|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Let's face it... | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5033 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
quote: I really do not think Cobra's Hot Wheel and me have any other evil to be corrected but I do know in the criticism of creation and evolution the state of Florida (which does have a provision in law for the "evil to be corrected") moved against me for state placement and potential electroshock treatment on the base of a driver's liscence I got one Christmas because my NJ one expired and I was at Cornell never haveing even ever lived in the resident state where my parents moved to after I left for college with 10 pairs of shoes. The shoe is not evil nor the hot wheels kids still have. I will in the future try to be very careful in terms of the criticism that Norman Robert Cambell brings up in the Dover Publication called "Foundations of Science" what I mean in this critically but for now I can not write a book review of it relevant to c/e.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: How can God possibly be right? The rest of us supposedly carry "original" sin, & are unable to go through our lives without sinning. We are judged on this. If God made the ability to do it in the first place, exactly who is being judged? Us or Him? Jesus died (I stand to be corrected, but you get the idea) for our sins, a bit needless, really, if God just did away with it in the first place. That gutters full of holes, surely? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: Seems you missed the earlier part of this thread: "a)Is there a set of internally consistent rules to follow in order to avoid sinning? b)If there is I suggest it is possible to follow the rules and not sin. c)If this is the case I stipulate that if there is free will we are not sinners until we ourselves have sinned. d)In which case an unborn child is not a sinner or there is no free will. So which is it to be original sin or free will? One of them needs to be voted off the island...." "To use a concept from quantum mechanics the very act of God observing the future collapses the wave function and predetermines the outcome will be that which was observed... Hence no free will as our actions are predetermined...." Would you like to address these points? All I got from Red was a dogmatic insistence that free will and original sin are not mutually exclusive....
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cobra_snake Inactive Member |
I do not wish to claim I can answer all of your questions with absolute certainty. However, there is nothing wrong with me giving you my opinions up to this point.
a.) Most likely. However, this could of been destroyed when Adam first sinned, which then caused man to know right from wrong. Since the first sin, God's perfect Creation was destroyed and men were no longer able to be perfect (even though they WERE created with the free will to be able to do so.) Another scenario could be that although there still is a potential way to avoid sinning, God knows it will never happen because of his infinite knowledge. In other words, the odds may be something like 1 in 10 to the 10,000. The possibility is there, but surely you would not argue that it would eventually happen. Even if you don't consider the extremely low odds, it could also be argued that God just plain knows that a human who doesn't ever sin in his entire life will never exist. b.) Theoretically, yes. Three possible reasons this will not happen: 1. The odds may be so low that to even consider that it would ever happen is not realistic. 2. God knows it will never happen even though it is possible. 3. Humans were originally created with the ability to not sin, but since then that ability has been destroyed (most likely by Adam's first sin). c.) Although, God not only has the ability to see the future, but also to see the potential future. If God knows that the baby will sin under the condition that he does live, this may be enough to allow punishment. Whether or not that is fair is not for us to decide, as God is always fair and just because we don't think it seems this way does not mean that our viewpoints are true. d.) If I had to keep one of the two, I would say free will. You can see my reasoning in the above answers. Original sin, you ARE the weakest link. Bye-bye!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: 1)i)If they have the free will to be so then there can be no argument based on the impossibility of escaping sin. If it is impossible to escape sin then I would argue that they have no free will. ii)Not even 1 in 10 to the 10,000? If their is a probability of doing something it is by definition possible however high the odds are stacked against the occurence. So yes you would expect an occurence every 1 in 10 to the 10,000 of the population. The point is if a possibility exsits no matter how remote there can be no knowledge that an event cannot occur. b)1)See above.a)ii)2)See above.a)ii) 3)If the ability to live free of sin is "destroyed" we no longer make free will choices about whether to sin or not. c)In that case he would see the potential future (1 in 10 to the 10,000) that avoids sin.... The see all possible futures only works for you if all possible paths lead to sin. Again if all possible futures lead to sin there is no free will, If only the future that will occur is observed then there is no free will as all events are predetermined.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: Just found this little gem made me laugh so I thought I`d repost it....
