On Predestination

  • Thread starter Thread starter steph_86
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
belorg said:
That causing change implies being changed is self-evident…
Click to expand...
How would you justify that opinion?
… but even if we assume for the sake of the argument that causing change doesn’t imply being changed, my argument is about the impossibility of interfering in an ongoing (chnaging) process.
Click to expand...
From a scientific point of view but science doesn’t explain everything.
I am not talking about scientific terms, I am talking about logical consequences.
Click to expand...
It is logic applied inside the scientific box!
 
tonyrey said:
How would you justify that opinion?
From a scientific point of view but science doesn’t explain everything.
It is logic applied inside the scientific box!
Click to expand...
If you wnat to knwo how I would justify that opinion, I suggest you start a thread on it. It’s beyond the scope of this one.

It has nothing to do with ‘the scientific box’.
 
tonyrey said:
Not where we are concerned, considering our limited intelligence and the limited scope of science.
Click to expand...
We are still developing as a species. Look at the last 200 years…there is no limit that I can see.
 
oldcelt said:
We are still developing as a species. Look at the last 200 years…there is no limit that I can see.
Click to expand...
“that I can see” are the key words! 200 years of progress doesn’t guarantee that all things are possible where human understanding is concerned…
 
belorg said:
If you wnat to knwo how I would justify that opinion, I suggest you start a thread on it. It’s beyond the scope of this one.

It has nothing to do with ‘the scientific box’.
Click to expand...
You still need to explain why all of us are universally considered to be the same persons for personal, moral, legal, social, medical, economic, philosophical and theological purposes. Are the overwhelming majority deluded? And if so why? :confused:
 
tonyrey said:
You still need to explain why all of us are universally considered to be the same persons for personal, moral, legal, social, medical, economic, philosophical and theological purposes. Are the overwhelming majority deluded? And if so why? :confused:
Click to expand...
No,I don’t need to explain this because, although I do believe it, it is irrelevant to my argument against an interfering deity.
I am still waiting for a relevant reply.
 
oldcelt said:
“that I can see” are the key words! 200 years of progress doesn’t guarantee that all things are possible where human understanding is concerned…
Click to expand...
A possibility is not an adequate foundation for a cogent theory especially when it makes a such a sweeping claim. To reach the stage of understanding everything implies we are capable of becoming omniscient… :ehh:
Click to expand...
 
belorg said:
You still need to explain why all of us are universally considered to be the same persons
Click to expand...
Here is the reply. Your argument is based on an idiosyncratic notion of **personal **identity which has no basis in reality. Since you cannot deny the incontrovertible fact that in every aspect of life we are considered to be the same persons from birth until death you resort to the subterfuge of claiming it is irrelevant but:
  1. Can you explain what is relevant to your hypothesis about divine identity and why?
  2. Does it have any rational foundation in our experience of life?
  3. What precisely is a person?
Click to expand...
 
tonyrey said:
Here is the reply. Your argument is based on an idiosyncratic notion of **personal **identity which has no basis in reality. Since you cannot deny the incontrovertible fact that in every aspect of life we are considered to be the same persons from birth until death you resort to the subterfuge of claiming it is irrelevant but:
  1. Can you explain what is relevant to your hypothesis about divine identity and why?
  2. Does it have any rational foundation in our experience of life?
  3. What precisely is a person?
Click to expand...
I may have an idiosyncratic notion of personal identity, but , as I have already explained, my argument isn’t based on it. It is based on God’s immutability, IOW, the apparently inability of God to change in any way.
That is what is relevant to my hypothesis about the impossibility of God’s interference. Again, my hypothesis about divine identity is not relevant here.
Your questions are interesting, though, so if you ever consider starting a separate thread on them, I will probably join in.
 
belorg said:
I may have an idiosyncratic notion of personal identity, but , as I have already explained, my argument isn’t based on it. It is based on God’s immutability, IOW, the apparently inability of God to change in any way.
That is what is relevant to my hypothesis about the impossibility of God’s interference. Again, my hypothesis about divine identity is not relevant here.
Your questions are interesting, though, so if you ever consider starting a separate thread on them, I will probably join in.
Click to expand...
You equate the ability to cause changes with impotence rather than power, with a limitation rather than an asset and with a defect rather than an asset! Persons are supposed to lose their identity simply because they are creative and dynamic. The logical conclusion of your hypothesis is that the less active we are the more valuable we are because we don’t “interfere” with anything or anyone beyond ourselves. To be perfect we should do precisely nothing…
 
tonyrey said:
You equate the ability to cause changes with impotence rather than power, with a limitation rather than an asset and with a defect rather than an asset! Persons are supposed to lose their identity simply because they are creative and dynamic. The logical conclusion of your hypothesis is that the less active we are the more valuable we are because we don’t “interfere” with anything or anyone beyond ourselves. To be perfect we should do precisely nothing…
Click to expand...
The last line is actually a logical consequence of perfection, but, again, my argument doesn’t have anything to do with this.
You’re still welcome to give some relevant replies, though.
 
belorg said:
To think being perfect consists in doing absolutely nothing is a mistake. “being perfect” is a creative process rather than a state of inactivity and negativity. Perfection certainly doesn’t imply being static instead of dynamic, sterile instead of fertile and complacent instead of compassionate. Perfection is found above all in love which brings joy to others and oneself.
You’re still welcome to give some relevant
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
tonyrey said:
belorg;12512206:
To think being perfect consists in doing absolutely nothing is a mistake. "being
Click to expand...
perfect" is a creative process rather than a state of inactivity and negativity. Perfection certainly doesn’t imply being static instead of dynamic, sterile instead of fertile and complacent instead of compassionate. Perfection is found above all in love which brings joy to others and oneself.
You are still welcome to refute at least some of my statements… 🙂

As soon as you make a statement that is actually relevant to the discussion at hand, I’ll try to refute it.
Click to expand...
 
belorg said:
tonyrey;12519106:
There is nothing evasive about trying to stay on topic, Tony. But I am likewise delighted that not one of my arguments
Click to expand...
has been refuted.
You stated:
I don’t have to explain why there is change of indentity. Immutability means the impossibility of any
Click to expand...
sort of change.
Does that mean you accept the fact that there is no change of identity?
Click to expand...
 
belorg said:
tonyrey;12526239:
It means, as you should know by now, that change of identity or no change of identity is completely irrelevant to my argument
Click to expand...
Then your notion of immutability is idiosyncratic:
’God is a spirit, whose being, wisdom power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth are infinite, eternal, and unchangeable.”
Click to expand...
  • Westminster Shorter Catechism
It doesn’t mean one cannot cause change. You are putting the Creator in the category of created objects - which is obviously absurd:
In object-oriented
Click to expand...
and functional programming, an immutable object is an object whose state cannot be modified after it is created. - wikipedia

Persons are only objects if one is a materialist who doesn’t believe in freewill and equates predestination with determinism. Your conclusions are worthless if you cannot choose what to think …
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top