jfields 0 #276 June 13, 2003 Seeing that this thread is still going, I'll pitch in some more. Sorry in advance about the length... I don't believe in God, but I don't quite see things the same as Zenister, either. Somewhere in between. Though not religious, here are some of the things I see religions (of many types) offering to their adherents: 1. Social interaction with likeminded people 2. Answers to complex questions about life 3. A prepackaged set of morals to live by 4. An infrastructure for communal worship 5. A sense of historical identity 6. A hope for some type of afterlife None of those things are inherently bad. I get those things from that list that I value in other ways. If people want to get them through a religion, that is great. I have no belief or interest in an afterlife, but no objection to those who do. The "prepackaged morals" of many religions are fairly similar to each other, and remarkably like those of "good" people that don't adhere to any religion. Is there a difference between hanging out with fellow skydivers and with people in your religion? Not much. The church is better maintained than a DZ and has fewer ratty sofas. The DZ frequently draws people from farther away for longer periods of time. Both are social places where people share something of great meaning to them. Both require infrastructure to support activities that can’t be supported individually. It take everyone pitching in financially to pay a pastor or pilot. Collective money from participants goes to church renovations or new Otter engines that no one person could afford. The economies of scale draw people together to enable them to have a place and method for their endeavors. How did mankind begin? Where did the universe come from? Life has lots of big questions. I have secular answers to some of those questions that satisfy me. Where I don’t have answers, I’m content to be living as a tiny piece of a mystery the size of the universe. To me, “I don’t know” is a perfectly valid answer. Some people prefer to attribute a cause or reason for something to God. Whatever. I’m not going to beat people up and tell them my answers are right where theirs are wrong, because there is no way to prove whether they are or not. As long as they satisfy me, that is all that matters. If other people do the same, everyone is happy. As to a sense of historical identity, there are tons of ways to look at it. You could be part of a skydiving lineage stretching from Charles Lindbergh to Lew Sanborn to Patrick de Gayardon to yourself. You could be part of an American history with a focus on your nation. You could see yourself as part of a religion stretching back hundreds or thousands of years (depending on which one), with famous people, events and customs. You could pick and choose from any number of personal ways to identify yourself and give yourself a context in history. None of them is wrong, and they can certainly overlap. These are all good things that religion can do. Now, on to the places where I have problems with religion, and participants in religions… Religion is not any more valid than another way of self-actualization or personal identification. It is not the only way to answer any of life’s questions. It is simply one of a huge array of possible ways to see things. “Because it is in the Bible” is not an ironclad assertion of validity. It is fine to believe in something intangible or unproveable, but most definitely not acceptable to insist that others do the same. Religion is not an acceptable reason to close people out of opportunities, hate people whose flavor of religion is different, or come right out and kill them. Religion is not full of universal truths. Catholics and Buddhists don’t see things the same way. Neither do Catholics and Protestants, and they are from much more similar backgrounds. Which one is right? Are any, all or none? I don’t know, but it doesn’t honestly matter. As long as people can learn to play nice with people of other religions (or lack of religions), it is all good. Unfortunately, that tolerance and acceptance has been pretty hard to find. History is full of bloody examples where it has failed. Those lessons, along with contemporary ones, are major reasons many atheists are pushed from ambivalence toward religious people to a reaction mixed between scorn, antipathy and condescension. Everyone can believe whatever they want. They can feel free to talk about their beliefs all they want as well, but to be prepared to be equally respecting of the other person’s view and the fact that it is as “correct” as your own. Edited for typo. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #277 June 13, 2003 QuoteHow is it that having an omniscient (all-knowning) God negates free-will? If god created the universe and by virtue of his omniscience, knows precisely what every consequence of his decisions will be; then it must follow that all future decisions for all elements in the universe have already been made simply by gods choice of initial conditions So if god is omniscient, there is no possibility that any choice we make has not already been pre-determined by God during creation and there can be no free-will. If we have free-will then god cannot be omniscient. A more rigid approach is taken by Dan Barker. QuoteThe Christian God is defined as a personal being who knows everything. According to Christians, personal beings have free will. In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is avoidable. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, if you claim to have free will, you must admit the potential (if not the desire) to change your mind before the decision is final. A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty." It knows its choices in advance. This means that it has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore lacks free will. Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist. Therefore, the Christian God does not exist. ------------------------------------------------ Some people deny that humans have free will; but all Christians claim that God himself, "in three persons," is a free personal agent, so the argument holds. Others will object that God, being all-powerful, can change his mind. But if he does, then he did not know the future in the first place. If he truly knows the future, then the future is fixed and not even God can change it. If he changes his mind anyway, then his knowledge was limited. You can't have it both ways: no being can be omniscient and omnipotent at the same time. A more subtle objection is that God "knows" what he is going to do because he always acts in accordance with his nature, which does not diminish his free agency. God might claim, for example, that he will not tell a lie tomorrow--because he always tells the truth. God could choose outside of his nature, but he never does. But what does "nature of God" mean? To have a nature is to have limits. The "nature" that restricts humans is our physical environment and our genetics; but the "nature" of a supernatural being must be something else. It is inappropriate to say that the "nature" of a being without limits bears the same relationship to the topic of free will that human nature does. Free will requires having more than one option, a desire to choose, freedom to choose (lack of obstacles), power to accomplish the choice (strength and aptitude), and the potential to avoid the option. "Strength and aptitude" puts a limit on what any person is "free" to do. No human has the free will to run a one-minute mile, without mechanical aid. We are free to try, but we will fail. All of our choices, and our desires as well, are limited by our nature; yet we can still claim free will (those of us who do) because we don't know our future choices. If God always acts in accordance with his nature (whatever that means), then he still must have more than one viable option that does not contradict his nature if he is to claim free will. Otherwise, he is a slave to his nature, like a robot, and not a free personal agent. What would the word "option" mean to a being who created all options? Some say that "free will" with God does not mean what it means with humans. But how are we to understand this? What conditions of free will would a Christian scrap in order to craft a "free agency" for God? Multiple options? Desire? Freedom? Power? Potential to avoid? Perhaps desire could be jettisoned. Desire implies a lack, and a perfect being should lack nothing. But it would be a very strange "person" with no needs or desires. Desire is what prompts a choice in the first place. It also contributes to assessing whether the decision was reasonable. Without desire, choices are willy-nilly, and not true decisions at all. Besides, the biblical god expressed many desires. No objection saves the Christian God: he does not exist. Perhaps a more modest deity can be imagined: one that is not both personal and all-knowing, both all-knowing and all-powerful, both perfect and free. But until a god is defined coherently, and then proven to exist with evidence and sound reasoning, it is sensible not to think that such a being exists. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FliegendeWolf 0 #278 June 13, 2003 Nice post, Justin. A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blondeflyer7 0 #279 June 13, 2003 tis ok....just speaking from the heart Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #280 June 13, 2003 Quote In fact, one of my best friends in the whole world, until she moved away, was with a fiery red-headed lesbian who was Wiccan. What great conversations we had! and of course not meant as an attack at all did you pray for her soul that she would repent from her heathen veiws? or did you respect the fact that she has her own belief system as well developed and deeply meaningful to her as yours is to you? most christians (again in my experience) take the former route, and refuse to accept that there might be more under the sun than is dreamt of in their philosophies.. apologies if my words come off as 'snide' to you..they arent meant that way, its a disadvatange of a text forum. They are meant to help you do exactly what i've said several times..break the vase you were given and remake it for yourself, no matter what form it assumes then it will come from you and not from someone elses dogma (even if that makes up a part of the one you create for yourself) as i said if youd like we can start another thread specifically about christianity, you are mistaken if you think i am not very well versed in some of the deeper aspects & reasonings of its theology, both historically and morally when your 'reasons' apply & have been expressed by multiple belief systems from a wide variety of cultures... i didnt just decide christianity was wrong and threw it away..as i've said the only serious issue i have with your religion is the THIS PATH AND NO OTHER aspect..and that is fundamentally a form of control. "Only my church, my savior, my god has the answers you seek come to me.." (and give me your allegance, your money and your children, but that might be taken as a snide comment.) I have not defined control as narrowly as you seem to be, and perhaps recognize it it forms you do not, or do not mind. that again is your perogative, i'm not tell you how to live, how to believe or how to worship, christians ARE telling me exactly that...____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sinker 0 #281 June 13, 2003 Quotedid you pray for her soul that she would repent from her heathen veiws? or did you respect the fact that she has her own belief system as well developed and deeply meaningful to her as yours is to you? Of course I prayed for her, as she did for me. Yes, I prayed for her salvation, to do anything else would not be charitable. Did I know at the time she WASN'T saved, i.e. that I knew where her soul would go if she died then? NO, I didn't. Only God knows that. However, I believe that some things are wrong and some things are right. Her and I disagreed on that point as well as many others. Did I try to force her to change her position? Hell no. A choice not freely chosen is no choice at all. And HELL YES I respected the fact that she has her own belief system that was well developed and deeply meaningful to her. Praying for her to see what I think are truths about God and morality in no ways diminishes the respect I had for her. I respected her as a person, I loved her very very much as a person. I wepted openly when she moved away. But the point is that praying for her to see what I think are truths is consistent w/ my faith, does not disrespect her, and if I'm wrong, then what have we lost? She still has my love and respect, and I have only lost time spent in prayer, which is in itself an act of love. Quoteapologies if my words come off as 'snide' to you..they arent meant that way, its a disadvatange of a text forum. Apology accepted. And I can certainly understand how incredibly short-sighted and ignorant some Christians can be. Quotebreak the vase you were given and remake it for yourself, no matter what form it assumes then it will come from you and not from someone elses dogma I do indeed understand your admonition to break the vase... I have broken it, only to find a better version, a clearer version of it, laying underneath. And it did have dogmas in it that were from those who came before me. Not fully developed and elucidated, mind you. That is Catholic view, that God has revealed Himself through his Word, through His Church. However, men have often not cooperated, have misinterpreted, etc. And, there IS an evolution of doctrine. It is not a CHANGE in doctrine, it is the elucidation of a greater understanding of doctrine. It's like the oak tree... the acorn is not the oak, just as the sapling is not the fully developed tree. There is nothing wronge w/ accepting someone elses dogma if you have discovered, through your own prayer, faith, and study, that such dogma is true. And I think that is one more fundamental difference here b/t us: That absolute truths exist. That truth is ultimately not relative. If a God exists, He exists in a certain way. That is the nature of existance. I understand that it seems very arrogant for Christians to claim that their concept of God is the truest form of the "identity" or nature of God. And Christians are largely to blame for that. However, just b/c Christians claim to be more right abou God than others doesn't make them arrogant. Sometimes, often times, they ARE arrogant and judgmental about it. However, that doesn't make them LESS right about it. And just b/c you think they are wrong, doesn't make them wrong. It's just that you reject their "proofs" for what they feel is right. If nothing else and in spite of their character flaws, at least they are acting consistently with their beliefs. About the control issue... If someone believes that the Christian God really is THE God, the fullest picture or expression of who God is, why wouldn't that person tell others about it? And if the others don't want to hear it, fine. Better yet would be for those Christians to ACT like their God was the one true God, which unfortunately is too often not the case. Also, why wouldn't that person support a church that teaches such things by giving it their money and raising their kids in the ways of that religion. That is simply acting in accord to one's conscience, not being forced under duress or control. I raise my Children in the Catholic Church b/c I think it's right about God, about faith, about human nature. Yes, the priest asked at my children's baptism if my wife and I agreed to raise them in the Catholic faith. We said yes. That was not control. That was not coercion. We freely agreed to do that b/c we think that is where truth lies. If we are wrong, we are wrong. But it is unfair for anyone to accuse of being servile follows, of being blind sheep, of being controlled by someone else. It is the assent of our will. Period. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sinker 0 #282 June 13, 2003 QuoteIf god created the universe and by virtue of his omniscience, knows precisely what every consequence of his decisions will be; then it must follow that all future decisions for all elements in the universe have already been made simply by gods choice of initial conditions So if god is omniscient, there is no possibility that any choice we make has not already been pre-determined by God during creation and there can be no free-will. If we have free-will then god cannot be omniscient. You are wrongfully assuming that a choice someone makes is a consequence of Gods decisions. Knowing the future and causing it are two different things. However, if you are saying that since God created humans, and since humans do certain things, God indirectly caused events that will happen in the future, that is only indirectly so. Just b/c God knows all things doesn't mean he caused all things in a direct sense. What I mean is, he knows if I am going to buy a car next year. I do not know if I'm going to buy a car next year. He knows if I will have the money to buy a car next year. I do not know that. If I have the money, I just may buy a car next year. B/c God is outside of time and space and knows what will happen next year doesn't mean he caused it. His omniscence is not a condition of my free-will. And my having free-will does not negate his omniscence. Omniscence is not predetermination. Knowing and causing are not the same. I know gravity exists. I did not therefore cause it to exist. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #283 June 13, 2003 i think i'll watch this part...i've been round and around this one many times before, and there are several holes in both side of the argument..____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sinker 0 #284 June 13, 2003 Why just watch? Since when did you ever pass on an opportunity to show up a Christian? -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #285 June 13, 2003 lol... actually the problem with this whole argument is you (both) are trying to use logic to define that which cannot be defined logically..____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sinker 0 #286 June 13, 2003 glad you laughed.... I forgot to put the or in that post, didn't mean it to come across nasty. Logic can't ultimately prove a mystery but it sure can make some pretty convincing cases for the existence of God, attributes of God, etc. etc. and besides, I enjoy the conversation. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #287 June 13, 2003 Interesting take on it. I think what he's saying though is not necessarily that god is controlling each individual action, but he supposedly knows what each of those actions is in advance, and knew them before creating the universe. Therefore, all actions are predetermined (otherwise how could god know what they would be) and god made the choice to create the universe knowing the results. So, in effect, he caused those actions to be. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jlmiracle 7 #288 June 13, 2003 okay now. Zenister and Sinker, I think you guys should just agree to disagree. You guys seem both very adamant about your beliefs and should respect each other for it. Its not like Zenister's sacrifing virgins or something and Sinker's not telling us all to put a dollar in the box then hiring hookers...or are they... JudyBe kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #289 June 13, 2003 heh..soon we'll have to discuss the "fortunate fall" with a sideline into the shroud of turin and the ramifcations of faith with physical proof..but then i think only maybe 3 or 4 will be reading this thread..if anyone else still is anyway..____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sinker 0 #290 June 13, 2003 ??? why should we agree to disagree? as long as we are both willing to keep the debate going w/o attacking each other? I do respect him for his beliefs. I very much respect his ideas of God in nature. So why shouldn't we just keep it up? -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sinker 0 #291 June 13, 2003 thanks for the post. I'm grappling w/ an explanation for how knowing something before it happens isn't predetermination... not quite there yet... still chewing on it. be patient w/ me. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #292 June 13, 2003 i agree it only thru discussion of opposing veiw points that one can really determine what anyone actually thinks.. i'll discuss anything with anyone who can keep an open mind.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jlmiracle 7 #293 June 13, 2003 I really don't care if you guys argue about it till the end of time, especially since Zenisters right. (sarcasim voice, I'm not picking sides, you are actually both wrong) JudyBe kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sinker 0 #294 June 13, 2003 oh yes, yes, we will! A subject I am VERY interested in, esp. w/ the whole debate about the shroud, if it does offer "proof" of matters of faith, the initial carbon dating results dating it to the middle ages, then later results refuting those, etc. Boy, my nips perk up just thinking about it. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sinker 0 #295 June 13, 2003 -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #296 June 13, 2003 Quotethanks for the post. I'm grappling w/ an explanation for how knowing something before it happens isn't predetermination... not quite there yet... still chewing on it. be patient w/ me. you were already there..keep going down the road of "outside space time (x,y,z,t)" particluarly since your already discussing the nature of god.. the difficult thing in this particular argument is that both sides rarely can agree on defined terms..which makes things rather circular...____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jfields 0 #297 June 13, 2003 They aren't allowed to stop yet. Especially Sinker, since I wrote a long post at the top of this page in response to him that nobody but FliegendeWolf has even acknowledged. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites FliegendeWolf 0 #298 June 13, 2003 I was wondering about that myself, but then I took a close look at the coding under "view source" and evidently that portion of the site is encoded in such a way that it requires megadoses of B-Vitamin complex to read. See why so few people got it? A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sinker 0 #299 June 13, 2003 precisely what I'm struggling with... definitions... -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #300 June 13, 2003 Quote till the end of time oooo ooooo ooo! can we start on the nature of time too?? that will bring the more scientfic minds in and we'll really stir the pot. We're pretty close already when you get into predestination v freewill anyway...____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next Page 12 of 14 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Zenister 0 #280 June 13, 2003 Quote In fact, one of my best friends in the whole world, until she moved away, was with a fiery red-headed lesbian who was Wiccan. What great conversations we had! and of course not meant as an attack at all did you pray for her soul that she would repent from her heathen veiws? or did you respect the fact that she has her own belief system as well developed and deeply meaningful to her as yours is to you? most christians (again in my experience) take the former route, and refuse to accept that there might be more under the sun than is dreamt of in their philosophies.. apologies if my words come off as 'snide' to you..they arent meant that way, its a disadvatange of a text forum. They are meant to help you do exactly what i've said several times..break the vase you were given and remake it for yourself, no matter what form it assumes then it will come from you and not from someone elses dogma (even if that makes up a part of the one you create for yourself) as i said if youd like we can start another thread specifically about christianity, you are mistaken if you think i am not very well versed in some of the deeper aspects & reasonings of its theology, both historically and morally when your 'reasons' apply & have been expressed by multiple belief systems from a wide variety of cultures... i didnt just decide christianity was wrong and threw it away..as i've said the only serious issue i have with your religion is the THIS PATH AND NO OTHER aspect..and that is fundamentally a form of control. "Only my church, my savior, my god has the answers you seek come to me.." (and give me your allegance, your money and your children, but that might be taken as a snide comment.) I have not defined control as narrowly as you seem to be, and perhaps recognize it it forms you do not, or do not mind. that again is your perogative, i'm not tell you how to live, how to believe or how to worship, christians ARE telling me exactly that...____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #281 June 13, 2003 Quotedid you pray for her soul that she would repent from her heathen veiws? or did you respect the fact that she has her own belief system as well developed and deeply meaningful to her as yours is to you? Of course I prayed for her, as she did for me. Yes, I prayed for her salvation, to do anything else would not be charitable. Did I know at the time she WASN'T saved, i.e. that I knew where her soul would go if she died then? NO, I didn't. Only God knows that. However, I believe that some things are wrong and some things are right. Her and I disagreed on that point as well as many others. Did I try to force her to change her position? Hell no. A choice not freely chosen is no choice at all. And HELL YES I respected the fact that she has her own belief system that was well developed and deeply meaningful to her. Praying for her to see what I think are truths about God and morality in no ways diminishes the respect I had for her. I respected her as a person, I loved her very very much as a person. I wepted openly when she moved away. But the point is that praying for her to see what I think are truths is consistent w/ my faith, does not disrespect her, and if I'm wrong, then what have we lost? She still has my love and respect, and I have only lost time spent in prayer, which is in itself an act of love. Quoteapologies if my words come off as 'snide' to you..they arent meant that way, its a disadvatange of a text forum. Apology accepted. And I can certainly understand how incredibly short-sighted and ignorant some Christians can be. Quotebreak the vase you were given and remake it for yourself, no matter what form it assumes then it will come from you and not from someone elses dogma I do indeed understand your admonition to break the vase... I have broken it, only to find a better version, a clearer version of it, laying underneath. And it did have dogmas in it that were from those who came before me. Not fully developed and elucidated, mind you. That is Catholic view, that God has revealed Himself through his Word, through His Church. However, men have often not cooperated, have misinterpreted, etc. And, there IS an evolution of doctrine. It is not a CHANGE in doctrine, it is the elucidation of a greater understanding of doctrine. It's like the oak tree... the acorn is not the oak, just as the sapling is not the fully developed tree. There is nothing wronge w/ accepting someone elses dogma if you have discovered, through your own prayer, faith, and study, that such dogma is true. And I think that is one more fundamental difference here b/t us: That absolute truths exist. That truth is ultimately not relative. If a God exists, He exists in a certain way. That is the nature of existance. I understand that it seems very arrogant for Christians to claim that their concept of God is the truest form of the "identity" or nature of God. And Christians are largely to blame for that. However, just b/c Christians claim to be more right abou God than others doesn't make them arrogant. Sometimes, often times, they ARE arrogant and judgmental about it. However, that doesn't make them LESS right about it. And just b/c you think they are wrong, doesn't make them wrong. It's just that you reject their "proofs" for what they feel is right. If nothing else and in spite of their character flaws, at least they are acting consistently with their beliefs. About the control issue... If someone believes that the Christian God really is THE God, the fullest picture or expression of who God is, why wouldn't that person tell others about it? And if the others don't want to hear it, fine. Better yet would be for those Christians to ACT like their God was the one true God, which unfortunately is too often not the case. Also, why wouldn't that person support a church that teaches such things by giving it their money and raising their kids in the ways of that religion. That is simply acting in accord to one's conscience, not being forced under duress or control. I raise my Children in the Catholic Church b/c I think it's right about God, about faith, about human nature. Yes, the priest asked at my children's baptism if my wife and I agreed to raise them in the Catholic faith. We said yes. That was not control. That was not coercion. We freely agreed to do that b/c we think that is where truth lies. If we are wrong, we are wrong. But it is unfair for anyone to accuse of being servile follows, of being blind sheep, of being controlled by someone else. It is the assent of our will. Period. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #282 June 13, 2003 QuoteIf god created the universe and by virtue of his omniscience, knows precisely what every consequence of his decisions will be; then it must follow that all future decisions for all elements in the universe have already been made simply by gods choice of initial conditions So if god is omniscient, there is no possibility that any choice we make has not already been pre-determined by God during creation and there can be no free-will. If we have free-will then god cannot be omniscient. You are wrongfully assuming that a choice someone makes is a consequence of Gods decisions. Knowing the future and causing it are two different things. However, if you are saying that since God created humans, and since humans do certain things, God indirectly caused events that will happen in the future, that is only indirectly so. Just b/c God knows all things doesn't mean he caused all things in a direct sense. What I mean is, he knows if I am going to buy a car next year. I do not know if I'm going to buy a car next year. He knows if I will have the money to buy a car next year. I do not know that. If I have the money, I just may buy a car next year. B/c God is outside of time and space and knows what will happen next year doesn't mean he caused it. His omniscence is not a condition of my free-will. And my having free-will does not negate his omniscence. Omniscence is not predetermination. Knowing and causing are not the same. I know gravity exists. I did not therefore cause it to exist. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #283 June 13, 2003 i think i'll watch this part...i've been round and around this one many times before, and there are several holes in both side of the argument..____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #284 June 13, 2003 Why just watch? Since when did you ever pass on an opportunity to show up a Christian? -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #285 June 13, 2003 lol... actually the problem with this whole argument is you (both) are trying to use logic to define that which cannot be defined logically..____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #286 June 13, 2003 glad you laughed.... I forgot to put the or in that post, didn't mean it to come across nasty. Logic can't ultimately prove a mystery but it sure can make some pretty convincing cases for the existence of God, attributes of God, etc. etc. and besides, I enjoy the conversation. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #287 June 13, 2003 Interesting take on it. I think what he's saying though is not necessarily that god is controlling each individual action, but he supposedly knows what each of those actions is in advance, and knew them before creating the universe. Therefore, all actions are predetermined (otherwise how could god know what they would be) and god made the choice to create the universe knowing the results. So, in effect, he caused those actions to be. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jlmiracle 7 #288 June 13, 2003 okay now. Zenister and Sinker, I think you guys should just agree to disagree. You guys seem both very adamant about your beliefs and should respect each other for it. Its not like Zenister's sacrifing virgins or something and Sinker's not telling us all to put a dollar in the box then hiring hookers...or are they... JudyBe kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #289 June 13, 2003 heh..soon we'll have to discuss the "fortunate fall" with a sideline into the shroud of turin and the ramifcations of faith with physical proof..but then i think only maybe 3 or 4 will be reading this thread..if anyone else still is anyway..____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #290 June 13, 2003 ??? why should we agree to disagree? as long as we are both willing to keep the debate going w/o attacking each other? I do respect him for his beliefs. I very much respect his ideas of God in nature. So why shouldn't we just keep it up? -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #291 June 13, 2003 thanks for the post. I'm grappling w/ an explanation for how knowing something before it happens isn't predetermination... not quite there yet... still chewing on it. be patient w/ me. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #292 June 13, 2003 i agree it only thru discussion of opposing veiw points that one can really determine what anyone actually thinks.. i'll discuss anything with anyone who can keep an open mind.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jlmiracle 7 #293 June 13, 2003 I really don't care if you guys argue about it till the end of time, especially since Zenisters right. (sarcasim voice, I'm not picking sides, you are actually both wrong) JudyBe kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #294 June 13, 2003 oh yes, yes, we will! A subject I am VERY interested in, esp. w/ the whole debate about the shroud, if it does offer "proof" of matters of faith, the initial carbon dating results dating it to the middle ages, then later results refuting those, etc. Boy, my nips perk up just thinking about it. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #295 June 13, 2003 -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #296 June 13, 2003 Quotethanks for the post. I'm grappling w/ an explanation for how knowing something before it happens isn't predetermination... not quite there yet... still chewing on it. be patient w/ me. you were already there..keep going down the road of "outside space time (x,y,z,t)" particluarly since your already discussing the nature of god.. the difficult thing in this particular argument is that both sides rarely can agree on defined terms..which makes things rather circular...____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #297 June 13, 2003 They aren't allowed to stop yet. Especially Sinker, since I wrote a long post at the top of this page in response to him that nobody but FliegendeWolf has even acknowledged. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FliegendeWolf 0 #298 June 13, 2003 I was wondering about that myself, but then I took a close look at the coding under "view source" and evidently that portion of the site is encoded in such a way that it requires megadoses of B-Vitamin complex to read. See why so few people got it? A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #299 June 13, 2003 precisely what I'm struggling with... definitions... -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #300 June 13, 2003 Quote till the end of time oooo ooooo ooo! can we start on the nature of time too?? that will bring the more scientfic minds in and we'll really stir the pot. We're pretty close already when you get into predestination v freewill anyway...____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