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cobra_snake Inactive Member |
quote: This is an opinion, in my opinion. "If the ability to live free of sin is "destroyed" we no longer make free will choices about whether to sin or not." We still have free will. We can decide when to sin and when to avoid sin. Your entire point sims illogical anyway. Do you actually think that a man/woman will ever live that does not sin? If you think it will happen then you are fooling yourself. You have probably sinned thousands more times than you are even aware! If you want to be so scientific, why argue about an idea which makes no sense. Your arguments (I hope you realize) are completely theological and therefore do not count as scientific evidence against Creation. However, I have no problem with debating theological assumptions. You must also realize that these are opinions, and thus someone cannnot be RIGHT.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: a)But if we can`t decide NOT to sin what is the point of having free will. b)This whole argument hinges on one key point improbable is not the same as impossible if there is any chance of an event occuring it is by definition possible. If it is impossible to live free of sin then original sin holds, BUT there is no free will about whether to sin or not, to paraphrase a certain Danish prince "To sin or to sin that is the question..." If it is possible (even if only in theory) to live free of sin original sin fails, BUT we then have free will about whether to sin or not, "to sin or not to sin..." c)I know this is just something of a side project. Actually my arguments are logical based on theological postulates which I see to be mutualy exclusive. d)Actually my attack is on what I percieve to be contradictory concepts, original sin and free will. If I become convinced that they are not after all contradictory you will, in the context of this argument, be right. If you become convinced that they are after all contradictory I will, in the context of this argument, be right.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: If God only sees one future then it is predetermined that that series of events will, no must, come about. If he sees all possible futures he cannot KNOW which will become actualized UNLESS he predetermines it. If he cannot know he is wrong to assume we will sin because it is improbable, but NOT impossible. So then does God predetermine our actions by the very fact of his observation, or does he see a possible future where we avoid sin and say hey its a 1/10^10000 chance it wil never happen and afflict us before we have the chance to go for that 1/10^10000 chance. On the one hand he predetermines our actions, on the other he prejudges us.....
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cobra_snake Inactive Member |
I don't think he predetermines our actions, I think he knows what we will do. If you predict that your son or daughter will one day disobey you, so you impose restrictions upon them in, would that be evil?
If God can see 1000 possible different futures, he will still know which one will be true. In no way would this mean he is causing a certain future to come about, it simply means that is what will happen.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: The problem with your analogy is it forgets that there are two possible outcomes 1)your offspring disobeys you, 2)they don`t... Your analogy only works if you assume they MUST disobey you.... Also have you ever heard of Schrodingers cat? It is a philosopical question, a cat is shut in a box and undergoes a process such that it has a 50% chance of being dead (and 50% chance of being alive) The box is set up in such a way as to kill the cat if you open it, X-ray it or try to observe the cat in any way. The question is, is the cat alive or dead. The solution (mathmaticaly) is both and neither, the cat exsists as a probability wave function. However any attempt to observe the cat and determine its state collapses the wave function and leaves a corpse that used to be called mr snuggles.... I would argue that in a similar way the very act of God observing a future as the one that will occur predetermines the occurance of that future. After all he is God, all powerful, all knowing, and can`t be wrong, ergo if he observes a future as the one that will happen it HAS to happen... by definition....
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
The factor of 'Evil' is very well depicted in the beginning passages of the bible, it says that now they 'know' Good and Evil, Evil is just a concept, not a given natural instinct, before adam and eve ate that apple, we had no knowledge of such a concept in life.
------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
LudvanB Inactive Member |
Perhaps but the manor how it is depicted in the Bible is quite ridiculous and very culturaly biased. In the Book of Genesis,the knowledge of good and evil is represented in Adam and Eve suddently realising that they are naked and hide their private parts with fig leaves. This clearly demonstrates that culture,not God,inspired the Bible,since in the time and culture of early hebrews,public nudity was very much frowned upon,if not downright illegal. But there is absolutely no reason why Adam or Eve would suddently feel this way at learning to differenciate Good and Evil since God did not consider nudity to be an evil thing. According to the book of Genesis,God created man and woman completely nubile and then declared it was very good. And the Devil,when tempting Eve said that knowing Good and Evil would make her like God,clearly meaning that eating the Apple would grant her GOD's own knowledge of Good and Evil and according to God,nudity is "very good". Nudity is not an evil thing but a natural thing. Wearing cloths is actually the unnatural thing in that sense. There are quite a few tribal civilisations still on the earth that spend their lives completely naked. Cloths were invented not out of a desire for modesty but rather as a protection against the elements or to protect more fragile parts of the anatomy from injuries. They also allowed man to inhabit regions of earth where he could not have dwelled without cloths,such as deserts and cold/polar regions. The very cultural concept of modesty was born out of the habit of wearing cloths,not the other way around. When seen from that angle,Adam and Eve suddently deciding out of the clear blue sky that nudity is evil and thus,conveniantly agreeing with the culture of those who wrote the Bible to begin with is quite suspect and should raise a red flag about the source that inspired its writing.
[This message has been edited by LudvanB, 02-01-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
I quote from one of my earlier posts:
quote: ------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
LudvanB Inactive Member |
again,you are wrong. There is no need to be embarrassed by nudity,weather living in perfection or not. many people across the world live their whole lives either partially naked or completely naked and they dont feel embarrassed about in when in public or even in the presense of fully clothed individuals. Being naked in public is only considered a shamefull thing in cultures where wearing cloths is the norm,like our culture or the culture of early Bible autors. But people like Adam and Eve who supposadly were created nubile have absolutely no reason whatsoever to suddently feel shame at their nakedness...this is purely a cultural bias being projected on the characters of this story by its autors,the ancient hebrew,thus clearly identifying it as a legend and NOT an historical event. case dismissed
[This message has been edited by LudvanB, 02-01-2002]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024