PDN wrote: » As a one-off event, it would seem, from my less than omniscient standpoint, to be a good thing. However, we need to consider that miracles, by their very nature, are rare events. If miracles occurred every day then the world would become a very much more unpredictable and confusing place. Remember that modern science developed, for the most part, because theists were convinced that God was a God of order who had arranged the universe to run according to regular patterns.
nickcave wrote: » Not sure what this is implying - you'll have to expand on it. What do you see a non-theistic civilisation as being like?
All kinds of creation stories and myths, have come and gone, what distinguishes the worlds great religions is that they provide sets of spiritual values which inspire create and sustain civilisation, evolve it's social, scientific, mathematical, artistic, medical and philosophical understandings and so we see, as a result of this long slow transformation of humanity, the free, open, progressive, scientific, tolerant, pluralist, intellectual, secular democracies created by MAJORITY RELIGIOUS societies! Not ONE of them produced by an atheist regime ... Historically, atheism is a FAILED HYPOTHESIS, there is NO EVIDENCE for it's efficacy whatsoever.. It is majority religious societies which have produced every one of the decent democracies in which even you atheist choose to live! ... Most elected representatives are, like the population they represent, imbued with spiritual values from the religions they were brough up with. The majority of the 10 commandments are embodied now in SECULAR LAW. The president of the USA is sworn in ON A BIBLE.. Atheists blinker themselves to the FACTS so that their delusions about their own importance are not shattered by REALITY: ... the largest Muslim nation is a secular democracy, Indonesia, who have been far more successful in removing Islamofascist terror than the West has been! Jemaah Islamiyah has been smashed! Name ONE secular democracy that has been created by an ATHEIST state? They have all been TYRANNIES. All the secular states which even you atheists CHOOSE To LIVE IN, are inspired, built and sustained by MAJORITY RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES. When will you atheist parasites at least show a little GRATITUDE to them? ... Unfortunately all your comrades who believed that found the atheist regimes cure FAR WORSE than the 'disease'. 70,000,000 people died in the Union of Savage Slaughter and Repression, Mao's Great Leap Backwards and Cultural Devolution .. far mor than ANY religion in history, and those atheist tyrannies occurred in the 'modern' era, when religious societies had evolved secular democracies and left the medieval barbarism behind "Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism." -Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin) "We must combat religion" -Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin) “Down with religion and long live atheism; the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!†- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin) "Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism." - Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin) "How can you make a revolution without firing squads?" - Lenin
ISAW wrote: » We have had some historic examples of the "There is No god" societies
ISAW wrote: » In other words the laws of physics are "designed" to such a way so as to allow human beings to evolve.
Soul Winner wrote: » The most basic constituents of life (amino acids) coming together in a structured and ordered way in order to make up the proteins that carry out all the many varied functions of the most basic cell. These guys aren't striving to survive. They have function and purpose and when they've completed their purpose
Ciaran0 wrote: » Why doesn't he just alter a weather system a little bit so there's a bit more rain where it's needed? It'd be a once off thing, wouldn't need to happen again. Shouldn't upset the scientists too much. If he really is as good as is claimed he'd be able to make the scientists the knew what was going on and not mess up the planet. I can imagine it surely he should be able for it.
PDN wrote: » It seems preferable to us - although that is far saying that it is actually better.
PDN wrote: » But you seem to have shifted ground here. Are you now agreeing that the real issue is the amount of suffering, not the actual existence of suffering?
PDN wrote: » No, it is entirely reasonable that the amount of moral choices we can make are limited to some degree. For example, it would not be good for me to have the choice, by an act of my will, to condemn the entire human race (except me) to be grated and rolled in salt. Nobody is arguing that we should have unlimited moral choices, nor do I think anyone would want that. But that is a very different thing to saying that we should therefore have no moral choices.
PDN wrote: » My own thinking is that there is a moral/free will Goldilocks Zone that makes life worth living for humanity. We avoid the extremes of unfettered freedom (which would entail unfettered suffering) and of zero freedom (which would involve no suffering). Most of us, I think, would want to be somewhere in between the two. We want there to be limits on how much suffering we can inflict on others (or, more accurately, on how much suffering they can inflict upon us) and we still want the freedom to make moral choices - to love.
PDN wrote: » That is a choice, but not a moral choice. It's a blue shirt/red shirt choice. You have removed any element of morality.
PDN wrote: » I think it may well be self-contradictory if you are supposing a universe where no action has any adverse consequence, even to the slightest degree.
PDN wrote: » I'm not shifting the goal posts. All along I've been talking about making moral choices.
PDN wrote: » I don't think any of us would really choose to live in a world where our only choices were of the red shirt/blue shirt variety.
PDN wrote: » And it's a lot harder to kill your neighbour with a knife than it is to pick your nose. That's why I pointed out that terms such as 'easy' are relative.
