God, as ever, shows itself to be addendum.

(February 1, 2018 at 9:53 am)SteveII Wrote:

(January 31, 2018 at 10:17 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Well, no.  I’m not going to just give free will to the argument. That’s my whole point.  But you’re right; there are a near infinite number of worlds he could have created.  The onus is on you to demonstrate your premise that a world with free will, that inevitably results in billions of souls suffering in eternal spiritual agony, is better than any other alternative, including worlds without free will.  So far, the strongest you’ve offered is that, “it seems” to be that way.  Better for who?  And why? 

Free will is absolutely central to almost all Christian doctrine. You don't get to withhold it in a discussion about Christian doctrine. It is a given.

I understand that, but I’m not here to sit back and listen to a lecture on the details of the Christian doctrine.  Of course, your arguments regarding the doctrine are logical within the doctrine.  That’s not so hard to accomplish.  ‘According to Christianity, free will is the most important thing to god, therefore a world with free will is the best possible world, because Christianity says so.’  What I am doing is questioning  the moral and logical underpinnings of those doctrines.  

 I’m not trying to withhold  free will from the discussion at all; quite the opposite, in fact.  I’m saying I don’t concede that it’s objectively the best possible world, because no one has given me a logical reason besides, ‘cuz god said so.’    I’m asking you to think outside that bubble for ten minutes and ask yourself why a creation with free will is “better” than one without it, considering god knew ahead of time how many of his children’s souls would be damned for eternity.  Better for who, and why? Also, why did god create us at all?

Quote:Do you really think this is a point that needs to be made in a discussion about a very specific Christian doctrine?

It is if I’m questioning the underlying moral and logical foundations of this god, and how people decide who exactly he is, and why he does what he does.  How do any of you know any of that outside of, ‘the Bible tells me so’?

Quote:It is actually a discussion stopping device usually pulled out when all the objections have been knocked down.[/i]

Oh, I have a nearly endless number of objections to the Christian doctrine, lol.  I’ve no interest in stopping discussion.  I much prefer engaging with you, rather than a character the likes of Banned, who simply says, ‘I believe it cuz I believe it; praise Jesus, you’re gonna burn.’  That’s no fun at all.  😛

(February 1, 2018 at 12:25 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(February 1, 2018 at 10:55 am)Grandizer Wrote: You don't have much faith in your God's ability to come up with a much better world than this, one with far less suffering? Even granting free will, God could still intervene in people's affairs to protect would-be victims from serious harm such as rape and molestation and torture, provide men/women with curatives for cancer and other fatal illnesses and diseases, rain down food and water for people most in need of such resources, and stop massive natural disasters from wreaking havoc on this world and causing severe damages to both people and property. He intervened in people's affairs quite a lot in the Old Testament, he sure as hell can do it anytime, especially today. It didn't stop him before.

You are describing something other than free will if God stops you from doing something that would cause harm. This is the old PoE argument. It has been thoroughly addressed by philosophers but still lingers because there is an emotional (not a logical) objection. Start another thread if you want to discuss.

What the fuck are you on about? I am arguing that the God you believe in did intervene in people's lives (according to the Bible) despite your free will defense, and yet here you are just handwaving what I said and implying it is irrelevant, with nothing of substance in response?

As human beings, it is our advanced brains that allow us to make moral choices, aka - have moral free will. If we didnt, we would be no different from apes, psychologically. We have the ability to rationalize, to love, and to experience joy in a way that the other creatures do not, and with that, the ability to understand right from wrong and to choose which way to go. If we didn't have moral free will, we would just be another species of monkey.

I guess I don't get how some folks can't see the value in having free will, and would prefer us not have it...

We -are- apes......................

In any case, who cares about "the value of free will". It'd be nice to have wings too..doesn't mean I have them. The above is a variant of "If this were true, it would be bad, therefore it's not true". That dog doesn't hunt. Meanwhile, whatever it is we do have does what it does even if it's not a "free will"...so comments on the value of some "free will" are supposed to mean what, exactly?

