Responding to my friend

[Bradski]

Ever heard of paradox?

Look it up in your dictionary.

That was the point I was making.

 

[AyJSimon]

I’m not sure that a near death experience proves anything. To an atheist it probably only suggests a delusional state that has some natural explanation.

So you either approach God with open arms or a closed fist.

My guess is that atheists choose the latter over the former.

So they get no miracle, nor anything even close to a miracle.

But these are atheists who are having these NDEs and having God’s existence proven to them. According to them, anyway.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

But these are atheists who are having these NDEs and having God’s existence proven to them. According to them, anyway.

The difference is between open arms and clenched fists.

 

[AyJSimon]

The difference is between open arms and clenched fists.

What is it about drinking and drugging oneself into a NDE that suggests “open arms?”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

What is it about drinking and drugging oneself into a NDE that suggests “open arms?”

Sorry, we’re not on the same page.

 

[DrTaffy]

Ever heard of paradox?

Look it up in your dictionary.

If a statement leads to paradox, that is a good indication that it is nonsense. Such as the statement that God compels us to use free will.

 

[Nixbits]

Charlemagne III:

The difference is between open arms and clenched fists.

I don’t think this analogy is appropriate. A better analogy to what is being discussed here is between open arms (those who ‘desire’ to know God) and those with an open mind (those honestly seeking evidence to convince them of God’s existence).

 

[DrTaffy]

You have some understanding of what love is in the sense that one should not force oneself on another;

But one should at least walk up and say hello if one wants a relationship. Especially if one is allegedly going to punish the ‘loved’ one if they don’t have a relationship with one. Hiding oneself and expecting the other to just assume that one exists is not reasonable behaviour.

Which is where this conversation started.

 

[tonyrey]

If a statement leads to paradox, that is a good indication that it is nonsense. Such as the statement that God compels us to use free will.

So you expect to have a choice about whether to have free will or not? Please explain how that would be possible…

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t think this analogy is appropriate. A better analogy to what is being discussed here is between open arms (those who ‘desire’ to know God) and those with an open mind (those honestly seeking evidence to convince them of God’s existence).

Are they mutually exclusive?

 

[tonyrey]

You appear to contradict yourself. Unless you are saying that he chooses not to find me?

If you were confronted with coercive evidence you could complain you’re given no choice!

On the contrary. I don’t see how I could fail to do so unless he is deliberately hiding himself. I have spent a lot of my life looking at the universe - so far no sign of a sentient creator. Had I seen such a sign I would have accepted both religion and the resulting Nobel prize.

In other words it is preferable to be coerced and not be able to choose what to believe and how to live…:ehh:

BTW What did you expect to find when looking at the universe?

We ‘compel’ the omnipotent creator of the universe? Gosh.

Is it impossible for an omnipotent creator to give us the ability to choose what to believe and how to live?

 

[Nixbits]

toneyrey:

Are they mutually exclusive?

Good question. I think that they are mutually exclusive inasmuch as I don’t think it reasonable to ‘desire’ to know (i.e. understand the nature of) a being if one is not convinced that the being exists.

 

[tonyrey]

You **believe **

What are your criteria for “compelling evidence”?

 

[Aloysium]

But one should at least walk up and say hello if one wants a relationship. Especially if one is allegedly going to punish the ‘loved’ one if they don’t have a relationship with one. Hiding oneself and expecting the other to just assume that one exists is not reasonable behaviour.

Which is where this conversation started.

LoL. I don’t think you know what you are asking for.
You should be aware that the symbol of Christian transcendence is the Crucifix.

Christ said such things as:

• to be with Him requires walking the walk - giving one’s all
• if you want to be first in heaven you must serve
• like the rich young man, to be with God, one should give all his possessions to the poor and follow Christ.
• even our families cannot hold us

Why is this?
We are creatures, in His image but like everything else, dependent on Him for our very existence.
Everything is founded on Love. It is sin and the ignorance that comes with it that clouds our vision.
All this is given by God, ultimately belonging to Him, and to be returned to Him in love.
When we give something of ourselves, that is when we can truly be said to possess it.
The universe is created through God’s act of love and to be with HIm we must be loving persons.

Now, we will ultimately lose everything we hold to be our own. We all will die.
We are resurrected in accordance with the love that is in our hearts.

If God came into your life right here and now, all your idols, everything you would worship

• money, possessions, pleasures, power, honour, everything that is not Love itself would be destroyed.
  It is all illusory in the face of God, who is Goodness, Beauty, Truth and Life itself.

