If God/Jesus does not know sex and reproduction, he is not fit to dictate it’s laws.

[Balerion]

Just because God acts, even with purpose, does not negate free will. On two counts:
1] He doesn't always act. Which means the rest of the time theists* are free to act of their own volition.
2] Even he punishing them for disobeying does not mean they do not have free will. Removing free will would literally mean all humans are puppets, incapable of acting on their own accord.

I am not contending that there is no free will in the Bible. I am contending that the Christian myth breaks down when it claims that we* have free will because God grants it. This is inconsistent with the qualities and actions of Yahweh.

Also, I never said punishing them for disobeying does not mean they do not have free will. I said that he at times takes away free will (i.e. the hardening of the Pharaoh's heart) and then punishes them for the very thing he made them do.

*I have to stop saying "we". I am playing Devils' Advocate here. I am not a proponent of God.

*They're talking about us, too. Just because we don't believe doesn't mean Christians don't think we're part of the "plan."

And if I were of a mind, I might suggest you remain in yours, because there's a whole lot better out there. I choose to have a reasonable discussion in a forum on interesting topics where we argue the merits of our case rather than fling ad homs.

Again, I point to the thread. What ad homs? You're inventing reasons to get upset. You do this frequently, and usually without cause. Stop whining.

That is your stance. You haven't made your case yet that God is entirely illogical, so you can't use that to make your case. (That God is entirely illogical is your premise, yet to be shown). To use your premise as evidence of your case would be circular.

I've already demonstrated it. Re-read my arguments about the hardening of hearts, his vested interest in the outcome of individual lives, his directive to make the entire world his flock. That these things do not jibe with the notion of divinely-granted free will means that the notion of divinely-granted free will is inconsistent with the rest of the myth.

I do not need to make the case that God is entirely illogical. We're talking about this aspect of a myth, and whether or not it is logical. Stop knocking down straw men.

It does. I go back to the experiment analogy. The biologist will often have to intervene, if his mini-ecology goes off the rails for the wrong reasons.

'The predators are supposed to eat the prey, not each other.' Something about the experiment is awry. It must be tweaked. An experiment mimics nature, but it is not identical to nature, it must be cajoled to play out in ways that validate the experiment.

I am not literally saying God is doing this (in the theist's world view) I am simply drawing analogies as to why the intervention and non-intervention are
not paradoxical.

But in order for this analogy to work, we have to ignore all the evidence that says god's purpose is not the same as the intervening scientist (which is required for the analogy to work; you apparently don't understand this, but I assure you it is the case). Yes, if the myth were that God created the heaven and the earth at his fancy to see what might happen, then his intervening and making it difficult or impossible for some to follow his rules would fit perfectly with the notion of divinely-granted free will, and arguments against the logic of a tinkering god putting insurmountable obstacles in the way of his creation would fail. But this god clearly is not that god; this God has a plan, a directive, an interest in each of his creations behaving a certain way. To then make it impossible for them to behave a certain way would make no sense.

It would be like a scientist building wanting to learn how goldfish cohabitate by putting them in different fishbowls. It just doesn't make sense.

And I do appreciate you choosing to make your case on merit rather than on volume.

You have to grow up. I've said nothing to you to warrant such a response, and the next time you accuse me of such a thing, I'm going to report you. Your kind of behavior seems to have the shortest lifespan on this site, so I'd be careful.

 

[DaveC426913]

I do not need to make the case that God is entirely illogical. We're talking about this aspect of a myth, and whether or not it is logical. Stop knocking down straw men.

Well, I guess that's where we're at odds. Because it has seemed to me that your case has been that there's nothing logical about it.

But in order for this analogy to work, we have to ignore all the evidence that says god's purpose is not the same as the intervening scientist (which is required for the analogy to work; you apparently don't understand this, but I assure you it is the case). Yes, if the myth were that God created the heaven and the earth at his fancy to see what might happen, then his intervening and making it difficult or impossible for some to follow his rules would fit perfectly with the notion of divinely-granted free will, and arguments against the logic of a tinkering god putting insurmountable obstacles in the way of his creation would fail. But this god clearly is not that god; this God has a plan, a directive, an interest in each of his creations behaving a certain way. To then make it impossible for them to behave a certain way would make no sense.

He does not make it impossible to behave a certain way all the time. Again, look at the analogy. The fact that the biologist has to intercede to pull the predators off each other does not mean his actions - for his own purposes - are illogical for his own purposes.

I've said nothing to you to warrant such a response,

By your own standard, you have no business complaining about how you're treated.

and the next time you accuse me of such a thing, I'm going to report you. Your kind of behavior seems to have the shortest lifespan on this site, so I'd be careful.

