The deaths of the Egyptian fristborns

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cristian_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oreoracle forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
…and his foolishness. Why not use the simple solution I offered instead of killing innocents? If God exists, and he truly did kill people as warnings, then he was severely over-reacting. It would be like a parent disciplining their child by raping them instead of just grounding them and then claiming that you just don’t see things from their perspective, so you can’t judge. The punishments are obviously gratuitous, so why defend them?

To put the record straight: not all Christians believe God deliberately willed the plagues as punishments for sin! They were permitted, like all other natural evils, because there has to be a limit to divine intervention. Otherwise it would defeat the purpose of creating an orderly world in which we are able to predict and control (within limits) what is going to happen. We would never know what to expect next if every natural disaster were prevented!

Having said that, the occurrence of both disasters and miracles have been used to remind people of the immense power and wisdom required to create the universe and its wonders. It is impossible for us to know when catastrophes have been averted by divine intervention and it could happen far more often than we realise - given the violent nature of this planet. It is a miracle that life on earth has survived so long…
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/misc_khaki/progress.gif %between%
 
Cristian_B said:
I believe it is the ability with which you decide how to live, or at least try to live your life; the ability to freely make decisions.
Click to expand...
Frankly, I have no idea why free will advocates have such a hard time accepting determinism then, because it may very well be the case that how we decide to do things in life is determined.

Here is my dilemma: Empirically, most things we see have explanations. We know that the circumstances five minutes ago caused the circumstances of this very moment, and that the circumstances of this moment will be responsible for future conditions as well. In short, everything has a cause, and so everything is “determined” by previous causes, which themselves were once effects determined by previous causes as well, and so on.

Why, then, do people have such a hard time expanding this thought process to the mind as well? Our genetics determine the formation of our brains, along with our emotional climate, intellectual biases, instincts, etc., our brains determine mental activity, and our mental activity determines how we perceive our environment, evaluate known options, and select that which is preferred above other options. Our mental characteristics are not so unlike the properties of a thrown projectile, and if the path of the projectile is determined by how its properties interact with other properties, i.e., determination by physical laws, then why should our minds be different?

The only other alternative to determination is that mental processes are “random,” as scientists say, which means the same thing as “spontaneous” or “uncaused.” While an uncaused event is probably free in the truest sense imaginable, I’m sure free will advocates wouldn’t be happy to think of our choices as random events.

In short, how God decided to make the world, if he did do such a thing, determined how events up to this moment would play out. Determinism could be wrong, but it holds a strong case. Also note that determined actions are still free according to your definition, because decisions are still being made.
 
I don’t understand either why it is against determinism. If we have free will it doesn’t mean that the action that is going to take place in the future isn’t determined, but rather that the specific action is determined by our own actions/choices.
 
Oreoracle said:
Use of force does not determine who is smarter than others. As Bertrand Russell said, “War does not determine who is right, only who is left.” Those are TRUE words of wisdom, not like the junk you find in a holy book.
Click to expand...
You’re the one who brought up God’s foolishness not me. And I was referring to your implied smarter “simple solution”. I’m going by ordinary definitions here. By definition, God is smarter. Otherwise he wouldn’t be God. But I certainly agree that might doesn’t necessarily make right.
 
Oreoracle said:
Frankly, I have no idea why free will advocates have such a hard time accepting determinism then, because it may very well be the case that how we decide to do things in life is determined.
Click to expand...
In that case it may very well be the case that what you think is determined - and your conclusions may very well be worthless…
 
Cristian_B said:
I don’t understand either why it is against determinism. If we have free will it doesn’t mean that the action that is going to take place in the future isn’t determined, but rather that the specific action is determined by our own actions/choices.
Click to expand...
But weren’t the properties that determine what constitute “us” determined by God himself? If so, wouldn’t God in his omniscience know how each of us will sin, and so forth? Excuse me for saying so, but that sounds much different than the spirit of Christianity that I hear of. I mean, is God not causing beings to exist, knowing that they will contradict the rules he has set?
 
tonyrey said:
In that case it may very well be the case that what you think is determined - and your conclusions may very well be worthless…
Click to expand...
I don’t see how an event being determined makes it unworthy of consideration. Either way, how you feel about the matter is completely irrelevant. Either things are caused or they are uncaused; determined or random. Take your pick, unless you can invent some sort of imaginary “middle ground” between the two.

Also, if my conclusions are determined for the reasons I have mentioned, and you have used my exposition to form this conclusion yourself, wouldn’t that attest to the validity of my conclusions? :confused:
 
Spirithound said:
:ehh:
How is that irony? That’s just a difference of opinion. 🤷
Click to expand...
In general, something is ironic when it’s the opposite of what you’d expect. For how certain you seem, it’s unexpected that your own argument (or rather, assertion) would be more effective against your position than your opponent’s.
 
Oreoracle said:
I don’t see how an event being determined makes it unworthy of consideration.
Click to expand...
It means that what you think is determined by events beyond your control so you’re not responsible for them. Not only that. It does not make sense to say “unworthy of consideration” because that implies you cannot choose whether to consider anything!
Either way, how you feel about the matter is completely irrelevant. Either things are caused or they are uncaused; determined or random.
Click to expand...
Not only feel, but more to the point, think…
Take your pick, unless you can invent some sort of imaginary “middle ground” between the two.
Click to expand...
If determinism is true I can’t take my pick - and neither can you! 🙂
Also, if my conclusions are determined for the reasons I have mentioned, and you have used my exposition to form this conclusion yourself, wouldn’t that attest to the validity of my conclusions?
Click to expand...
You are forgetting that if determinism is true
my conclusion is as uncertain as yours… If we cannot choose what to think we are far more likely to be mistaken than to arrive at the truth. There is only one truth but countless ways of being wrong…
 
Tony,

You make a single glaring error throughout your whole post. If determinism is true, then you can in fact make choices, the only stipulation is that what you choose is determined. Consider: Let’s say you prefer vanilla ice cream to chocolate ice cream. Now, you go to a booth and you’re selecting a type of ice cream. The only flavors available are chocolate or vanilla, so which do you decide to buy? You choose vanilla, but this choice was determined by your preference for vanilla ice cream. You made the choice, but the determination was still present. Even if you went and chose chocolate just to prove me wrong, this action would still be determined by your preference to prove me wrong.

In short, you keep imagining that there’s a “you” outside of this determined scheme. There isn’t. You are part of what’s determined.
 
Oreoracle said:
Tony,

You make a single glaring error throughout your whole post. If determinism is true, then you can in fact make choices, the only stipulation is that what you choose is determined. Consider: Let’s say you prefer vanilla ice cream to chocolate ice cream. Now, you go to a booth and you’re selecting a type of ice cream. The only flavors available are chocolate or vanilla, so which do you decide to buy? You choose vanilla, but this choice was determined by your preference for vanilla ice cream. You made the choice, but the determination was still present. Even if you went and chose chocolate just to prove me wrong, this action would still be determined by your preference to prove me wrong.

In short, you keep imagining that there’s a “you” outside of this determined scheme. There isn’t. You are part of what’s determined.
Click to expand...
If determinism is true there is no “you” at all - to which there are references throughout the post under the name Oreoracle at 10.12 p.m.!
BTW In that post there is no refutation of the reasoning in the post to which that post is a response (under the name tonyrey at 10.04 p.m.
 
tonyrey said:
If determinism is true there is no “you” at all
Click to expand...
I simply don’t see the logic you are employing here, if any. All determinism holds is that what we are is determined, not that we don’t exist. You must be using a very restrictive definition of a person to which most people don’t subscribe.
BTW In that post there is no refutation of the reasoning in the post to which that post is a response (under the name tonyrey at 10.04 p.m.
Click to expand...
All of your arguments are based on the single mistaken assumption that determinism says we don’t exist or that if we’re determined we don’t exist–an assumption that I exposed. Your arguments are useless because they aren’t applicable to the doctrine in question, and even if they were, they’d be irrelevant to the veracity of said doctrine.
 