If you want to know God intellectually, scripture and the Catechism are readily available.
Your move - accept or reject?

You will come to know Him; we all do.
Now is evidently not the time for you.

 

[DrTaffy]

So you expect to have a choice about whether to have free will or not?

Where do I say that? What is the point of making up statements from other people then ridiculing them for something they did not say? :ehh:

Please explain how that would be possible…

While I did not say that, you made it up, it would in fact be possible (logically, I doubt we can do it in practice) to choose to give up free will. Some sort of lobotomy, for example. Or you can choose to be compelled - selling yourself into slavery to feed your family, for example.

It is not the same sort of intrinsically nonsensical statement that ‘being compelled to not be compelled’ is.

 

[DrTaffy]

If you were confronted with coercive evidence you could complain you’re given no choice!

If I were presented with convincing evidence, I would be convinced. I don’t have the belligerent relationship with evidence implied by your intriguing phraseology.

In other words it is preferable to be coerced and not be able to choose what to believe and how to live…:ehh:

Again, please stick to what I actually say. If I introduce myself to a woman, that does not force her to marry me. If I hide from her then punish her for not marrying me, that is bizarre behaviour.

BTW What did you expect to find when looking at the universe?

The universe.

Is it impossible for an omnipotent creator to give us the ability to choose what to believe and how to live?

It is unreasonable for him to punish us for not believing without evidence.

 

[DrTaffy]

If you want to know God intellectually, scripture and the Catechism are readily available.

Blind assertion is not evidence.

And insulting people is never going to convince them.

 

[tonyrey]

If a statement leads to paradox, that is a good indication that it is nonsense. Such as the statement that God compels us to use free will.

So you expect to have a choice about whether to have free will or not?
Where do I say that? What is the point of making up statements from other people then ridiculing them for something they did not say?

The assertion that “God compels us to use free will” is nonsense implies that we can be created with free will and choose not to use it. In other words we can choose not to choose! That seems like a paradox to me…

Please explain how that would be possible…

While I did not say that, you made it up, it would in fact be possible (logically, I doubt we can do it in practice) to choose to give up free will. Some sort of lobotomy, for example. Or you can choose to be compelled - selling yourself into slavery to feed your family, for example.

Do you believe a normal person would choose to give up free will? Far-fetched possibilities merely weaken your argument. Nor is your mind is chained if you sell yourself into slavery; you are still free to choose what to think.

It is not the same sort of intrinsically nonsensical statement that ‘being compelled to not be compelled’ is.

The boot is on the other foot with fantasies like “some sort of lobotomy”…

 

[tonyrey]

If you were confronted with coercive evidence you could complain you’re given no choice!

It is not a matter of belligerence but fact. If you knew you were being observed by Big Brother every moment of your life you would certainly complain.

In other words it is preferable to be coerced and not be able to choose what to

believe and how to live…

Again, please stick to what I actually say. If I introduce myself to a woman, that does not force her to marry me. If I hide from her then punish her for not marrying me, that is bizarre behaviour.

The analogy is unsound. We are not introduced and we are not punished.

BTW What did you expect to find when looking at the universe?

The universe.

Then you are trapped in a box of your own making.

Is it impossible for an omnipotent creator to give us the ability to choose what to believe and how to live?

It is unreasonable for him to punish us for not believing without evidence.

We are not punished for not believing. We get what we deserve. We punish ourselves if we have a negative attitude to life and regard it as ultimately valueless, purposeless and meaningless.

 

[DrTaffy]

The assertion that “God compels us to use free will” is nonsense implies that we can be created with free will and choose not to use it.

No it does not.

If I am wrong do please feel free to spell out that argument in formal logic… But if you were able to do that I doubt we would be having this conversation. “Reading that made me think this” is not the same as proving that the original assertion logically, necessarily, implies what it made you think.

In other words we can choose not to choose!

Neither implied by what I said, nor does it lead to the conclusion you seem to be drawing.

That seems like a paradox to me…

Then I suspect you need to learn more about logical argument. Formal logic, not rhetoric.

Do you believe a normal person would choose to give up free will?

Would? No. Could, logically speaking, yes.

Whereas “being compelled not to be compelled” violates the law of identity (nothing can be both A and not-A simultaneously) and so, if that statement results logically as the result of an assertion, that assertion an be concluded to be false.

Nor is your mind is chained if you sell yourself into slavery; you are still free to choose what to think.

But you can choose to be compelled. There is no logical contradiction there.

The boot is on the other foot with fantasies like “some sort of lobotomy”…

No. Really, no.:nope: