. They're not sure HOW Genesis is a metaphor for it. They're not even sure how it works as a metaphor, i.e., exactly what is the message being conveyed through that metaphor. Other than that God is still pissed off, but you don't need a convoluted allegory if the only message is "I'm still pissed off at you guys." But they're sure it's a metaphor.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 8th July 2019 at 09:22 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 8th July 2019, 10:12 AM   #151
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,387
You know this how, Hans?

That is, I'm not doubting you! Nor do I really want specific links or book references, because I don't really want to read detailed papers -- and much less whole books -- about their rationalizations.

But I'd like to know where it comes from, this idea of a nebulous undefined Original Sin, that you speak of, that is distinct from the biblical Original Sin. Your source, is it some author, or general sermons you remember, or some Catholic website, something like that?

I don't think I've come across this idea before, so thanks for bringing it up!
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, 11:28 AM   #152
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 87,158
There's quite a good argument that "original sin" arose as an early mistake in translation of one of Paul's fanzines.

There isn't really any coherant explanation of original sin that is even vaguely applicable to all Christians beyond "Adam did a bad thing and we've got to pay for it".

One interesting nibble for this discussion is that quite a few Christian theologians and denominations have viewed that - because of original sin - our freewill was taken away as we can't now do good!
__________________
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 8th July 2019, 11:36 AM   #153
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,843
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
That’s simply not true, IanS, all of this you’ve said here.

You’ve gone to a great deal of trouble to present an elaborate account of our conversation, but that account is no more than an out-and-out fabrication. And unfortunately for you, this is very easily borne out by simply going back to our actual posts here.

This endless evidence-free I-said-you-said routine, that you seem to have fixated on, is getting us nowhere. This is going to be tedious, but I think I’d best put a stop to this once and for all by going back to our actual posts, and presenting, complete with evidence of the links to our respective posts, the actual course of our conversation here.

  1. My post #56, addressed to Darat : relevant portion paraphrased for brevity : I say that given that God originally created mankind without the knowledge of good and evil, and therefore without the capacity for free will in any meaningful sense -- and that Adam and Eve munched through to it against God's wishes -- then it would appear that to ask why God gave us free will is moot.

  2. Your post #68, in response to my post #56 : relevant portion paraphrased for brevity : You ask -- clearly understanding neither my argument nor the elementary biblical story quoted – how, if Paul, et al, were created without the knowledge of good and evil, they were able to pontificate so widely on that subject.

  3. My post # 71, responding to your post #68 : paraphrased : I point out your very elementary error, that it was Adam and Eve who were created without the knowledge of good and evil. Paul, et al, were born with that knowledge. Therefore, the particular inconsistency that you spoke of here, simply did not obtain.

  4. Your post #76, in response to my post #71 above : paraphrased : Far from acknowledging your obvious error, that I’ve pointed out, you double down on it. And you try to obfuscate the issue by trying that ham-fisted argumentum ad absurdum I spoke of earlier. How, you ask me incredulously, could an all-powerful God have possibly made that error? In as much as you show God to have committed that error, your argument is clearly flawed. And you go on to accuse me, wholly erroneousl, of other unspecified logical errors.


  5. My post #85, responding to your post #76 above :
    I’m not going to paraphrase this post of mine, nor will I take up space by copying it verbatim. I boldface this portion to draw attention here, because in this post I very clearly show up, point by point, all of the errors that your post #76 is riddled with. I boldface this to draw attention here, because this is the post, to avoid responding to which you’ve been tapdancing away furiously ever since then.



  6. Your post #93, in response to my post #85 above : paraphrased : No doubt finding yourself at a loss for words now, and no doubt desperate to somehow save face, you simply claim, without substantiation, that most of my post #85 is “religious nonsense”, that you cannot be “bothered” with. And you double down on your earlier ham-handed argumentum ad absurdum attempt : How on earth, you ask again, could an all-powerful God possibly have such an elementary error as that?

  7. My post #95, in response to your post #93 above : paraphrased : If, as you say, you cannot be bothered to read my post, you cannot possibly hope to understand what is being said, can you?