I call your bluff. Report me for asking that you to be civil in a civil discussion. I dare you.

 

[Balerion]

Well, I guess that's where we're at odds. Because it has seemed to me that your case has been that there's nothing logical about it.

Well, you're wrong.

He does not make it impossible to behave a certain way all the time. Again, look at the analogy. The fact that the biologist has to intercede to pull the predators off each other does not mean his actions - for his own purposes - are illogical for his own purposes.

I put this part in bold because it's seems ridiculous that the person failing to understand the point of an analogy would incessantly ask that someone else "look at the analogy." Perhaps you should heed your own advice here, because you're missing the point.

By your own standard, you have no business complaining about how you're treated.

The difference is I actually have something to complain about. Constantly being accused of incivility when I have demonstrated no such thing is a reason to take offense.

I call your bluff. Report me for asking that you to be civil in a civil discussion. I dare you.

Fine. I reported your previous post falsely accusing me of incivility.

 

[Syne]

Dave, this is just JDawg's MO. Might as well ignore him, because as soon as you get him on the ropes he'll get petulant and add you to his ignore list.

 

[DaveC426913]

Dave, this is just JDawg's MO. Might as well ignore him, because as soon as you get him on the ropes he'll get petulant and add you to his ignore list.

I try to ignore the hostility and get through to the logical side of him.

 

[DaveC426913]

The difference is I actually have something to complain about. Constantly being accused of incivility when I have demonstrated no such thing is a reason to take offense.
Fine. I reported your previous post falsely accusing me of incivility.

This is your first post to me in this thread:

What the hell are you talking about? You don't think it's logical to question why an omnipotent being would create people with predispositions to the very behavior that could cost them their eternal souls? You throw the term "free will" around as if all things are equal; as if it were as easy for, say, Elton John to refrain from sucking penises as it is for me. It's only too bad there aren't more holy wars out there so all the psychopaths he's created could scratch their itch against infidels and get their ticket punched to heaven.

This is uncivil behavior, and I get to ask that you cut it out. I know I don't need to point you at the forum policy regarding respect and civility again.

 

[Syne]

I try to ignore the hostility and get through to the logical side of him.

I haven't seen him demonstrate much of a logical side wrt to religion, and oddly, that's what he most posts on. Good luck.

 

[Balerion]

This is your first post to me in this thread:


This is uncivil behavior, and I get to ask that you cut it out. I know I don't need to point you at the forum policy regarding respect and civility again.

That's not uncivil behavior. Nor is it as you attempted to frame it before, as brutish or slobbering. What is brutish about the term "sucking penises"? Do you suppose Elton John has never sucked a penis in his life? Is the idea of men sucking each other's penises what God finds so objectionable? And what about sucking penises do you find so objectionable?

All you're trying to do here is distract from your lack of an argument by crying foul over the way I'm arguing. It's a very old, very tired tactic used by the intellectually dishonest. And this is why you've used it virtually every thread you've "participated" in. So here we are, ground to a halt because of your whining.

Oh, and finding yourself on the same side of an issue as Syne is typically a bad sign.

 

[DaveC426913]

So here we are, ground to a halt...

Let's make no mistake here. It was you who addressed me directly (post 50) both by quoting me and addressing me in the 2nd person - in a thread you were, up to then, not participating in.

If you didn't want to communicate with me, it would have been more considerate - to all these other inconvenienced members you're concerned about - to just not post.

I made my point a ways back. No one else has objected. It is not essential that I convince you. And so far, James doesn't seem to have any problem with me asking you to be more civil. Perhaps we can end this bickering and let the thread continue.

 

[Balerion]

Let's make no mistake here. It was you who addressed me directly (post 50) both by quoting me and addressing me in the 2nd person - in a thread you were, up to then, not participating in.

If you didn't want to communicate with me, it would have been more considerate - to all these other inconvenienced members you're concerned about - to just not post.

I addressed you because I disagreed with your position--which was incorrect, ill-considered, and poorly conveyed. I was engaging you, not bitching at you about the way in which you were going about your business.

I made my point a ways back. No one else has objected. It is not essential that I convince you. And so far, James doesn't seem to have any problem with me asking you to be more civil. Perhaps we can end this bickering and let the thread continue.

One, you didn't make a point. You haven't made a point at all. You made a bunch of claims I then refuted. Two, are we really appealing to consensus here? Just because nobody else disagreed with you, apparently that makes you right? I could just as easily say that because nobody agreed with you, then you're not right, either...but I wouldn't do that, because it would be absurd to assume that the lack of agreement or disagreement on a post means nothing.