PDN wrote: » That all depends on what tasks you are comparing it with. Again, that's what 'relative' means. Look it up in a dictionary if you don't believe me.
recedite wrote: » Anthropomorphic proteins with purpose, and the laws of physics tailor-made especially for our needs. Some wacky science on display this evening!
Zombrex wrote: » What do you mean all along. You entered my discussion with TQE like 2 pages ago, and stated that I had not explained my position, I had just asserted it. And that discussion was on the issue of free will.
PDN wrote: » That's fine, but I wonder why you're bothering trying to discuss it on a Christianity Forum then? The 'Free Will Defence' as used by Christians in regards to the Existence of Evil has always been about the freewill to make meaningful moral choices.
PDN wrote: » If you want to prattle on about a free will that has no more moral significance than whether to wear different coloured shirts, then I seriously question whether another forum would not be more suitable.
Zombrex wrote: » but that is not the discussion I've had with any of the other Christians who unsurprisingly don't think burning people to death is a virtue that needs to be protected.
Zombrex wrote: » It is funny how the universe is fine tuned for life, yet simultaneously life is so unlikely it must have required divine intervention on the part of God.
Zombrex wrote: » So if you want to argue God can't do this because we would lose the ability to burn each other to death you can, but that is not the discussion I've had with any of the other Christians who unsurprisingly don't think burning people to death is a virtue that needs to be protected.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » On anther note, one possible issue with the notion of free will is when we consider new creation. (Some people think of this as heaven but I'm talking about what happens after heaven. Its a concept found throughout the NT. Check it out.) If there is to be no more sin - which I will roughly define as rebellion against God - then do we loose part of our free will? In other words, if we are to say that free will depends in some way on the ability to choose good and evil then what of our free will in an existence that has destroyed evil?
PDN wrote: » The 'Free Will Defence' as used by Christians in regards to the Existence of Evil has always been about the freewill to make meaningful moral choices.
mathematical, artistic, medical and philosophical understandings and so we see, as a result of this long slow transformation of humanity, the free, open, progressive, scientific, tolerant, pluralist, intellectual, secular democracies created by MAJORITY RELIGIOUS societies!
Most elected representatives are, like the population they represent, imbued with spiritual values from the religions they were brought up with.
The majority of the 10 commandments are embodied now in SECULAR LAW.
PDN wrote: » No-one has claimed that burning people to death is a virtue that needs to be protected. New name, same old Wicknight up to his usual tricks and misrepresentation.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » I don't find it amusing. It seems to me that you are conflating two different arguments. One argument is about various physical constants that allow for things like stars to form. The other argument, not held by all Christians I might add, is that life required some type of kick-start. The only time the two arguments intersect, at least as far as I can see, is that when life began the conditions on this particular ball of rock were such that it allowed life to flourish.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » I'm nipping into this thread so perhaps I've missed it. Who suggested otherwise? I assume that if they did then they would either be ignored or condemned by all and sundry.
Zombrex wrote: » PDN did. He stated that if God removes the ability to be immoral all decisions becomes the red/blue shirt variety, and no one wishes to live in such a universe. Unsurprisingly he is a little fuzzy on the details of why exactly.
Zombrex wrote: » If we lived in a universe where the negative physical effects of evil actions were not possible we would still retain free will, we just wouldn't have these sets of choices. But then there are millions of things you do not have the choice to do right now because God has made it physically impossible, yet you retain free will because you simply choose between the things that God has made physically possible. Which goes back to PDN's arguments, what is the virtue of allowing evil actions given that it isn't necessary to stop us losing all free will and turning into robots. As has been argued it is not necessary for choice, it is not necessary for will, it is not necessary for any of the positive aspects of life such as love and happiness.
pug_ wrote: » One thing I don't understand about free will and a christian god is if god is all knowing, doesn't that mean he knows every action you're going to take and every thought you're going to have before the universe was even created? If that is the belief then surely free will in the christian sense is just an illusion and if it's not the belief then god is not all knowing?
Fanny Cradock wrote: » No, because God's foreknowledge is based upon our choices.
PDN wrote: » Which leads to the question as to whether actual sin and suffering is essential for meaningful free will (moral choices, and the ability to love) to exist - or simply the possibility of sin and suffering? My own opinion is the latter. Theoretically our first parents could have chosen to obey God, and thus reject temptation. The possibility of doing otherwise (with all its potential consequences) would be sufficient to make theirs a free moral choice to become permanently holy people.
pug_ wrote: » I don't understand that. So are you saying he knows the choices we're going to make before we make them or not?