  8. Your post #97, in response to my post #95 above : paraphrased : You double down, yet again, on that argumentum ad absurdum attempt ; and, once again, you try to dismiss my earlier post #85 as “religious beliefs”, that you are not “interested in”.

  9. My post #99, in response to your post #97 : paraphrased : I point out that you’re making up stuff, and urge you to go back and read what I’ve actually written, if at all you are interested in continuing this discussion.

  10. Your post #102, responding to my post #99 above : paraphrased : That crazy argumentum ad absurdum attempt again : You ask me, again, how an all-powerful God can go around making mistakes.

Yeah, that’s sufficient trawling through past posts, I guess. This absurd conversation continues for a few posts more, in that same vein, until we come to this present page (page 4).

At this point, other posters, who have noticed your weirdly obtuse repetition of strawman arguments, start weighing in, pointing out to you how egregiously mistaken you are.

Whereupon now, in these last few posts I’ve quoted right now, you try to present an entirely fabricated version of our conversation. Which fabrication of yours is easily shown up if one is willing to take the effort of actually referencing and linking to our actual posts, as I’ve done just now.



ETA : TLDR version :
The account of our conversation that you’ve presented in the three posts quoted here, is an out and out fabrication. The actual course of our conversation I’ve presented above, in this post, with evidence, with links to our actual posts. The actual conversation, it consisted of you making an error-ridden strawman argument, that you kept doubling down on ; as well as a very ham-handed effort at an argumentum ad absurdum. When the errors in your arguments were clearly pointed out, you then tried to save face by simply dismissing my arguments as “religious nonsense”. Now that even that rhetorical trick does not seem to be working for you, you now try to invent a wholly made-up version of our conversation.


OK well then lets take Post-56 onwards since that is where you have chosen to start. Post 56 is your own post where you are simply agreeing with an earlier post from Darat (Post-45), where he said this, and I quote it -

"Originally Posted by*Darat*
This isn't true for the Abrahamic god, that god created us without the knowledge of good or evil, he created us to accept him with no ability to decide if that is good or bad. So we know that god was quite capable and happy having pets worship him with no free will."



I did not reply to you about any of that until Post-68, where I simply asked you this -

“ 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"?*"

Your first reply to that was in post-71, where you gave this explanation

“Not quite. Man was created without knowledge of good and evil, that is, Adam and Eve were. Subsequent to snacking on that apple, Adam and Eve came into that knowledge. And those that they "begat", and the entire series of those further "begatten" -- and that includes Paul, obviously -- were born with this knowledge. Of course, you know and I know that all of this is no more than a jumble of superstition. But even within the terms of that construct,*God clearly had not intended man to possess free will,*so that it makes no sense to discuss his reasons for doing this, not even within this fictional construct. But as for people knowing good and bad, that does not seem incongruent with the storyline in quite that same way, right? Not quite as blatantly internally inconsistent. At least not in those specific terms you bring up here. ”


My reply to that is in post-76 where I am focusing on the fact that you had just said it was not inconsistent for Christians to claim (as you said they do claim) that God had not intended to give humans free will, but that they somehow got freewill anyway (it does not matter by what means they got it), and in disputing what you had just said, I said this to you -

“Of course it's inconsistent and erroneous. Example - you start off above saying that*"God clearly had not intended man to possess free will", well that's a fatal error straight away isn't it (before you even proceed to make it worse with more logical errors) ... if God did not intend people to have free will, then how did they get free will just by eating the forbidden fruit? ... why did God allow that? ... according to you God immediately made a huge mistake there! ... “


I should not need to explain that above reply from me in post-76, because it's very clear what I am saying to you. But anyway - what I said to you was that of course there is an inconsistency there (it was your term to say it was merely “inconsistent”) if God tried to create Mankind with no freewill, but he makes a mistake (or overlooks something) and they get freewill despite the fact that God specifically did not intend that (he intended the exact opposite, according to you). That is simply not compatible with what Christians today (or even then in biblical times) believe and preach about the infallibility of an almighty God.

That's all I was saying to you … it's not consistent, and is actually a contradiction in their own terms, if Christians today say that we have freewill because God made a mistake like that.

OK, your next reply is Post-85 where you then said this


“Eh? How do you see that as either an error, or in any way fatal?

God had clearly intended man to gambol around, literally sheep-like, without the wits or the knowledge to make any informed choices about anything. Then Adam and Eve upset God's plan to keep them in that state, and upset God. Surely that much is straightforward enough?

What logical errors? You're the one who seems -- erroneously -- to imagine that God created all men without knowledge of good and evil. The fact is that that applies only to Adam and Eve. The error seems to be yours. “



That was your reply on the specific point which you had highlighted, of me saying in Post-76

“Of course it's inconsistent and erroneous. Example - you start off above saying that*"God clearly had not intended man to possess free will", well that's a fatal error straight away isn't it “

You had highlighted that last quote from me and disputed that as per the above quote from your Post-85.


Again my point to you there is very clear and straightforward and really needs no explanation – it is putting to you that “Of course it's inconsistent and erroneous” when you already told us from the start that God had clearly not intended Man to have freewill … I'm simply pointing out to you that as soon as you say that God created Man and tried not to give them any freewill, but failed and they got freewill anyway (against Gods own direct specific intention), then that is most definitely in contradiction with what those same Christians today say about the infallibility of God as the omnipotent all-powerful creator of all the universe and of all Mankind.

And in Post-121, you actually finally agreed to that saying, and this a quote from your Post-121

“Originally Posted by*IanS*
if one has to make a claim like that, then it just shows that such ideas of a God are a contradiction in their own terms.

It does, yes. I have said as much to you, more than once. “



I think we could really stop there without going through any of the other posts, because there, by post-121, you were finally agreeing with me … it certainly is “inconsistent” (that was your word for it), or in fact it is a contradiction, if as you said, Christians believe that God created Mankind meaning us to have No freewill … but that he made a mistake and we got freewill anyway. That is a contradiction in what you say Christians believe, isn't it! Well, yes it is … and you just agreed that is in fact a contradiction in your Post-21.


Do you want me to go through the other posts that you listed, from Posts 93 to 102? I mean, I can do that if you like. But there is no point if by Post-121, you are agreeing that its “inconsistent” (i.e. a contradiction) within their own biblical religious beliefs/preaching, if today Christians say that God made a mistake when he created humans without freewill, but where we all actually got freewill anyway (despite what God wanted, i.e. in opposition to what God had specifically tried to do).

And by the way, that last huge post from you with all the post numbers and quotes, is clearly getting ratty and bordering on calling me a liar. Please do not do that, because I have not lied about anything here to you (or to anyone else). I have not, and do not accuse you of lying about anything either. Instead I think the problem is that I am focusing on one specific thing which you said about Christian beliefs today in relation to freewill, and I am saying that what you said for their beliefs would be a contradiction with the belief in God as the infallible omnipotent creator of the universe ….

…. whereas, from what I can gather from your posts, you are somehow trying to say the contradiction is rendered not a contradiction if Christians say that only Adam & Even were produced with NO freewill, but then they got freewill by eating forbidden fruit, and then all the offspring from Adam & Eve (the entire human race) were therefore born WITH freewill … is that more-or-less what you have been saying?

Because if you are saying anything like that then it's just introducing yet another error/contradiction. Namely – if Adam & Eve had no freewill, then how could they have disobeyed God to eat any forbidden fruit in the first place?
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 8th July 2019, 12:09 PM   #154
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,843
Chanakya -

Look, if these exchanges with me are making you angry (as I think was clear in the words of your last reply), then lets forget all the other posts and the back-&-forth between us. Instead just tell me this please -

- if Christians today say (as you said for them) that God made Adam & Eve without free will, and intended Mankind not to have freewill, but they disobeyed God and ate the forbidden fruit, which gave them freewill despite what God had intended. Then do you agree that is incompatible with what those same Christians today (or even in biblical times presumably, except we can't now ask them what they really believed 2000 years ago) believe if they say that God is the omnipotent (i.e. infallible … “unlimited power”) all-powerful creator of all Mankind and all of the universe?

Do you agree that would be a contradiction, i.e. a claim not compatible with those religious beliefs?

That is the only point I am making to you.

I think you already agreed with that? And said you know that perfectly well?

Then, what are we arguing about?

If you say there is a way that Christians can in fact rationalise that so that it is not a contradiction, then what is that way?