The notion that there may be no such thing as a "free will" is only bad for certain religions, and has no value outside of them. The value it possesses -within- them invariably amounts to some comment about how whores deserve what they get...so even that's more than a little bit suspect.

(February 1, 2018 at 5:17 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: As human beings, it is our advanced brains that allow us to make moral choices, aka - have moral free will. If we didnt, we would be no different from apes, psychologically. We have the ability to rationalize, to love, and to experience joy in a way that the other creatures do not, and with that, the ability to understand right from wrong and to choose which way to go. If we didn't have moral free will, we would just be another species of monkey.

I guess I don't get how some folks can't see the value in having free will, and would prefer us not have it...

I'd wager that apes can love and, to some extent, rationalize the world around them...

(February 1, 2018 at 5:56 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(February 1, 2018 at 5:17 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: As human beings, it is our advanced brains that allow us to make moral choices, aka - have moral free will. If we didnt, we would be no different from apes, psychologically. We have the ability to rationalize, to love, and to experience joy in a way that the other creatures do not, and with that, the ability to understand right from wrong and to choose which way to go. If we didn't have moral free will, we would just be another species of monkey.

I guess I don't get how some folks can't see the value in having free will, and would prefer us not have it...

I'd wager that apes can love and, to some extent, rationalize the world around them...

Lol, I knew someone would come back with examples and be like "See?? Animals can love/rationalize/be happy too!" 

But seriously. You know I love you Poca but I think you're being obtuse. 

Anyway, I wrote: "We have the ability to rationalize, to love, and to experience joy in a way that the other creatures do not" 

...Not to say they don't at all (I have 7 cats, I know lol), but not nearly to our extent.

(February 1, 2018 at 12:42 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(January 31, 2018 at 11:39 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Once the need is recognized, sure, that would be a step in the right direction. A person still needs to look outside themselves for both salvation and forgiveness. As the Schoolmen said, "you cannot give what you do not have." That is why atheists cannot go to Heaven.  They have arrogated unto themselves a power they do not have - the ability to absolve sin.

But doesn't Jesus forgive so long as there is real remorse? As another example, the man dying on the cross next to Jesus. He didn't ask Jesus for forgiveness. He didn't even say he believed Jesus was God... He simply said Jesus was an innocent man who didn't deserve the death sentence. And he expressed that he himself had done many things wrong and did deserve death. The man expressed remorse for his wrong doings, and Jesus said to him immediately "You will be in paradise."

Sorry if I'm being annoying here. I'm not trying to argue. I just feel like in asking you these questions I also learn.

That's the one of the best biblical example of perfect contrition. At the same time, there are, as you noted a couple ambiguities about the story. The biblical record does not specifically say that the thief acknowledged Jesus as Lord and yet he did know that Jesus was the Christ because the unrepentant thief said so.

I think you're looking at this from an entirely theoretical perspective. For me, the practical application is more important. When people think there is a loophole, then they feel entitled to exploit it. You really don't know if their is some atheist lurker reading our discussion who might be thinking to himself that there isn't any urgency about considering Christ's forgiveness. He may think he's in the clear simply because he feels guilty and made restoration to those he has wronged.

The first hurdle to atheist lurkers considering Christ's forgiveness is convincing them that there is such a thing. They can't be afraid of not getting it unless they already believe it's real. One barrier to believing it's real is that belief is implausible as a requirement for forgiveness from someone who is supposedly theodic.

(February 1, 2018 at 6:03 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Anyway, I wrote: "We have the ability to rationalize, to love, and to experience joy in a way that the other creatures do not" 

Propping up a shoddy assertion with another shoddy assertion, and this one is as patently meaningless as the last. Can anyone tell me that those other apes and other animals don;t have a way to experience x y and z beyond -our- ken?