spockrates Wrote:I cannot think of any reason why you, or I are not free to choose as we decide to choose. Can you?

Is that really the best you have? That you have no reason to think otherwise?

We may very be slaves to our brain structure. We already know that it has a huge influence on our decision, so it may very well be entirely in control.

"I used to think the brain was the most important organ in the human body. Then I realised what it was that was telling me that."
-- Emo Philips, philosopher and scholar

(August 25, 2012 at 4:11 pm)spockrates Wrote: ...

Thanks, Tea. Please tell me: What evidence do you expect a true religion to have? Will you be more specific?

It depends on the religion and its claims. For Christianity, I would need evidence that Jesus was the son God, performed miracles, died on a cross for our sins, and was raised from the dead. The only evidence I get are contradictory reports several decades later from the events who do not document the story anywhere close to the best scientific and historical methods of the time (Luke is the only gospel that pretends to be historical investigation but it's pathetic compared to real histories from real historians that lived around that era). They contain stories that are very similar to other myths that we know for certain preceded Christianity. The story follows the dying and rising motif common in myths. (apologists like to point out little differences and act like that means anything but they're just nit picking and missing the obvious basic similarities).

If Christianity were true, I would expect multiple independent (the gospels are not independent) witnesses writing from the time of Jesus' life describing his miraculous deeds. The miracles would have to be truly spectacular events that aren't the same sort of "miracles" that cults have been always fooling themselves and others with. The witnesses' stories would have to corroborate with each other yet not be dependent on another. I would expect the same for Jesus' death, burial, resurrection and ascension.

If Christianity were true, I would expect a massive growth rate of Christians in the first century. Instead it's the same puny rate that other aggressively evangelistic religions experience. Assuming Jesus did all these great miracles and rose from the dead I would expect many more converts than there were.

If Christianity were true, I would expect us now 2000 years later to have some sort of assurance that first century Christians were joining because they critically analyzed the evidence for and against the truth of Christianity (interviewing witnesses, testing to see if miracles of Jesus and the apostles, and also their own tongue speaking were really miraculous events and not just tricks or fiction). Instead, the only evidence we have of any sort of critical investigation was converts deciding Christianity was true because it agreed with the O.T. and it seemed better than the other religions! Hardly objective reasons to join a religion.

If Christianity were true, I would have expected the tradition of believers to perform miracles and speak tongues (in a way that was plainly miraculous i.e. not like pentecostals) not to have died out like it always does in other religions.

I would also like evidence of an afterlife, including evidence of heaven and hell. I would like evidence of soul. I would like evidence of this so called "sin nature" I was supposed to have inherited (I didn't have any choice in matter apparently!) from Adam. It would have been really cool if maybe we found some sort of "soul chamber" in our body with like a glowing light or something but nope, all just flesh and bone. It would have been cool if we could actually see heaven with our own eyes (in a way that doesn't involve oxygen depreciation) but all we see is blue sky and space and barren planets. It would have been frightfully cool if we could detect the screams of people down under the ground in hell, but all we find is dirt, rock, and lava. It would be cool if maybe under a microscope we could see little "sin nature" microbes that our body is covered with. Don't see that or any evidence of our sin nature.

I could think of some more evidences I would expect, but I'm out time.

(August 25, 2012 at 4:38 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

spockrates Wrote:I cannot think of any reason why you, or I are not free to choose as we decide to choose. Can you?

Is that really the best you have? That you have no reason to think otherwise?

We may very be slaves to our brain structure. We already know that it has a huge influence on our decision, so it may very well be entirely in control.

Well, if my brain is my mind and it is in control, then my brain has control of the decisions made. It is free, so I must be! However, if you are saying my mind is not my brain, but something else (like a soul) then I suppose my brain might be the puppet master pulling my soul's strings, yes. But is that what you are saying? My soul is slave to my brain? If not, then how can my brain not be free, since it has complete control over me and is, in fact me?

---

(August 25, 2012 at 4:46 pm)Stimbo Wrote: "I used to think the brain was the most important organ in the human body. Then I realised what it was that was telling me that."
-- Emo Philips, philosopher and scholar

LOL!

---

(August 25, 2012 at 5:47 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote:

(August 25, 2012 at 4:11 pm)spockrates Wrote: ...

Thanks, Tea. Please tell me: What evidence do you expect a true religion to have? Will you be more specific?

It depends on the religion and its claims. For Christianity, I would need evidence that Jesus was the son God, performed miracles, died on a cross for our sins, and was raised from the dead. The only evidence I get are contradictory reports several decades later from the events who do not document the story anywhere close to the best scientific and historical methods of the time (Luke is the only gospel that pretends to be historical investigation but it's pathetic compared to real histories from real historians that lived around that era). They contain stories that are very similar to other myths that we know for certain preceded Christianity. The story follows the dying and rising motif common in myths. (apologists like to point out little differences and act like that means anything but they're just nit picking and missing the obvious basic similarities).

So would you say your doubt of the historical reliability of the New Testament books and letters stems mostly from their contradictory accounts, or from your doubt of the fantastic claims about Jesus Christ?

---

(August 25, 2012 at 4:34 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(August 25, 2012 at 4:11 pm)spockrates Wrote: I cannot think of any reason why you, or I are not free to choose as we decide to choose. Can you?

Is this because of your own freedom that you cannot think of any such reason, or because of some predestination or similar that involves your not thinking of one?

Yeah, perhaps I'm a sleeper CYLON and I only think I'm human. Watch out Adama, I've got a bullet with your name on it, and I don't even know it!

(August 25, 2012 at 6:59 pm)spockrates Wrote: ...

So would you say your doubt of the historical reliability of the New Testament books and letters stems mostly from their contradictory accounts, or from your doubt of the fantastic claims about Jesus Christ?
...

It stems equally from both and more. The gospels can be shown to have an evangelistic agendas tailored to their audiences. Most of the individual stories are not unlike many other stories of myths. Jesus dying and then rising is just another instance of the dying and rising god motif.

(August 25, 2012 at 6:59 pm)spockrates Wrote: Yeah, perhaps I'm a sleeper CYLON and I only think I'm human. Watch out Adama, I've got a bullet with your name on it, and I don't even know it!

Apologies to all BSG fans, 'cos I know how popular the reboot series is, but personally I tuned out when Starbuck rebooted into a girl and Adama gained a first name. Cheesy as it now looks and even as it did at the time, I'll take the original series any day.

Speaking of cheese, and I apologise again for straying off topic, there's a brand of such fermented curdled comestible over here called Leerdammer, which some have pointed out sounds uncannily like Lee Adama. Coincidence?

Yes.

(August 25, 2012 at 8:36 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote:

(August 25, 2012 at 6:59 pm)spockrates Wrote: ...

So would you say your doubt of the historical reliability of the New Testament books and letters stems mostly from their contradictory accounts, or from your doubt of the fantastic claims about Jesus Christ?
...

It stems equally from both and more. The gospels can be shown to have an evangelistic agendas tailored to their audiences. Most of the individual stories are not unlike many other stories of myths. Jesus dying and then rising is just another instance of the dying and rising god motif.

Interesting. Will you give me an example of one such motif?

(August 25, 2012 at 10:06 pm)spockrates Wrote:

(August 25, 2012 at 8:36 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: It stems equally from both and more. The gospels can be shown to have an evangelistic agendas tailored to their audiences. Most of the individual stories are not unlike many other stories of myths. Jesus dying and then rising is just another instance of the dying and rising god motif.

Interesting. Will you give me an example of one such motif?

Inanna, Romulus, Osiris, Zalmoxis, and Adonis are considered dying and rising gods.

Of course, none of them will match completely the story of Jesus, but they same basic elements

Quote:spockrates Wrote:I cannot think of any reason why you, or I are not free to choose as we decide to choose. Can you?

Telling a person 'do as I say or I will hurt you' (you will go to hell) is called 'Hobson's choice' IE no choice or'coercion'


As for the implicit claim of free will. The free/determinism dichotomy remains a major metaphysical dilemma.


The notion of an omniscient god abrogates the concept of free will.This was something of which The Calvinists with their doctrine of predestination understood but tried to weasel out of.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote: Objection: If man has no free will, i.e. God elects and controls everything including man's sinful acts, how can you not conclude that God is responsible for sin and evil? That God is the author of sin and evil?

Response: Calvinists do not deny free will. We affirm that people are free to choose what they want to choose. We state that the unbelievers nature is so corrupt that he does not have the ability in his own will, to choose to follow God. This is why the Scriptures say...

“There is none righteous, not even one; 11 There is none who understands. There is none who seeks for God; 12 All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good. There is not even one,” (Romans 3:10-12).

"But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised," (1 Cor. 2:14).

If the Bible says the unbeliever is not "free" then he is not free. The Bible says the unbeliever is deceitful and sick (Jer. 17:9), full of evil (Mk 7:21-23), loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19), does not understand, does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12), is dead in his trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1), is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3), cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14). How then is the unbeliever able to choose God? He cannot.

http://www.calvinistcorner.com/answers/freewill.htm

(August 25, 2012 at 9:21 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(August 25, 2012 at 6:59 pm)spockrates Wrote: Yeah, perhaps I'm a sleeper CYLON and I only think I'm human. Watch out Adama, I've got a bullet with your name on it, and I don't even know it!

Apologies to all BSG fans, 'cos I know how popular the reboot series is, but personally I tuned out when Starbuck rebooted into a girl and Adama gained a first name. Cheesy as it now looks and even as it did at the time, I'll take the original series any day.

Speaking of cheese, and I apologise again for straying off topic, there's a brand of such fermented curdled comestible over here called Leerdammer, which some have pointed out sounds uncannily like Lee Adama. Coincidence?

Yes.

Yes, having her colonial viper explode and then having her appear months later with no memory of the event and then having her find her own charred remains in a crashed viper on some alien planet was cheesy, since there was no explanation given as to how this was possible.

I'm guessing the original intension of the writers was to come up with some alternate universe hypothesis, but the United States writers' strike that occurred during the TV series interfered with that plan.

What I did like about the series is what I liked about Star Trek (TOS): It took on hot ethical topics and dressed them in science fiction to make viewers think. The ethics of war, racism, religious fanaticism and terrorism that were played out in the daily news reports about the war in Iraq were echoed in the series. When the humans fighting for survival against the CYLON occupying force resorted to using suicide bombers, it was an eye opener. I wanted the humans to win the conflict and even found myself understanding why they thought it was the only viable military tactic they had, given their hopeless situation.

---

(August 26, 2012 at 12:16 am)padraic Wrote:

Quote:spockrates Wrote:I cannot think of any reason why you, or I are not free to choose as we decide to choose. Can you?

Telling a person 'do as I say or I will hurt you' (you will go to hell) is called 'Hobson's choice' IE no choice or'coercion'

Yes, I agree the, "Everyone who doesn't choose me be damned," concept tends to force a choice to anyone who believes it. I also believe it does not fit the concept of a just an merciful God presented by the biblical authors. These are two reasons why I am considering Catholicism. Catholics teach that only certain grevious kinds of sins (for example, murder) deserve hell as a consequence, and that those who avoid them either go directly to heaven, or go to heaven by way of a temporary stay in Purgatory.

Quote:As for the implicit claim of free will. The free/determinism dichotomy remains a major metaphysical dilemma.

The notion of an omniscient god abrogates the concept of free will.This was something of which The Calvinists with their doctrine of predestination understood but tried to weasel out.

Yes, Rythm has helped me to understand this in this discussion. (One reason why I value forums like these is learning something new and why it's true.) If God has total omniscience, it is indeed probable that this abrogates our freewill.
But I've also learned why it is true that if God has inherent omniscience, our freewill is likely not abrogated.

---

It reminds me of that game I liked to play with my sons when they were younger--rock, paper, scissors. Paper covers rock. Rock smashes scissors. Scissors cuts paper. Each one limits another, and none is greater than all.

One might use the game to help one understand omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence. Omnipotence limits omniscience. Omnibenevolence limits omnipotence. Omniscience limits omnibenevolence. If God exists, the most logical understanding of this God is that all three types of its attributes are inherent, rather than total. For the attributes of this God would logically be in perfect balance.

That's the truth I've learned at this point in the dialog. It seems to me that this understanding of the God concept demonstrates that it is not illogical to believe that God, were it to exist, would be inherently omniscient and omnipotent--though not totally so.

Whether inherent omnibenevolence will withstand skeptical scrutiny, I do not know. I'm waiting for others to discuss why they believe God is not inherently good. As I said previously, a God who is not omnibenevolent is not worthy of adoration and imitation.