If you really wanted this thread to continue, you wouldn't have started in with your typical nonsense. And just because James has not acted as of yet does not mean he will not. Nor is he the only moderator on the site.

 

[Syne]

Although I don't completely agree with Dave's "devil's advocacy", I do think he made his point just fine, where JDawg has been all over the map, not substantiating a single point he's made. Just playing inflammatory naysayer.

Dave's analogy works just fine if you're not so literally naive as to be incapable of reconciling a simple analogy. Free will is the simplest solution to the necessary boredom of omnipotence. Actually, the boredom so relieved is the only reason for a god to develop purposes of its own. Without uncertainty, there is no purpose, only eternal, meaningless whim.

 

[DaveC426913]

I was engaging you, not bitching at you

Your words were "What the hell are you talking about?" . It's inflammatory. Engaging??

"But I wanted to make friends with him!"
"By poking him in the eye?"
"Yeaaaaah...."

One, you didn't make a point. You haven't made a point at all. You made a bunch of claims I then refuted.

Making my point doesn't mean I'm claiming to have "won" that debate issue. It is not necessary to win anything.

You didn't refute them; you simply have a different opinion on the subject. Neither of our stances are falsifiable. I think it is plausible that (a god that gives us free will can still manipulate us without paradox), you do not think that is plausible. You thinking that doesn't make me wrong.

Two, are we really appealing to consensus here? Just because nobody else disagreed with you, apparently that makes you right?

No. Again. Not claiming there are two mutually exclusive stances and only one can be right. I simply made my point. No one else had any objections. It's food for thought.

 

[DaveC426913]

Thanks for the kudos.

Although I don't completely agree with Dave's "devil's advocacy",

I wish to explain this.

I believe that, to properly fight zealotism and ignorance in theism, we need to bring our strongest arguments to the table. Bringing weak arguments to the table makes us little better than them with their "But God loves you anyway!" and "but it's an eyeball! How can it happen by pure chance??" fallacies. I poke holes in flawed arguments of atheists so they stop getting used. They're hurting us.

That's the goal of a Devil's Advocate position here, and why I hold to it so tightly. I am not defending our opponents; I am attempting to fire-harden our weapons.

I also believe that we should rise above hostility and combativeness all too typical of our opponents. If we claim to be the rational ones, we should behave rationally. Our arguments should stand on their merits, not on the volume of our shouts. That's what makes us ... righter than them.

 

[Balerion]

Your words were "What the hell are you talking about?" . It's inflammatory. Engaging??

"But I wanted to make friends with him!"
"By poking him in the eye?"
"Yeaaaaah...."

Who said I wanted to be friends? I was engaging you in a debate. You said something ridiculous, and I reacted with appropriate incredulity. If you don't want people rolling their eyes or facepalming, don't write such silly things.

"Why is everyone treating me so strangely?"
"You don't have any pants on."
"And?"

Making my point doesn't mean I'm claiming to have "won" that debate issue. It is not necessary to win anything.

You didn't refute them; you simply have a different opinion on the subject. Neither of our stances are falsifiable. I think it is plausible that (a god that gives us free will can still manipulate us without paradox), you do not think that is plausible. You thinking that doesn't make me wrong.

You're not even framing the argument properly, so clearly you are aware that your position was refuted. Otherwise there would be no need to misrepresent our discussion.

No. Again. Not claiming there are two mutually exclusive stances and only one can be right. I simply made my point. No one else had any objections. It's food for thought.

Again, it doesn't matter if no one else had any objections. You're appealing to an irrelevancy. No one else agreed. So what?

Your stance has no logical foundation, and therefore has been refuted. Just because I can't go back and knock on God's door to find out for myself doesn't mean I cannot demonstrate that your opinion is false. I did exactly that.

 

[Balerion]

Thanks for the kudos.
I wish to explain this.

I believe that, to properly fight zealotism and ignorance in theism, we need to bring our strongest arguments to the table. Bringing weak arguments to the table makes us little better than them with their "But God loves you anyway!" and "but it's an eyeball! How can it happen by pure chance??" fallacies. I poke holes in flawed arguments of atheists so they stop getting used. They're hurting us.

That's the goal of a Devil's Advocate position here, and why I hold to it so tightly. I am not defending our opponents; I am attempting to fire-harden our weapons.

I also believe that we should rise above hostility and combativeness all too typical of our opponents. If we claim to be the rational ones, we should behave rationally. Our arguments should stand on their merits, not on the volume of our shouts. That's what makes us ... righter than them.

What a load of pretentious nonsense. You should sharpen your own arguments before you presume to serve as a benchmark for others, as clearly evidenced by my trouncing of you in this debate.

 

[Syne]

Thanks for the kudos.
I wish to explain this.

