Theology III

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Just because it doesn't make sense, to us, doesn't necessary make it lame. In fact, one could argue that the presumption that you can understand god in a logical manner is just false pride on the part of humanity.

Bingo.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Bingo.

the "I am that I am" defense.

[Insidious Rex]

Well of course god would want to be just like us! We're awsome!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Gwai

Hang on, Ri; are you saying that God does not have foreknowledge of what will come to pass?

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

So you don't believe in free will either?

I believe in limited, wave/particle, dolphin/eagle, knife-wielding free will.

Originally Posted by IRex

Well of course god would want to be just like us! We're awsome!

Well, of course god would want to make us just like him! He's awewome!

[Insidious Rex]

But we're not is the point. We're just conceited.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But we're not is the point. We're just conceited.

Exactly, exactly, exactly.

I'm praying for mercy, not justice.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But we're not is the point. We're just conceited.

And my point is that we do not know "we're not".

AND that it would make sense for God to make us like himself. Why mess with a great design?

Originally Posted by sis

I'm praying for mercy, not justice.

Reminds me of a GK Chesterton quote - "Children are innocent and love justice, while most adults are wicked and prefer mercy."

[Rían]

And another Chesterton quote, semi-related to the thread topic: "I do not believe in a fate that falls on men however they act; but I do believe in a fate that falls on them unless they act. "

[Butterbeer]

wild is the wind!

Apt, as no other statement when talking of God or Gods or any or our own realtionships to them or him/ it.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Reminds me of a GK Chesterton quote - "Children are innocent and love justice, while most adults are wicked and prefer mercy."

So, so, busted. Outfoxed by Father Brown.

Thanks for the big laugh, rian. I needed it.

[Rían]

You're quite welcome

I resemble that remark myself ...

(Chesterton has a way with words!!)

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

In that case no one is ever free, whether you believe in free will or not, if you're defining freedom that loosely. For I can't turn into a bird. I can't become a squirrel. I can't become you. So my freedom is restricted.

I'm restricted by my identity to some extent, even if you think we're dominated by random chance, for no matter how much chance rules me, I can't change my physical body into that of a polar bear.

These kinds of identity related freedom restrictions aren't considered serious in the dictionary definition. Of course you can't be a polar bear. The point of the definition is how freely your choices come from you, not what you are in the first place.

We're talking here about the freedom of actions that are common to humans as a race, not humans being birds or polar bears.

Flight is an aspect common to eagles. If two different eagles both have wings and are perfectly healthy, we wouldn't expect to find one able to fly and the other not. In fact, if we did, we'd suspect that there was some outside force restricting that one bird from flying.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

It's wrong to look at it as "humans" in general having the ability to go one way or another. No one could go one way or the other. "Humans" don't have the ability to be either heroic or non-heroic, but rather each individual human has the ability or lacks the ability depending upon what kind of creature he or she was made to be.

But that doesn't bear out in reality. Humans often go one way and then the other. Just because someone is heroic at some point in his life does not mean that he was not cowardly at another point. He obviously wasn't created to be heroic, since he might start being heroic, later become a cowardly, and still later become heroic again.

The nicest person in the world has probably done a mean thing or two in their lives, and some of the most evil may have done something nice on occasion.

Thus, if we have the ability to do both, and are predestined, we are restricted from doing one or the other at any given point in time. If a healthy bird somehow ceases to fly, something is retricting it.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

To do away with God and become your own creator. You seem to think that God should have designed you to be able to choose what you would be, which means to invent yourself. But the logical flaw is that if you were left to invent yourself, there'd be no "you" to do the inventing!

That's where you have to go beyond logic, for if you apply that same logic to god, there'd be no "god" to create us. And I put god in quotes because we assume god is an entity of ultimate power and wisdom who controls things like matter and energy, as opposed to an entity that is just a result of matter and energy combining. Which is really just the scientific definition of our universe. In which case you can choose to include god or not include god and come to the same result: predestination with the perception of freedom.