I don't think it can simply be to say that Adam & Eve disobeyed God and ate fruit which somehow gave them, and gave all mankind, the unintended free will. Because apart from the rather obvious fact that it's completely unexplained (i.e. how did freewill suddenly appear from some fruit? Is there some explanation for that?), I think we have to ask how did Adam & Eve when they had no freewill, suddenly have enough freewill to disobey God and eat forbidden fruit? Because that just seems like another obvious contradiction to me.

And by the way the only reason I was ever questioning what you said in the first place, is because if it does not make sense for Christians to say that God made a mistake with freewill, then that means the freewill argument being used by Christians cannot be right. Ie, bang goes the Christian claim about freewill.

Last edited by IanS; 8th July 2019 at 12:11 PM.
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 8th July 2019, 12:14 PM   #155
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,629
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
You know this how, Hans?

That is, I'm not doubting you! Nor do I really want specific links or book references, because I don't really want to read detailed papers -- and much less whole books -- about their rationalizations.

But I'd like to know where it comes from, this idea of a nebulous undefined Original Sin, that you speak of, that is distinct from the biblical Original Sin. Your source, is it some author, or general sermons you remember, or some Catholic website, something like that?

I don't think I've come across this idea before, so thanks for bringing it up!
Well, it's a bit hard to make a short answer of it, because of it being nearly impossible to get a concise and to the point and authoritative answer to that specific question, really. Because basically they want to have their cake and eat it too.

But I reckon this would be as close as you could get to a proper Catholic weaseling around the point: https://www.catholiceducation.org/en...f-genesis.html
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 8th July 2019 at 12:19 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 8th July 2019, 12:17 PM   #156
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,629
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
- if Christians today say (as you said for them) that God made Adam & Eve without free will,
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.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 8th July 2019 at 12:20 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 8th July 2019, 05:07 PM   #157
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,387
@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!
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, 05:25 PM   #158
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,387
@Hans

As you say. The Bible clearly does not support the idea that God intentionally gave us free will. But as first epeeist, then you, and then Darat pointed out, all this is moot anyway, as far as RCC -- albeit not all denominations -- since they, the RCC, don't take the Bible literally at all.

Plenty of interesting points raised here. Your reference to Lilith, for one. Then that idea you brought up, of a nebulous Original Sin that is apparently undefined, and clearly distinct from Biblical Original Sin. And now this idea Darat brings in, that apparently we're programmed NOT to be able to do good.

If one has the time and inclination, researching this stuff would be fascinating! Beats fantasy fiction any day! Which, of course, is not to be wondered at, given that this lot has been working away at it since actually millennia. I'd heard someplace -- don't know if it is true -- that the early universities, Oxford and Cambridge and so forth, they'd originally been set up for people to actually suss out questions like these. Not to forget the earlier theologists. Imagine, so many grown adults, spending their lives in "studying" questions like these!

No wonder this theology stuff is so involved and complex. It's bizarre, but also endlessly fascinating!
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, 06:40 PM   #159
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,629
I'm still not sure where you can find in it that he didn't, either. I thought you gave up on that notion.
__________________
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 8th July 2019, 07:28 PM   #160
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,387
Okay, two kinds of free will. One, the cat-and-dog kind, and two, true free will, the kind we generally recognize, that for instance jurisprudence recognizes, the sort that is predicated on knowledge and understanding and coherent thought.

Also, two kinds of theological ideas about free will: the Biblical kind, and the more sophisticated (and convoluted) kind, the undefined kind that RCC favors.

So, the former kind of free will, the rudimentary cat-and-dog kind ; and going by the Bible ; that free will God did give Adam and Eve.

The latter kind of free will, that is, "true free will" ; and going by the Bible ; this God did NOT give Adam and Eve.

And if you chuck the Bible and go by RCC ideas, I guess God did imbue us with free will. Unless, as Darat says, He's programmed us not to do good.

I guess, as far as RCC, whatever the big priest man in the pulpit says goes, because we plebs don't really understand what is being said, not with any clarity. (Which is perhaps intentional, on the part of RCC clergy, to have the "flock" blindly follow whatever they happen to be saying at any particular point in time.)
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
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 09:00 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.