The very concept of hell is rationally questionable. I have a thread on this in here.If God is good and also omniscient, and knows a person will chose hell, why would he then create us anyway? Isn’t that a lot like creating us for hell? (This discussion was brought about by a Calvinist using this example to support their view) Thank you.
It’s only rationally questionable if you reject free will. Otherwise, there HAS to be a place for people who reject God. I’m pretty sure you and I have had this back and forth on more than one occasion, and you’ve never given any reasonable way to circumvent this fact.The very concept of hell is rationally questionable. I have a thread on this in here.
I am not questioning free will. There are only two cases: (1) We are rational and commit right act or (2) We are irrational and commit a wrong act. I am questioning why should we punish irrational persons?It’s only rationally questionable if you reject free will. Otherwise, there HAS to be a place for people who reject God. I’m pretty sure you and I have had this back and forth on more than one occasion, and you’ve never given any reasonable way to circumvent this fact.
False dichotomy.I am not questioning free will. There are only two cases: (1) We are rational and commit right act or (2) We are irrational and commit a wrong act. I am questioning why should we punish irrational persons?
Could you please give some examples for each?False dichotomy.
In the case of (1), I’ve ran a few red-lights in my time under the idea that I’d get away with it and it wasn’t a big deal.
You seem to grant the premise that right acts are done rationally and wrong acts are done irrationally. There are multitudes of contrary cases for either one.
Already provided for (1). Premeditated murder rejects (2).Could you please give some examples for each?
Your acts were irrational otherwise you wouldn’t think that it wasn’t a big deal.False dichotomy.
In the case of (1), I’ve ran a few red-lights in my time under the idea that I’d get away with it and it wasn’t a big deal.
You seem to grant the premise that right acts are done rationally and wrong acts are done irrationally. There are multitudes of contrary cases for either one.
Of course he would reject otherwise he wouldn’t premeditate. Do you want to say that premeditated murdering is rational? If so how could we possibly rationalize morality?Already provided for (1). Premeditated murder rejects (2).
Rational (Oxford) - Based on or in accordance with reason or logic.Do you want to say that premeditated murdering is rational?
That’s not how rationality works… that’s not even close to what makes an action rational. I’ve committed many rational acts that were a very big deal, and I’ve committed very many irrational acts that were no big deal.Your acts were irrational otherwise you wouldn’t think that it wasn’t a big deal.
So according to you God cannot rationalize morality.Rational (Oxford) - Based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
Premeditated (Oxford) - Think out or plan (an action, especially a crime) beforehand.
So, yes.
No, that would not be correct.So according to you God cannot rationalize morality.
Then how it is?That’s not how rationality works… that’s not even close to what makes an action rational. I’ve committed many rational acts that were a very big deal, and I’ve committed very many irrational acts that were no big deal.
So you want to say that free will is a rational concept when it comes into choosing bad.Committing an irrational act does not mean that we ourselves are irrational,
Yes, I agree.it simply means that we chose to ignore the rational option in favor of what is generally the easier, more profitable, or more pleasurable option.
That follows. One cannot set up a moral system if bad can be rationalized by the person.No, that would not be correct.
You said:Then how it is?
So you want to say that free will is a rational concept when it comes into choosing bad.
Yes, I agree.
This is inductive reasoning, and is not rational. There are rational big deals and irrational small deals. This is what I was attacking. Of course what is moral is also what is rational, but that doesn’t make a person who chooses irrationally actually irrational themselves. There can be a number of factors that would cause an otherwise rational individual to make the irrational choice.Your acts were irrational otherwise you wouldn’t think that it wasn’t a big deal.
What I am saying is that your act of watching pornography is irrational if you think it is bad. Therefore you are irrational since you committed an irrational act. You either broke up and give up your resistance to temptation or feeling.You said:
This is inductive reasoning, and is not rational. There are rational big deals and irrational small deals. This is what I was attacking. Of course what is moral is also what is rational, but that doesn’t make a person who chooses irrationally actually irrational themselves. There can be a number of factors that would cause an otherwise rational individual to make the irrational choice.
Take the problem of pornography, I can make the rational choice to avoid pornography a hundred time, after that I can make the irrational choice to view pornography once, and then go back to saying no to it. I was rational when I was avoiding it, and I was rational when I was succumbing, I simply allowed the desire to view pornography dictate my decision rather than my rational mind. That one instance doesn’t make me as a person irrational, it just means that I once made an irrational decision.
???That follows. One cannot set up a moral system if bad can be rationalized by the person.