B
Bahman
Guest
To whom commit good are slaves to free will then.
There is no guarantee because of the existence of what you call disordered attachment.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
Bradski
Guest
So all the time there has been talk of someone choosing to do evil because God has given him free will, your position has always been that it wasn’t actually free will? Because (wait for it) he chose evil? Now that’s one I didn’t see coming.A will is only free so long as it chooses the good.
So we’ve now gone from:
‘God didn’t know what he’d choose’ (yes He did), through…
‘God didn’t make him do it’ (no, He didn’t) and…
‘Well, you can’t say that God shouldn’t create him’ (totally agreed).
And we have finally arrived at the rather desperate sounding:
‘It wasn’t free will if he chose evil!’
I’m voting that last one as the winner. Daylight second. Well done.
G
Gary_Sheldrake
Guest
From Amandil;
These are the problems presented by what you have often repeated. This is not an indictment of God. It is simply a challenge to the ideas that you (and many others) have about God, about us, and about the universe of which we are part of.
Thank you
Gary
Absurd.
Good Morning Amandil: If our will is by nature skewed toward good, is it really free?As I have told you in no uncertain terms, free will is directly ordered to the good.
I agree.Killing someone with a chainsaw, or even a gun, is not in accordance with the good.
If a person is enslaved, can we say that they are free to exercise free will? How can a person be enslaved and at the same time free?Thus they are the abuse of free will caused by the will’s enslavement to some passion or desire.
The human designer of a chainsaw does not create the user as well as the chainsaw. He or she simply creates a chainsaw with a particular purpose. The designer of the user of the chainsaw creates that which has the potential for misuse, along with all of its proclivities, as well as all parameters as to what potentials can become reality. It’s a far different thing.Just as killing a family with a chainsaw is an abuse of the proper use and purpose of a chainsaw.
The problem (I think ) is not that you have repeated something many times as you have rightly said. The problem is that there are implications to what you have said that you are not addressing. If you are a creator who creates a world from nothing, and thereby set all of the parameters and laws that govern the operation of that world (to include free will), you must also have created the ability to become enslaved by desires or passions, because desires and passions have to be set values that are selectable by anything (such as human beings) who operate in the environment you have created. They have to be options you made available because you have created both the environment, the sentient beings that operate within that environment, as well as the tendencies those beings can develop, and you would also have created the trigger points that would cause these beings to select one thing over another . And being all knowing, you would have also explored the possible outcomes as well as the probabilities with regard to what the outcomes would be.Apparently this much common sense is too much for your grey matter to grasp since it has been repeated ad-nauseum yet you continue in your ignorance.
These are the problems presented by what you have often repeated. This is not an indictment of God. It is simply a challenge to the ideas that you (and many others) have about God, about us, and about the universe of which we are part of.
Thank you
Gary
P
PRmerger
Guest
Hi, Gary,Good Morning Amandil: If our will is by nature skewed toward good, is it really free?
If we could just go back a few pages…I’d like to get some clarification, if you don’t mind.
Are you saying, regarding the WBC/Fred Phelps that you are opposed to their beliefs, but that you don’t think my way of opposing them (“preaching” to them) is the right way to do this? Better to oppose them by simple action?
Is that your position?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Firstly, how do you “know” Manila is the capital of the Philippines? Have you been there? Did you actually see governance in action there?I know (1), (2) and (4) and I believe on (3).
Secondly, how do you “know” that your pilot will get you to your destination safely? Do you read the CV of each pilot you fly with prior to getting on the aircraft?
B
Bahman
Guest
Well those are just two names with specific definitions. I can search and know if the relation between these names holds.Firstly, how do you “know” Manila is the capital of the Philippines? Have you been there? Did you actually see governance in action there?
No, I just put my trust on the system, namely believing them.Secondly, how do you “know” that your pilot will get you to your destination safely? Do you read the CV of each pilot you fly with prior to getting on the aircraft?
P
PRmerger
Guest
I don’t think you understand your own system.Well those are just two names with specific definitions. I can search and know if the relation between these names holds.
No, I just put my trust on the system, namely believing them.