I believe that, to properly fight zealotism and ignorance in theism, we need to bring our strongest arguments to the table. Bringing weak arguments to the table makes us little better than them with their "But God loves you anyway!" and "but it's an eyeball! How can it happen by pure chance??" fallacies. I poke holes in flawed arguments of atheists so they stop getting used. They're hurting us.

That's the goal of a Devil's Advocate position here, and why I hold to it so tightly. I am not defending our opponents; I am attempting to fire-harden our weapons.

I also believe that we should rise above hostility and combativeness all too typical of our opponents. If we claim to be the rational ones, we should behave rationally. Our arguments should stand on their merits, not on the volume of our shouts. That's what makes us ... righter than them.

Oh, I completely agree. I think that both sides should be encouraged to bring their A-game. Only through competition of their best arguments, instead of the tired ones repeated ad nauseam, can they truly be judged. And yes, those who claim the higher ground of reason should be held to the higher standard of that claim.

What I meant is that I don't necessarily think that free will logically allows for arbitrary, external intervention, although I also don't think that such free will precludes an omnipotent god either.

What a load of pretentious nonsense. You should sharpen your own arguments before you presume to serve as a benchmark for others, as clearly evidenced by my trouncing of you in this debate.

JDawg once again claiming a premature victory.

 

[DaveC426913]

I find the OP's argument flawed because it presumes that we (at least, the theists) know enough about the logic of a God that we can judge his rationale, which is surely quite complex. And I do not believe that we (at least, the theists) can presume to know, without being told, the logic of creating a world.

Imagine a gaggle of scientists trying to explain their anthropology experiment to a tribe of Homo Habilis. How would H.Habilis know the Null Hypothesis? How would he know the Scientific Method?

It's not that the Homo Habilis is incapable of grasping the logic of the study, it's that he'd need a short lifetime to learn its foundations. Likewise, it's not that we (theists) cannot know the logic of this God, it's that he's never sat down with us and explained it.

This is why it is a weak argument against the theistic God's "right to judge".

This is a fallacy of Intelligent Design proponents:
"I can see no way that the eye could have developed naturally, therefore by process of elimination, it must be ID."

And Special Relativity initiates:
"I can see no way the two twins on their rockets can both see each other as aging slower therefore by process of elimination, it must be wrong."

Atheists:
"I can see no way that God's unloving actions and his supposed loving motives can be compatible, therefore by process of elimination, it must be a true paradox."

No, all these are only apparently paradoxical - unless you actually learn the details behind them and discover the logic, which is far, far more highly nuanced than any of the ignorant can imagine.

 

[Greatest I am]

Please don't misunderstand my position. I do not believe in God. Mankind consists entirely of the atoms that make up his corporeal body.

I am playing Devil's Advocate in that if we suspend our disbelief of God, there is still some consistency in the logic. It breaks down in many, many places, for sure, but it doesn't break down in the place of why God would give his subjects free will.

Now you speak the reason I bowed out. I do not have time for a devil's advocate when I have real believers to fry.

On free will.

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.




Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that it is all human generated. Evil is our responsibility.

Much has been written to explain what I see as a natural part of evolution.

Consider.
First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created.

Evil then is only human to human.
As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil at all times.

Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.

This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.

Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, we should see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks where it belongs. God or nature.

There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be.

Regards
DL

 

[Syne]

Now you speak the reason I bowed out. I do not have time for a devil's advocate when I have real believers to fry.

On free will.

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.




Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that it is all human generated. Evil is our responsibility.

Much has been written to explain what I see as a natural part of evolution.

Consider.
First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created.

Evil then is only human to human.
As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil at all times.

Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.

This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.

Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, we should see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks where it belongs. God or nature.

There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be.

Regards
DL

GIA's seemingly requisite copy and paste "free will"/"Gnostic Christian naturalist" post at any mention of free will. IOW, no intention to engage any argument.

 

[DaveC426913]

GIA's seemingly requisite copy and paste "free will"/"Gnostic Christian naturalist" post at any mention of free will. IOW, no intention to engage any argument.

Yeah but it's fresh to me.

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

I don't accept your premise. I am not convinced that anyone, including Christians, is trying to "absolve" God of responsibility. (But I am open to being convinced.)

I think their point is that, while he is ultimately responsible for creating us such that we can do bad things, that does not mean he is to "blame". Simply put, God is beyond judgement. That's kind of the big perk of being a god. He's not just a rilly rilly Big Cheese; he's God.

This is where my scientist/experiment analogy breaks down.

While true, the fish in the tank cannot judge the scientist for his ministrations (what do the fish know of global warming and eco-erosion?), his peers can judge him. But God has no peer. The buck stops with him.