If god is ruled by predestination, as you say we are, then the ultimate "cause" is just existence itself. Things play out according to the combination of blind matter and energy and everything that follows is predestined, including god.

Most religious points of view assume that at least god is somehow beyond this logical restriction. And if he has the ability to act outside such restrictions, there is no reason to believe that he could not pass this ability down at least to some extent. A "soul" that is free to act and grow over it's existence, as opposed to a soul that is destined to follow a given path.

It may begin with randomization (and from watching my kids, I don't doubt it ), but that randomization becomes shaped over time into something greater.

It also goes back to something I mentioned a few posts back. Maybe our real freedom is the freedom to influence others. While our choices may be random, how those choices effect others around us are far from random, and we realize this an learn from it. Thus, while we retain the ability to make a completely random choice, we grow by our ability to sense how these choices effect others and modify our future choices in relation to this.

It's order from randomness, by observing cause and effect. Our "identity" is the journey in and of itself. And, come judgement day, god does not judge us by what choices we made (since they weren't really choices), but by how we turned out. How much we've grown.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Okay. Then I believe that the moon is populated by blue giraffes. The belief makes as much sense or nonsense as that of Free Will . Even if one assumes God transcends logic, that just makes anything possible. It doesn't make it probable. It doesn't make it worth believing.

If I felt like digging up some posts from when RÃ*an was arguing for the existence of god, I think I'd find the same argument coming from my mouth.

But, it seems to me that true faith is the opposite of logic, since you wouldn't have to have faith if it was logical.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

But, it seems to me that true faith is the opposite of logic, since you wouldn't have to have faith if it was logical.

I gotta say that your definition of "faith" is different than mine, then, and I suspect different than Lief's, too.

Having faith in something that is illogical is silly.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

We're talking here about the freedom of actions that are common to humans as a race, not humans being birds or polar bears.

That's an arbitrary restriction. Humans being humans as opposed to birds is a matter of identity. Humans being able to make human choices as opposed to animal choices is a matter of identity. One human being able to make different decisions from another human is a matter of identity. All these restrictions are matters of human freedom. Species is one more restriction on human freedom. Differences between one human and another are more restrictions on freedom.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Flight is an aspect common to eagles. If two different eagles both have wings and are perfectly healthy, we wouldn't expect to find one able to fly and the other not. In fact, if we did, we'd suspect that there was some outside force restricting that one bird from flying.

First of all, I'll just note that this is not an argument for your previous statement. To support the above statement, before this one, you have presently presented no argument or reasoning.

Now that that's noted, I'll go on to respond to this .

You're not looking at the decisions on a small enough level. In terms of brain chemistry and genetics, and in terms of experience, humans are quite different from one another. Comparing them on that level, if you expected both to be able to behave in the same ways, you might be considered quite silly.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

But that doesn't bear out in reality. Humans often go one way and then the other. Just because someone is heroic at some point in his life does not mean that he was not cowardly at another point. He obviously wasn't created to be heroic, since he might start being heroic, later become a cowardly, and still later become heroic again.

The nicest person in the world has probably done a mean thing or two in their lives, and some of the most evil may have done something nice on occasion.

Thus, if we have the ability to do both, and are predestined, we are restricted from doing one or the other at any given point in time. If a healthy bird somehow ceases to fly, something is retricting it.

Having responded above about the birds, I'll move on to the rest of this .

The fact that heroic people have sometimes behaved in cowardly ways, and the other way around, does indeed illustrate that humans can change. However, this depends on the large host of factors that determine identity. There's socialization, environment, what the person has been going through in life (history), along with genetics. If it was all genetics and unchanging, I'd say your point is valid. But identity is based upon a lot more than that. Indeed, when you carefully examine why people behave in one way at one time and in a completely different way at another time, if you look at the two different actions closely enough and at the events that led up to them, you'll usually find that there's a reason for the variance in behavior.