miguel said:
So how does preventing Pharaoh’s birth or coming to power resolve the 400 year enslavement of the Israelites?
Click to expand...
Oh, so *that’s *the problem you wanted to solve. I thought you just wanted Pharaoh to “get what he deserves” by how you were talking. 🤷

Why not prevent the births of leaders who would enslave any group of people? Come to think of it, why not only allow the birth of peaceful, cooperative people who will lead happy lives? That way, we can have happiness and free will, however you choose to define “free will.”

How do the doctors say it? “Prevention is better than the cure (or treatment).” I couldn’t agree more. God could just use his infinite foresight to prevent problems instead of solving them as they occur.
 
Oreoracle said:
I simply don’t see the logic you are employing here, if any. All determinism holds is that what we are is determined, not that we don’t exist. You must be using a very restrictive definition of a person to which most people don’t subscribe.
All of your arguments are based on the single mistaken assumption that determinism says we don’t exist or that if we’re determined we don’t exist–an assumption that I exposed. Your arguments are useless because they aren’t applicable to the doctrine in question, and even if they were, they’d be irrelevant to the veracity of said doctrine.
Click to expand...
Most people don’t subscribe to determinism! If a person is regarded as the result of physical processes determined by the laws of nature the concept of an autonomous, rational being described as a person becomes superfluous and unintelligible. In a court of law a person is regarded as a responsible agent, not a product lacking self-control…
 
Oreoracle said:
I simply don’t see the logic you are employing here, if any. All determinism holds is that what we are is determined, not that we don’t exist. You must be using a very restrictive definition of a person to which most people don’t subscribe.
Click to expand...
Most people are not determinists! If we are merely biological machines the concept of a person or self becomes unintelligible and superfluous because all mental activity is reduced to neuronal impulses which have no insight or responsibility for events. In a court of law a person is regarded as an responsible agent, not an impotent product of irrational forces…
All of your arguments are based on the single mistaken assumption that determinism says we don’t exist or that if we’re determined we don’t exist–an assumption that I exposed.
Click to expand...
Not all! You are forgetting that if determinism is true one conclusion is as uncertain as another… If we cannot choose what to think we are far more likely to be mistaken than to arrive at the truth. There is only one truth but countless ways of being wrong… In other words total determinism leads to unmitigated scepticism.
 
How about a new thread, as the OP has been hijacked?

Just a suggestion.🙂
 
Oreoracle said:
Oh, so *that’s *the problem you wanted to solve. I thought you just wanted Pharaoh to “get what he deserves” by how you were talking. 🤷.
Click to expand...
To be clear, it’s the problem God wanted to solve. I didn’t see how your “simple solution” of preventing Pharaoh’s birth or coming to power resolved anything. The problem in question was the enslavement of the Israelites and the obstinate refusal of their oppressor to free them. I apologize for my response implying that might makes right. I was shooting from the hip. You were right to point that out.
Oreoracle said:
Why not prevent the births of leaders who would enslave any group of people? Come to think of it, why not only allow the birth of peaceful, cooperative people who will lead happy lives? That way, we can have happiness and free will, however you choose to define “free will.”

How do the doctors say it? “Prevention is better than the cure (or treatment).” I couldn’t agree more. God could just use his infinite foresight to prevent problems instead of solving them as they occur.
Click to expand...
Love is an act of the will. If the will isn’t free, love isn’t possible. Yeah, he could have made us all stepford wives and prevented evil. But apparently, that’s not what he wanted. He wanted us to be able to love. If evil isn’t possible, how is love tested? Jesus said what good is it to only love those who love you? Love your enemies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top