What are the Characteristics of a NT Christian?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Metaphysical truths include things like the Principle of Non-Contradiction.  If the PNC is not true then that would mean that reason itself is not effective. That is a self-defeating position.

Thank you for mentioning this point, Neo-Scholastic.

With all due respect and out of curiosity, does god have both rational and irrational qualities [A]? Assuming [A] is the case, from a theistic view, if god is the ultimate source of metaphysical truth and people are to be representatives of god’s attributes, then do they also put god’s irrationality into practice (would this explain the presence of conflicting/contradictory religious ideas/truths)? Thus, is reason an effective tool to use in understanding/justifying one’s theistic beliefs/position, or does utilizing this tool ultimately lead one to a self-defeating position? Is it necessary to have a blend of rationality and irrationality in order to make sense of one's beliefs? Hence, from a theistic view, does the PNC always hold?

Thank you for your time, attention, and thoughtful responses.

I must admit that I do not fully understand the point you are trying to make. I'm not sure what you mean by a rational quality unless you mean something about which it is possible to reason. In that case, anything we can say that is true about God would be consistent with how God actually is. What would you consider to be an irrational quality of God?

Otherwise it is important to remember that, some things are pre-rational. In most cases, people do not reason their way towards a memory or a perception. When someone remembers his eleventh birthday, he just does remember it. People don't assemble evidence to figure out what they remember (although facts can help prompt us to remember). Likewise, if someone sees a cow in his yard, he sees a cow. Perceptions and memories are things from which people reason; they don't reason towards memories and perceptions. People share their experiences and their memories, they discuss them, reason about them, and they come to different conclusions. During a debate, it doesn't help to invalidate another persons experiences or memories by calling them irrational. The term simply does not apply because memories and perceptions are properly basic*. One can; however, call into question the conclusions people draw based on their memories and perceptions. Faith is like memory and perception. It is the pre-rational apprehension of the divine. Faith beliefs may be later subject to defeaters, but initially they are, like memories and perceptions, properly basic. We reason from faith (or the lacks thereof) and not towards it.

Your last question is does the PNC always hold? Yes. The alternative is nihilism.

*This is not a absolute rule. People do experience false memories and are fooled by illusions. In these cases, the knowledge they thought they had is contradicted by some defeater. That does not change the order of the cognitive process. The memory or perception must first be present before it can be scrutinized to determine if the mind performed those functions properly.

[Brian37]

How many different ways should I make it clear that I am asking you to demonstrate that it is actually impossible that all human beings would choose good all the time? I don't care for mere expressions of incredulity about the possibility, I want you to demonstrate that it is impossible. If you can't do that, then it's a legit objection that you have not been able to rule out.

To put this in a Biblical way: If Adam and Eve had never eaten from the forbidden tree, would their descendants have inevitably disobeyed God by eating from the tree?

To be free to do good means to be free to do good all the time.


Steve, if it is at all possible, then this does undercut the argument that God could not have created a better would.


Then that makes you a compatibilist, essentially a determinist. You don't adhere to libertarian free will. But then, how is this a useful type of free will to argue for in the context of this discussion? At the end of the day, compatibilism/determinism implies that you couldn't have been some other way and that therefore every choice you make was predetermined (even if you made the choice in accordance with your preferences, personal experience, understanding of life, etc.). And if everything you do (including your intentions) are predetermined, then why is God punishing anyone for failures that they couldn't have avoided doing? He could've simply created all human beings to be predetermined to not fail and thereby avoid punishment and other repercussions ...

1/2. And how many times do I have to say that it is an atheist argument and all I have to do is undercut the premise that it is actually possible (versus broadly logically possible) that God could create a world were everyone would always choose good. I have undercut with it does not seem possible that such a world could exist. This is an intuitive and reasonable conclusion after observing human history. You do not have a defeater for that objection and that is just one reason the PoE argument fails and no one outside of atheist forums think it is a successful logical argument. 

3. No, I believe in dualism. The immaterial mind causes material things to happen. No determinism there. No determinism, no compatiblism.

The "immaterial mind causes material things to happen".

Oh bullshit, when I was a kid there was a time when movies like the Exorcist or Poltergeist would have scared me, and I would have believed humans could move things without touching them, or spirits could move things without touching them.

ALL UTTER NONSENSE.

If a material object moves it is because physical actions took place. Even at the neurological level. My typing this response to your nonsense, is because YOU typed it which is a physical action. 

Your crappy ideas are a result of others either writing stuff or saying stuff that you used your senses to observe which created new neurological pathways in your brain, and in return, you turn around and try to use PHYSICAL actions to sell your claims. No magic involved. 

There is no "immaterial mind". You are your brain in motion. No fuel, no motion, no structure, your brain dies. 

What you call mind, is bullshit. It is like saying it is possible for speed to happen without a car with fuel.

"Mind" is merely the word we describe for the motion of the brain, which is a lifetime of senses physically taking in what the brain interprets. 

"The car is going 55mph" is not a material thing, but a description of the motion of a physical thing.

[SteveII]

In other words, your version of God isn't omnipotent enough to accomplish goodness on Earth, but you buy that he'll be able to pull it off in heaven, despite previous rebellions.

Do you not see that by establishing free will, God has decided not to controlling the result? Your question is literally asking why can't God control people with free will. Your mention of an angelic rebellion undermines your own complaint. Some angels--despite direct knowledge and access to God, exercised their free will and rebelled, yet you would have us believe that it is likely that God (if he exists) could create free will humans without the direct knowledge and access the angels had and we would always choose good.

[Brian37]

In other words, your version of God isn't omnipotent enough to accomplish goodness on Earth, but you buy that he'll be able to pull it off in heaven, despite previous rebellions.

That entire book hardly reflects efficiency.

It would seem to me if you are all powerful, all knowing and all loving, you'd find a shorter path with the least conflict to get everyone on the same page. 

But it seems to me this character loves all the drama. 

Really? You had to "allow" kids to die to settle a beef you had with an adult? 

You had to murder everyone in a flood besides 1 family, including kids of those who didn't kiss your ass? 

And why all the resets?

Garden didn't work, otherwise why change it?

Flood didn't work, otherwise why Jesus? 

Jesus didn't work because people still sin.

And what does he go back to doing at the end of this book? He goes back to getting revenge on anyone who didn't kiss his ass, throws them into fire like burning trash?

No, that does not sound like someone you can reason with, but a petty childish narcissist bully.

The bible really does read like an episode of Jerry Springer. God is the ringmaster host, creates needless drama, allows it to go on display on a show he set up, blames his props for show he set up, then burns the stage set down and says "TA DAH!".

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

What would you consider to be an irrational quality of God? During a debate, it doesn't help to invalidate another persons experiences or memories by calling them irrational. The term simply does not apply because memories and perceptions are properly basic*.

First, I apologize if my post came off in a negative way: it was not my intent to use irrational as an insult.  For example, due to the fact that I possess emotions, irrationality is simply a part of my being: IMO, the best that I can do is to try and find a constructive balance between emotion and reason.  With that said, does god possess emotions? If it does, then would this mean that it is irrational in some aspects, as emotions do not strictly obey logic and reason?

Also, my aim is to engage in a dialog (I've tried to ask more questions and make less statements) here and not a debate.  IMO, a debate has the tendency to promote win-lose mentalities, which keeps people from challenging their own starting points and keeps them entrenched in their particular positions; whereas, a dialog allows people to step out of their positions and explore the other's point of view.  Hence, I wish to engage in a dialog here, so I apologize if I have come off as contradicting that aim.

We reason from faith (or the lacks thereof) and not towards it.

Thank you Neo-Scholastic.  I have noticed that you have made this point quite a few times on this board.  

If practitioners of theism are to start from faith and reason from it, and god's love is a big part of that faith, then, IMO, it seems that emotion is a big part of that starting point.  Hence, as people reason from that starting point, do they carry rational (logic) and irrational (emotional) qualities with them? Is this  a "properly basic" attribute of faith?

Thank you for your time and attention, Neo-Scholastic.

[Neo-Scholastic]

For example, due to the fact that I possess emotions, irrationality is simply a part of my being: IMO, the best that I can do is to try and find a constructive balance between emotion and reason. With that said, does god possess emotions? If it does, then would this mean that it is irrational in some aspects, as emotions do not strictly obey logic and reason?

First, I do not share your opinion that emotions are necessarily irrational. It is rational to fear a poisonous spider, while irrational to fear a lady bug. For us limited human beings, one goal is to seek harmony between our emotions and our reason – to desire what is good based on what is true. In the case of God the harmony between what is good, beautiful and true is complete.

Does God possess emotions? That is a very difficult and long debated question.

The classical view is that God is impassible, capable of neither pain nor pleasure. The reasoning goes that if God could experience emotion then He would actualize a potential not already present in Himself. If so, then He is a contingent being, not God. The problem with this reasoning (and why I think it is wrong) is that it assumes that emotions are just passive responses. I do not believe that all emotions are passive. Love is indeed something people feel in response to others, but it is also a feeling (grace and charity) we initiate towards others. So IMHO it is entirely consistent for God to eternally and actively feel love for His creation, to share in our sorrows and endure the pain of the Cross. Nevertheless it is an important question.

Also, my aim is to engage in a dialog (I've tried to ask more questions and make less statements) here and not a debate. ..Hence, I wish to engage in a dialog here, so I apologize if I have come off as contradicting that aim.

You are clearly a person of goodwill. I never sensed anything else from you.

We reason from faith (or the lacks thereof) and not towards it.

If practitioners of theism are to start from faith and reason from it, and god's love is a big part of that faith, then, IMO, it seems that emotion is a big part of that starting point. Hence, as people reason from that starting point, do they carry rational (logic) and irrational (emotional) qualities with them? Is this a "properly basic" attribute of faith?

Believer’s apprehend the divine in a way that is similar to having a memory. If I look through a photo album, the pictures will prompt my memory. It is proper for me to believe my recollections a true in a basic way. Memories are properly basic beliefs but that doesn’t mean they are always warranted. There are times when our memories fail us. They are warranted only in the absence of valid objections and defeaters.

In the same way, when a Christian reads the gospel, it prompts within them the “sensus divinitatis” to see the work of God in its message. But at the same time, MysticKnight (for example) reads the Koran and has the same experience. MK’s belief is properly basic for him too. So what are we to do? I say, that neither MK nor I should disregard our sense of the divine; but rather, we should each use our faith as the starting point from which we both examine possible defeaters and the implications of our respective faiths. This would be like comparing our recollections about a shared experience, like a birthday party we both attended. Indeed. MK and I have areas of broad agreement with respect to the general revelation. We agree that the world has a creator and sustainer, that the existence of moral facts depends on a transcendent good, that personal identity stands in relation to the divine, etc. Of course we have many differences about special revelation. Faith is not an impediment to resolving those differences. To the contrary, it is essential for MK and me to constantly reflect on whether the doctrines we espouse are consistent with our internal sense of the divine.

[GrandizerII]

1/2. And how many times do I have to say that it is an atheist argument and all I have to do is undercut the premise that it is actually possible (versus broadly logically possible) that God could create a world were everyone would always choose good.

Ok, Steve, I have let you get away with the red herring distinction between "actually possible" and "broadly logically possible" for far too many posts, so I'm going to ask you to either provide an argument that there is such a distinction (using an illustrative example) or stop making the distinction without warrant. As far as I'm concerned, they're the same thing. Let me elaborate a little with an example:

It is logically possible for a flying teapot to exist per se but, under certain constraints, it is not logically possible for it to exist. This, however, does not mean a flying teapot is not actually possible, rather the flying teapot is actually possible as long as certain constraints are not imposed. So the distinction isn't between "actually possible" and "logically possible" but rather between "possible per se" and "possible under certain constraints".

Also, just to be clear, "actually possible" is not the same as "actual", nor is it the same as "probable" or "plausible".

So if you're going to concede, Steve, that it is logically possible for humans to choose good all the time, then this means the same thing as it being actually possible. And if you want to defeat this argument (I'm happy to call it an argument), then you need to provide an argument that shows that such perfectly consistent and universal human choice for good can never occur in any possible world that God could create.

I have undercut with it does not seem possible that such a world could exist. This is an intuitive and reasonable conclusion after observing human history. You do not have a defeater for that objection and that is just one reason the PoE argument fails and no one outside of atheist forums think it is a successful logical argument.

Steve, you only get to observe the actual world. There are other possible worlds in which every human chooses good all the time. Don't confuse "actual possibility" with "probability/plausibility".

And it is not true that only people on atheist forums have problems with the PoE. Some atheist philosophers (like J. L. Mackie) still find issue with the logical problem of evil. Funnily enough, I actually don't, believe it or not. My problem is really with your failure to defeat the objection being raised against the impossibility of a world where all humans choose good always. But if there is a PoE I would defend, it would be the evidential problem of evil as opposed to the logical one.

By the way, you might want to check this link for reference:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log/

3. No, I believe in dualism. The immaterial mind causes material things to happen. No determinism there. No determinism, no compatiblism.

lol, if no determinism, then the immaterial mind just randomly causes material things to happen? Dualism or monism, it's irrelevant. When you make a choice, the same logical rules apply, whether the choice was made by a material or immaterial mind.

[Whateverist]

I have noticed pronounced knuckle dragging in some but certainly not in all NT xtians.  Mostly just the evangelical fundy sorts.

---

For example, due to the fact that I possess emotions, irrationality is simply a part of my being: IMO, the best that I can do is to try and find a constructive balance between emotion and reason.  With that said, does god possess emotions? If it does, then would this mean that it is irrational in some aspects, as emotions do not strictly obey logic and reason?

First, I do not share your opinion that emotions are necessarily irrational. 

Perhaps your rationality has dominated and all but eliminated your emotions?

[SteveII]

1/2. And how many times do I have to say that it is an atheist argument and all I have to do is undercut the premise that it is actually possible (versus broadly logically possible) that God could create a world were everyone would always choose good.

Ok, Steve, I have let you get away with the red herring distinction between "actually possible" and "broadly logically possible" for far too many posts, so I'm going to ask you to either provide an argument that there is such a distinction (using an illustrative example) or stop making the distinction without warrant. As far as I'm concerned, they're the same thing. Let me elaborate a little with an example:

It is logically possible for a flying teapot to exist per se but, under certain constraints, it is not logically possible for it to exist. This, however, does not mean a flying teapot is not actually possible, rather the flying teapot is actually possible as long as certain constraints are not imposed. So the distinction isn't between "actually possible" and "logically possible" but rather between "possible per se" and "possible under certain constraints".

Also, just to be clear, "actually possible" is not the same as "actual", nor is it the same as "probable" or "plausible".

So if you're going to concede, Steve, that it is logically possible for humans to choose good all the time, then this means the same thing as it being actually possible. And if you want to defeat this argument (I'm happy to call it an argument), then you need to provide an argument that shows that such perfectly consistent and universal human choice for good can never occur in any possible world that God could create.

I have undercut with it does not seem possible that such a world could exist. This is an intuitive and reasonable conclusion after observing human history. You do not have a defeater for that objection and that is just one reason the PoE argument fails and no one outside of atheist forums think it is a successful logical argument.

Steve, you only get to observe the actual world. There are other possible worlds in which every human chooses good all the time. Don't confuse "actual possibility" with "probability/plausibility".

And it is not true that only people on atheist forums have problems with the PoE. Some atheist philosophers (like J. L. Mackie) still find issue with the logical problem of evil. Funnily enough, I actually don't, believe it or not. My problem is really with your failure to defeat the objection being raised against the impossibility of a world where all humans choose good always. But if there is a PoE I would defend, it would be the evidential problem of evil as opposed to the logical one.

By the way, you might want to check this link for reference:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log/

3. No, I believe in dualism. The immaterial mind causes material things to happen. No determinism there. No determinism, no compatiblism.

lol, if no determinism, then the immaterial mind just randomly causes material things to happen? Dualism or monism, it's irrelevant. When you make a choice, the same logical rules apply, whether the choice was made by a material or immaterial mind.

Broadly logically possible: Through logic alone, it is possible. Logic alone does not preclude it from being true. 
Actually possible: Can it actually exist in some possible world.

I am claiming that the premise: "It is logically possible for God to create a world where everyone always chooses good" is broadly logically possible. However, because it is a contingent proposition (on free will), it seems like it is not actually possible. In other words, there is a factor in addition to logic that might make it impossible. 

3. We need to tighten up the definitions/positions for discussion purposes (these taken from the first sentence of each of the articles from Wikipedia):

Physicalism is the ontological thesis that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical, or that everything supervenes on the physical.
Determinism is the philosophical position that for every event there exist conditions that could cause no other event.
Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism. 
Dualism or duality is the position that mental phenomena are, in some respects, non-physical, or that the mind and body are not identical. 

I am a non-physicalist, non-deterministic, dualist-interactionist. And as such I believe that the immaterial mind has actual free will to make real choices not always influenced by some prior cause.

[Brian37]

Ok, Steve, I have let you get away with the red herring distinction between "actually possible" and "broadly logically possible" for far too many posts, so I'm going to ask you to either provide an argument that there is such a distinction (using an illustrative example) or stop making the distinction without warrant. As far as I'm concerned, they're the same thing. Let me elaborate a little with an example:

It is logically possible for a flying teapot to exist per se but, under certain constraints, it is not logically possible for it to exist. This, however, does not mean a flying teapot is not actually possible, rather the flying teapot is actually possible as long as certain constraints are not imposed. So the distinction isn't between "actually possible" and "logically possible" but rather between "possible per se" and "possible under certain constraints".

Also, just to be clear, "actually possible" is not the same as "actual", nor is it the same as "probable" or "plausible".

So if you're going to concede, Steve, that it is logically possible for humans to choose good all the time, then this means the same thing as it being actually possible. And if you want to defeat this argument (I'm happy to call it an argument), then you need to provide an argument that shows that such perfectly consistent and universal human choice for good can never occur in any possible world that God could create.


Steve, you only get to observe the actual world. There are other possible worlds in which every human chooses good all the time. Don't confuse "actual possibility" with "probability/plausibility".

And it is not true that only people on atheist forums have problems with the PoE. Some atheist philosophers (like J. L. Mackie) still find issue with the logical problem of evil. Funnily enough, I actually don't, believe it or not. My problem is really with your failure to defeat the objection being raised against the impossibility of a world where all humans choose good always. But if there is a PoE I would defend, it would be the evidential problem of evil as opposed to the logical one.

By the way, you might want to check this link for reference:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log/


lol, if no determinism, then the immaterial mind just randomly causes material things to happen? Dualism or monism, it's irrelevant. When you make a choice, the same logical rules apply, whether the choice was made by a material or immaterial mind.

Broadly logically possible: Through logic alone, it is possible. Logic alone does not preclude it from being true. 
Actually possible: Can it actually exist in some possible world.

I am claiming that the premise: "It is logically possible for God to create a world where everyone always chooses good" is broadly logically possible. However, because it is a contingent proposition (on free will), it seems like it is not actually possible. In other words, there is a factor in addition to logic that might make it impossible. 

3. We need to tighten up the definitions/positions for discussion purposes (these taken from the first sentence of each of the articles from Wikipedia):

Physicalism is the ontological thesis that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical, or that everything supervenes on the physical.
Determinism is the philosophical position that for every event there exist conditions that could cause no other event.
Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism. 
Dualism or duality is the position that mental phenomena are, in some respects, non-physical, or that the mind and body are not identical. 

I am a non-physicalist, non-deterministic, dualist-interactionist. And as such I believe that the immaterial mind has actual free will to make real choices not always influenced by some prior cause.

There is no "immaterial mind", there simply is your brain in motion. Just like a car engine will not run if it has no fuel and is blown to bits, the engine wont run.