I only say "usually" because I doubt that we're precise enough to always be able to get into the motivations in the human psyche. I think that if we were that sophisticated, we'd see that it always makes sense. And knowing your own personal views on determinism, I'd say you agree with me .

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

That's where you have to go beyond logic, for if you apply that same logic to god, there'd be no "god" to create us.

I don't believe I'm moving beyond logic at all, for I'm assuming, and I think we've generally been discussing, the Christian God. That is a God who is eternal and has neither a beginning nor an end. He doesn't have to worry about creating his own personality, for it is eternal and unchanging. It is the divine "nature", I guess one could say.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

And I put god in quotes because we assume god is an entity of ultimate power and wisdom who controls things like matter and energy, as opposed to an entity that is just a result of matter and energy combining. Which is really just the scientific definition of our universe. In which case you can choose to include god or not include god and come to the same result: predestination with the perception of freedom.

I agree that one can believe in predestination without believing in God being responsible for it. I also agree that a god that is the result of matter and energy could indeed be interpreted as the universe.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

If god is ruled by predestination, as you say we are, then the ultimate "cause" is just existence itself.

And I believe that God is the eternal, natural existence, and hence the ultimate cause.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Things play out according to the combination of blind matter and energy and everything that follows is predestined, including god.

Most religious points of view assume that at least god is somehow beyond this logical restriction.

It's only a logical restriction if you assume a god who is not eternal. You have to assume that nature is matter and not first God. God is the initial Nature, and from his Nature, our physical, material nature comes.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

And if he has the ability to act outside such restrictions, there is no reason to believe that he could not pass this ability down at least to some extent. A "soul" that is free to act and grow over it's existence, as opposed to a soul that is destined to follow a given path.

A soul that is free to act and grow over its existence is a soul that is free to act and grow beyond itself, to become other than itself, to become not itself. If it is not itself, than what is it? Nothing. So it doesn't make sense.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

It may begin with randomization (and from watching my kids, I don't doubt it ), but that randomization becomes shaped over time into something greater.

An interesting choice of words, "becomes shaped." How does it become shaped? And how does it become greater than randomization?

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

It also goes back to something I mentioned a few posts back. Maybe our real freedom is the freedom to influence others.

That's a fascinating point of view for me to hear from you, as it comes pretty close in some ways to what I've concluded from predestination. I've argued that choices are expressions of ourselves that impact the world around us. They consist of our identity leaving its imprint upon everything that surrounds us. A part of this is "the freedom to influence others," for we can express our identities through "choices" that impact others. That is perfectly workable, by the predestination model.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

While our choices may be random, how those choices effect others around us are far from random, and we realize this an learn from it. Thus, while we retain the ability to make a completely random choice, we grow by our ability to sense how these choices effect others and modify our future choices in relation to this.

I agree with you that we "grow by our ability to sense how these choices effect others and modify our future choices in relation to this." Socialization is part of what makes up our identities. Learning from seeing how we have impacted others can indeed cause us to modify our future choices. Any given learning experience becomes part of our experience the moment we have it, and thus becomes part of what makes us who we are. We are impacted by what we experience, and we impact others in turn.

The other parts of what you said above, I do have problems with, though. I'll explain why.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

While our choices may be random, how those choices effect others around us are far from random, and we realize this an learn from it.

I don't see how this can make sense. If the choices of every human are random, and your random choices impact someone else, and that person's choices are random, then that person won't be impacted by your choice. If I start screaming and hitting you, and you might respond by going and turning on 101 Dalmations and starting to watch it. There is no impact, if there is randomization. The only way place where your "impact" packs any punch is in the parts of the human that are predestined.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Thus, while we retain the ability to make a completely random choice

I beg your pardon. We don't retain the ability to make a completely random choice. We don't make the choice. The choice is just made. We don't have the ability to make it. It makes us. There's a big linguistic difference .