You said you “know” that your pilot will get your there safely. NOT “believe”.
You definitely put this situation in the “know” category. Not the “believe” category.
P
PRmerger
Guest
But, really, you only “know” because you “believe” what you read on Google, yeah?Well those are just two names with specific definitions. I can search and know if the relation between these names holds.
B
Bahman
Guest
That was my fault: I know (1), (3) and (4) and I believe on (2).I don’t think you understand your own system.
You said you “know” that your pilot will get your there safely. NOT “believe”.
You definitely put this situation in the “know” category. Not the “believe” category.
B
Bahman
Guest
No, I know it since Google by definition is an agency which provide the correct information.But, really, you only “know” because you “believe” what you read on Google, yeah?
P
PRmerger
Guest
So what then is the difference between “believe” and “know”?No, I know it since Google by definition is an agency which provide the correct information.
B
Bahman
Guest
The first one is based on facts which is not self-evidently true, namely premises, whereas the second is based on facts which are self-evidently true, namely axioms.So what then is the difference between “believe” and “know”?
T
tonyrey
Guest
You are entitled to your opinion but you need to justify it. I believe St Paul summed up how divine transcendence and immanence co-exist.I think there is a tension between timeless and omnipresent God, and time.
“In Him we live,move and have our being”. Acts 17:28
Limits cannot be imposed on infinite love.
P
PRmerger
Guest
So you “believe” in Google, yeah?The first one is based on facts which is not self-evidently true, namely premises, whereas the second is based on facts which are self-evidently true, namely axioms.
There is no self-evidentiary reason that Google should be correct in all it asserts. And for you to know that would mean that you would have tested every single search that Google has offered data on.
So…we are agreed that you simply “believe” in Google.
Yes?
P
PRmerger
Guest
There are 2 types of non-existent beings, so to speak.This is opposite to your former position that the decision of a non-existing being cannot be known!
*]A nonexistent being which will never exist.
*]A nonexistent being which will exist at some point.
Regarding #1, it is nonsensical to say that God can have foreknowledge of this nonexistent being’s decisions.
That’s pretty obvious, is it not?
Regarding #2, God does indeed have foreknowledge of this non-existent (but pre-existent) being…because God is omniscient.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Absolutely.I think there is a tension between timeless and omnipresent God, and time.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Fair enough.Good evening PR: The point that I am seeing from Bradsky is not that it makes the enabler more guilty. The point is that the enabler to the crime is not more holy, more all knowing or more infallible and probably not all good. At least this is how I understand the idea being offered. I think it gets worse though, but Bradsky can correct me if I’m wrong. We maintain that God is infinitely wiser than we are. Accordingly, If I have an IQ of 150 and give a weapon to a person with an IQ of 50 and known to me to also be predisposed to erratic behavior, it does make me rather more culpable than the perpetrator because of my better ability to reason, and his diminished capacity in comparison to mine. It’s an interesting dilemma. I think it’s a fascinating question.
I do think that the manufacturer of the chainsaw is partially responsible for a murder that occurs if he gives the chainsaw to someone he knows for certain will murder someone with it.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Ok, then! Duly noted.The U.S. Code, Title 18, section 2 holds that whoever aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures the commission of an offense, is punishable as a principal.
Thank you,
Gary
P
PRmerger
Guest
How is it that the manufacturer can make it up to all the victims in a way that makes this heinous act equivalent to a scrape on the knee?And the weapon is free will.
Everyone should have it. It a basic right. Even though having it gives you the opportunity to choose to do something wrong. Just like anyone from the NRA would argue that it is a basic right to have a gun.
Yes, they will say, we accept that some people might do bad things if they have one, but that’s not our fault.
But if you give a gun to someone who is likely to misuse it, then I would suggest that you could be held responsible if they do. If you give a gun to someone that you know will misuse it, then how do you proportion the responsibility then?
P
PRmerger
Guest
A Perfect Being can do anything that is logically possible.No, since an imperfect action, creating a imperfect thing which leads to evil, is not allowed.
Thus, it is quite within the realms of reason and logic that a Perfect Being can create an imperfect creature.
There is no dichotomy whatsoever in this.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.