Zombrex wrote: » And same old PDN trying to subtly re-shape the discussion on the fly to something that is easier to argue for. We went from the notion that if God removed suffering then it would remove free will and turn us all in to robots to the idea that if God removed suffering it would remove the choice to carry out immoral actions that cause suffering. That was done very subtly and skillfully by you in order to make it seem that the consequences of the second argument hold for the first one. The second argument is of course totally true, if God removes suffering he removes the choice to cause suffering (that is actually the point). But my response to that is so what. Who here thinks the option to choose to cause suffering is a virtue that God needs protecting? I don't think anyone, including you. It is just easier to logically argue that if God removes suffering he remove this choice (don't even dispute that), and we will just ignore the question of whether this matters at all to the actual discussion, we just want to win the argument with Zombrex and get him to go away and stop troubling your fellow Christians with these sort of questions. You must realize you are doing this because every once and a while you drop in some what nonsensical comments about how all options would become the blue and red shirt variety and we would lose the ability to love and be happy, neither of which I believe are true and neither of which you seem all that interested in explaining. So we do the usual dance around your smoke and mirror display and at the end of it you just come out saying that I have not supported my position and failed to convince you so the next time I present a post like I did to TQE you can do your Fixed Your Post nonsense again.
beerbuddy wrote: » yes but to understand this look into the multi universe theory it would take some time to explain.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » The other argument, not held by all Christians I might add, is that life required some type of kick-start.
PDN wrote: » Therefore His knowledge is a consequence of your actions, not vice versa. Because you and I are very limited in our abilties to do stuff to move through spacetime (like travelling at the speed of light or faster) we see things as 'before' or 'after' - but those limitations do not apply to God.
Soul Winner wrote: » If we strip away the religiousness of theism then we are still left with a belief system, and as such it is just like atheism except both having different end points of belief. Theism: That there is a God and Atheism: That there is no God. So after stripping away the religiousness from theism, which of these two belief systems is better supported by science today and why? Can we have evidence that there is no God? No, we can never have evidence that there is no God because if there really was no God then how could we have evidence for it? But if there is a God then we can or could have evidence for His existence. Even if we currently had no evidence for His existence (and theists believe that we have good evidence, hence why a lot of them became theists in the first place) then it would still be the better belief system to go with because you'd at least have the hope of finding evidence to keep you going, whereas with atheism you will never be able to prove or have good evidence that there is no God, which means that you will never know nor have the hope of knowing that your belief system is right. You can only find out if its wrong. And the only way that you could find out that atheism is wrong is to find evidence for God. But if atheism is right you will never know. But as we oft say: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of Absence." But with atheism you never will have evidence. So I suppose it depends on whether you care if atheism is right or not. If you really did care then you'd look for evidence for God. Is there evidence for God? Depends on how you interpret the evidence doesn't it? If something screams Creator/Designer then the theist will latch onto it and say "See? There you go." All the atheist can do is say, no, that apparent design can be explained without invoking a supernatural creator. And off we go. But if we admit that it has the appearance of design at least, then there is one of two explanations for that: A) Due to a long process of evolution over many millions and billions of years the very simple has evolved into the very complex through a process of natural selection acting on random mutations, adaptation and environmental changes. It actually is designed Which explanation can be observed in the lab? None of them. Which explanation is more true to the principle of Occam's razor? That would be B. It looks designed because it is designed. But A has other problems. Even the simplest of living organisms we know are extremely complex at the cellular level and cannot be explained by blind forces. So theism and especially Christian theism has a better footing in reality and the world we actually live in that atheism will ever have, and that's just based on science. We stripped away all the other stuff remember? If we went into that we'd be here all day. Christian theism is not even reliant on science to show that it is the better belief system over or types of theism. Christianity has historic, philosophic and moral arguments that can be added too. But I will leave it that for now.
recedite wrote: » What about Adam & Eve? Do you deny the truth of Genesis?
Fanny Cradock wrote: » I'm saying that God, who stands outside of time, knows what you are doing because his knowledge in this regard is based on your own free choices. If you decided to eat an apple then God knows you will eat an apple. However, if you actually decided to eat an orange instead of an apple then God knows this only because you made the choice. Classical theism has always understood - at least my understanding of it - that God's knowledge of our personal actions is in deference to our freewill, not the other way around.
PDN wrote: » Try to forget Newton and think of Einstein instead. I realise this is a simplification, but one commonly used. Time is not a Newtonian straight line running in one direction at a steady pace. In fact, as understood by Einstein, space/time is more like a loaf which, depending on various factors, you can slice through at various angles and see from one point of it to another. So, try to forget notions such as 'before' or 'after', because they have little or no relevance when you are talking about an Eternal Being. God from His standpoint (irrespective of where that is in spacetime) sees your actions. Therefore His knowledge is a consequence of your actions, not vice versa. Because you and I are very limited in our abilties to do stuff to move through spacetime (like travelling at the speed of light or faster) we see things as 'before' or 'after' - but those limitations do not apply to God.
pug_ wrote: » I still don't get it. Either he knows everything and he knows you're going to eat an apple or an orange beforehand or not? It sounds like you're suggesting he might have an idea you're going to eat one or the other but he's not sure until you actually pick it up and take a bite? Or is it something similar to what I'm guessing beerbuddy was alluding to that anything that can happen does happen as suggested by quantum mechanics?