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

It's order from randomness, by observing cause and effect. Our "identity" is the journey in and of itself. And, come judgement day, god does not judge us by what choices we made (since they weren't really choices), but by how we turned out. How much we've grown.

How can we be judged by how we turned out, if we didn't choose to turn out that way? The same question you've been leveling at me now applies to this "Free Will." Remember that we didn't choose the journey either, and how much we grew was beyond our control, as that comes out as random chance. I don't know what your process is by which order comes from randomization, but assuming that that does make sense, it certainly is not "us" that choose what order emerges.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

If I felt like digging up some posts from when RÃ*an was arguing for the existence of god, I think I'd find the same argument coming from my mouth.

I think so too . I've heard it many times. There is an absolutely huge stack of evidence for the truth of Christianity as a religion, though, so when those arguments are raised, they make no sense and are repeatedly disproven and invalidated by evidence from many sources. Furthermore, anyone who's truly deeply interested can find out for sure the truth by encountering Christ him or herself, and finding a lifelong relationship with a living and clearly interactive person, by doing that. Based upon this great preponderance of evidence, I favor the Biblical statement found in Romans, which says that men are "without excuse."

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

But, it seems to me that true faith is the opposite of logic, since you wouldn't have to have faith if it was logical.

That's blind faith you're talking about. That's not what God requires of people. Our faith in God is like that of a child waiting for his mother to provide him with food in the morning. He has faith that his mother will give him food for some very sound reasons. Past experience and loving relationship aren't proof that the mother will provide breakfast in the morning, but they do make the faith of the child perfectly rational. That is faith, but it's seeing faith, not blind faith.

And about logical faith being easy, let me just tell you from personal experience that it isn't. God tests faith by calling us to take risks for him. Even if I know in my head that he is capable, relying on him in practical experience can take a good deal of faith. God steadily works with me, increasing my faith one step at a time as he proves himself to me, accomplishing for me all he said he would and proving the accuracy of his words through actions. God does this for all believers who are in functional as opposed to dysfunctional relationships with him.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

please stop.

Lief is making no sense whatever, he's completely babbling, and it's clear he intends to keep doing that until "the opposition rests."

If he's willing to go so far as not to see a genetic difference between people and eagles that's more significant than between people and people, what can you do? Where you are there is trying to find out why the eagle isn't required to confess Christ Jesus as his personal saviour, and since the answer to that is clearly nonsensical why put everyone through it?

For me, I'm just begining to DREAD seeing this lugged into the top five, because it's so far past entertaining. It makes me want to send medical rescue to the boy's house.

Just my opinion.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I gotta say that your definition of "faith" is different than mine, then, and I suspect different than Lief's, too.

Having faith in something that is illogical is silly.

Faith is the firm belief in something that is unprovable. Like our old discussions on the existence of god. We both agreed that it's ultimately unprovable whether he exists or not. But you still have faith that he does.

Logic, on the other hand, is the process of proving something. And you can't prove, or disprove, something that is unprovable.

Thus, faith has nothing to do with logic. If you could prove god's existance via logic, you wouldn't need to resort to faith.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Oh, Good LORD, brownjenkins, please stop

Okay.

We're basically rehashing classical philosophical arguments anyway. And the very fact that these arguments existed thousands of years ago, and still exist today, proves that there are no correct answers, and never will be. If it was logical, there would be little or no debate.

All answers are relative to how one chooses to define concepts like "freedom" and "reponsibility". Which isn't too surprising, since the concepts themselves were created by us. Or, maybe just predestined to be created by us.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

We're basically rehashing classical philosophical arguments anyway. And the very fact that these arguments existed thousands of years ago, and still exist today, proves that there are no correct answers, and never will be. If it was logical, there would be little or no debate.

Sure there would be. Because humans aren't always logical. I believe most people base their lives on nonsense, and everyone does to a certain extent.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

All answers are relative to how one chooses to define concepts like "freedom" and "reponsibility". Which isn't too surprising, since the concepts themselves were created by us. Or, maybe just predestined to be created by us.

I agree that definitions are crucial in this debate. I think it's also clear that some definitions of those words are better than others. For example, defining freedom as "including chili peppers in the main dish," wouldn't make a whole lot of sense. So one definition can be better than another, and arguing over which makes the most sense can be very helpful.

I am sorry to see you decide to stop, especially if it was on the grounds for departure given in Earl's post (as is indicated by your stopping in response to his post): "he's completely babbling." I've been quite enjoying the debate, and I thought that in your last post, I may have seen a little common ground growing between our positions.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Faith is the firm belief in something that is unprovable. Like our old discussions on the existence of god. We both agreed that it's ultimately unprovable whether he exists or not. But you still have faith that he does.

Logic, on the other hand, is the process of proving something. And you can't prove, or disprove, something that is unprovable.

Thus, faith has nothing to do with logic. If you could prove god's existance via logic, you wouldn't need to resort to faith.

Logic cannot prove anything. Remember that you can always (and in this case had to) resort to a god who transcends logic to argue for what doesn't make sense, and you might be right! Maybe God does transcend logic and Free Will does make sense!

So no one can ever "prove" anything. And faith can rest in something unprovable while still being logical and reasonable. A child has no proof that his mother will provide him with breakfast in the morning. He has very good reason to believe that she will though, and the belief is logical, based on what he knows of her character and her past experience of her behavior.

Demanding "proof" is the height of unreasonableness, since absolutely nothing can ever be proved, not by science nor by logic, nor by anything else, and we live our lives based on beliefs that are unproven, however strongly supported by evidence they might be.

Faith is fully supported by evidence in the case of God. Faith is still required, though. If you hear God tell you to go and speak in front of a bunch of teenagers for fifteen minutes when you have not prepared a message for them at all, and have no time but total reliance upon God, one feels very nervous however rational faith might be. In this case, I'm speaking from personal experience.

There have been several times in my life when God has asked me to do things for him, and there is an element of fear in doing it, however rational faith in God might be. So faith is required and is pretty freaky, even though it makes sense and comes out with good results.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I am sorry to see you decide to stop, especially if it was on the grounds for departure given in Earl's post (as is indicated by your stopping in response to his post): "he's completely babbling." I've been quite enjoying the debate, and I thought that in your last post, I may have seen a little common ground growing between our positions.

Mostly, it seems as if we covered it all and are just repeating ourselves. I've mentioned various possibilities, so there is common ground. In fact, my personal belief, that all reality is predetermined by cause and effect, is very close to yours, I just don't feel the need to insert god.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Logic cannot prove anything. Remember that you can always (and in this case had to) resort to a god who transcends logic to argue for what doesn't make sense, and you might be right! Maybe God does transcend logic and Free Will does make sense!

And you had to transcend logic by making god a "first cause". So we're even.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

So no one can ever "prove" anything. And faith can rest in something unprovable while still being logical and reasonable.

I agree. Logical if you accept certain factors not based in logic, or at least not based in observation. But faith represents certainty about particular unknowns to most religious-types, at least as far as I've seen.

If one buys the big bang theory from a scientific point of view, they believe that the universe probably started with a singularity. If one buys creationist theory, they are typically certain that god created the universe.

Certainly, there are plenty of religious people who believe in god, but aren't certain. But if someone says, "I have faith that our universe was created by god." I read that as, "god definitely created our universe." Not, "god probably created our universe."

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

And you had to transcend logic by making god a "first cause". So we're even.

Your initial statement, which I disagreed which therefore which was the initial primary subject of this debate, was that you thought any religious person had to believe in some form of free will to make sense. I believe that that was your original statement. You thought that the logical conclusion of religion was free will, and that if you were religious, you'd have to believe in free will.

I have only been arguing that predestination makes sense assuming Christian doctrine. I have never been trying to argue for predestination without Christian doctrine. Since my statement that God was a first cause is entirely in accord with Christian doctrine, it was perfectly valid, considering my assumptions.

Though actually, one doesn't even have to assume Christian doctrine in order to make sense and be logical. Christian doctrine can stand on its own without assumpting it. As I said before, there is a vast quantity of evidence supporting the truth of Christianity as a religion. That evidence makes acceptance of Christian doctrine logical. So because of the evidence, logic dictates that one accept Christian doctrine as true. Therefore, because Christian doctrine is accepted as true, assuming its framework for debating predestination makes sense.

I know that you don't agree with me about the evidence, and that without it, my claims about the nature of God transcend logic. The debate over the evidence is a whole 'nother issue. I've only been trying to argue here, though, that assuming Christianity's accuracy, predestination makes perfect sense and does not diminish either us or God.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I agree. Logical if you accept certain factors not based in logic, or at least not based in observation. But faith represents certainty about particular unknowns to most religious-types, at least as far as I've seen.

If one buys the big bang theory from a scientific point of view, they believe that the universe probably started with a singularity. If one buys creationist theory, they are typically certain that god created the universe.

Certainly, there are plenty of religious people who believe in god, but aren't certain. But if someone says, "I have faith that our universe was created by god." I read that as, "god definitely created our universe." Not, "god probably created our universe."

I see your point, and I too disagree with people who say they "know" God created the universe, or people who say they "know" God exists. We might be in the Matrix, and the outside evidence and supernatural experiences we have with God, and all the signs by which he proves himself to mankind, might have been programmed by some robots into our nonexistent brains.

We can't live life assuming that nothing is real, though. When you sat down on your chair to read this message, you did so assuming you wouldn't go through the chair and the floor and into the center of the Earth to melt. We have to assume that things make sense and follow a certain rational order if we are to live our lives, for otherwise we'll probably end up in car accidents, if we ever had believed enough in our cars to enter them in the first place.

In my opinion, the evidence for Christianity is so powerful that no one can deny its validity without allowing bias, illogical and terribly faulty reasoning, and personal feelings to cloud their judgment. Observation is a major part of this evidence, both physical observation that everyone can see rather than individuals, as well as personal spiritual experiences that others haven't experienced and so can't judge. Observable evidence includes fulfilled prophecies (which can be seen as the repeatable, predictive experiment mandated by science, as one prophet can make multiple prophecies with them all coming true), miracles, and other gifts of the Spirit. The accuracy of the scripture, as corroborated by many sources, is also important. So are statistics indicating the likelihood that Jesus could have fulfilled the prophecies of the Messiah that he fulfilled. I could go into other evidences too. Some of them are scientifically repeatable. Many stand on their own as powerful signs, without that.

For me, because of my personal experiences with Christ and the Holy Spirit, and all the outside evidence I have seen supporting Christian doctrine, it would make as much sense for me to doubt the existence of my brothers and family as it would to doubt the existence of a personal, Christian God. That's how strongly God can prove himself to believers through his interaction with them. There is such a thing as proving "beyond reasonable doubt." Assuming we aren't in the Matrix or in the hands of a God who transcends logic and tricks us with what we see, we can be very, very sure that we are right when believing in Christian doctrine.

That's my perspective on this . I know that this naturally leads to a debate over the evidence. If you want to go there, we can. But I'll just say before we do, if we do, that the personal experience with Christ would be what really clinches it for you. If you pray to God that he will reveal himself to you, and if you are willing to change your life (or allow him to do so for you, which he can do) if he does so, he will do so. And if you can't ask that he reveal himself now from your heart, with that willingness to change your life in response, you can ask him to put it in your heart to be able to ask from your heart.

I believe God would answer such a prayer. And that would also be the first sign of many that would follow, for you.