Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Morality without god
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1141 of 1221 (695462)
04-05-2013 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1140 by Dawn Bertot
04-05-2013 11:31 AM


quote:
Wow amazing. My friend long before "human consesus" determemend the meaning of terms, reality is way ahead of it
So in your worldview the English language is fundamental reality, existing before anyone spoke it. Err, no. It isn't. It's no different from any other language. Words are essentially arbitrary, given meaning only by consensus.
quote:
If you feel that I am inventing my own meanings, the pray tell please show how me demonstrating that reality gives us our meanings is invalid. You know Paul, its that thing called critical examination and actually responding to someones argument.
In real debate I am not required to agree with any assertion you make, no matter how absurd. You are NOT making any such demonstration you are simply claiming that your preferred definitions are reality.
quote:
I have, because coercion cant have enough of an effect on actual choice, because, it is not a DIRECT part of the other persons choice making process. Logically it can only act as an influence.
However it is accepted that coercion impinges enough on the freedom of the choice that it is not counted as freely willed. You see that's what the FREE part of "free will" is about.
quote:
As I have demonstrated by both sound argument, reason, example and illustration (not a single one of which you have delt with), it is not logically possible for anyone to interfer with my mental process of choice.
There you go denying reality again
quote:
You would have to show how it is both biologically and rationally possible to be "under the control of another" before just assuming that this is possible. Assuming that God was tampering with Pharoas mind, when most if not all of the text indicates other wise, doesnt help your cause.
And again.
quote:
You mean that you can show a case where Pharaoh agreed to let the Israelites go even when God had "hardened his heart?" to make him do otherwise ? Then go on.
Sure not a problem. Its called the majority of the story. Look very closely at these passages Exodus, 7:4, 13, 14, 16, and 22. Exodus 8:9-10, 15, 19, 25, 28, 32. Exodus 9:2, 7, 12, 17, 21, 27, 34-35. 10:3-4, 10, 11, 16, 17, 20 24. Exodus 11:1, 9. 12:31-32. !4:5
Well let's look at them.
Exodus, 7:4, 13, 14, 16, and 22: Pharaoh does NOT decide to let the Israelites go in ANY of these verses.
Exodus 8:9-10, Pharaoh says that he';l let the Israelites go, but there's no claim that God had hardened his heart on that occasion
8:15, 19, 25, 28, 32. No actual letting go in here (excepting that the Israelites are allowed to go and sacrifice, but for that, too there's no indication that God hardened the Pharaoh's heart)
If the majority of the story has the Pharoah successfully resisting God's hardening of his heart, then it's a bit odd that you are quoting so many verses where that doesn't happen.
Exodus 9, 10, 11 still no examples.
Well I guess there's nothing more to say. You can't answer my arguments at all.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1140 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-05-2013 11:31 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1145 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-07-2013 10:13 PM PaulK has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1142 of 1221 (695463)
04-05-2013 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1139 by Dawn Bertot
04-05-2013 11:27 AM


Dawn Bertot writes:
Simply put, I could not redefine free will any more than I could redifine the principles of gravity.
You can't change the reality of gravity but you can describe gravity in terms that do not fit the reality. For example, you could say that gravity causes objects to fall in parallel lines toward the surface of the earth (implying a flat earth). Similarly, you could describe a decision process as "free will" when in reality there is no freedom at all.
A choice between apple pie and a punch in the face isn't a free choice; it's a loaded one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1139 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-05-2013 11:27 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 1143 of 1221 (695488)
04-05-2013 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1138 by Dawn Bertot
04-05-2013 11:25 AM


To assume that an all powerful God needs to show off, doesnt seem like the most logical approach. So one would quickly abandon such a silly proposition, correct?
And along with it, most of the Bible, the plot of which is mostly driven by the continual need of a supposedly omnipotent being to brag, bully, and show off.
He seems terribly insecure and angry all the time for a being who supposedly can have anything he wants just by wishing.
If I am ever in a situation where my children need my physical attributes to protect them, it should be obvious that my goal is to use those abilites to PROTECT them, not to say to the opposing party, LOOK WHAT I CAN DO.
And yet instead of clicking his fingers and wishing them out of Egypt, he announces his plan as follows:
You are to say everything I command you, and your brother Aaron is to tell Pharaoh to let the Israelites go out of his country. But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in Egypt, he will not listen to you. Then I will lay my hand on Egypt and with mighty acts of judgment I will bring out my divisions, my people the Israelites. And the Egyptians will know that I am the Lord when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring the Israelites out of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1138 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-05-2013 11:25 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 1144 of 1221 (695553)
04-07-2013 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1122 by Dawn Bertot
04-02-2013 9:59 PM


It is metaphorical in its content. Here is another example. Jesus said "I have not come to bring peace but a sword "
No it means he's going to kill a lot of people when he unleashes the apocalypse.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1122 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-02-2013 9:59 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 1145 of 1221 (695570)
04-07-2013 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1141 by PaulK
04-05-2013 11:58 AM


So in your worldview the English language is fundamental reality, existing before anyone spoke it. Err, no. It isn't. It's no different from any other language. Words are essentially arbitrary, given meaning only by consensus.
Ill try and be kind here becuse it is obvious you are trying to redirect the discussion to something other than the physical reality of the biological choosing ability, called free will.
We are not discussing the English language, but its application to a physical reality called free will. Since the paramentes of reality dicate what free will is or is not, it follows logically that our perceptions or designation do not constitue that reality. Hence language, English or otherwise has nothing to do with it
In real debate I am not required to agree with any assertion you make, no matter how absurd. You are NOT making any such demonstration you are simply claiming that your preferred definitions are reality.
Examples and illustrations in real life, of how a choice can be made in one direction or the other, even under extreme situation, what you call coiercion, are not ASSERTIONS, they are reality and more specifically they are very valid points of an argument.
The reason you wont and have not adressed any of them is because you know by simple observation and examination they are valid. Thier mere existence silences the idea that it is logically possible to interfer directly with someones free will, hence you are left with nothing but to claim them as assertion.. But I am sure your audience is aware you have failed to deal with a single example
However it is accepted that coercion impinges enough on the freedom of the choice that it is not counted as freely willed. You see that's what the FREE part of "free will" is about.
If free will was simply a concept, idea, phrase or a matter of consensus you might have a point. It is none of these things, it is a real thing. Atleast what gives us that ability is a real thing, the biological process
Bertot writes: As I have demonstrated by both sound argument, reason, example and illustration (not a single one of which you have delt with), it is not logically possible for anyone to interfer with my mental process of choice.
There you go denying reality again
Bertot writes: You would have to show how it is both biologically and rationally possible to be "under the control of another" before just assuming that this is possible. Assuming that God was tampering with Pharoas mind, when most if not all of the text indicates other wise, doesnt help your cause.
And again.
These jibes would be true except for the fact that you have failed to demonstrate that free will is not an actual process and not a matter of consensus. Only the concept is a matter of consensus, not its actual eixstence.
Secondly you have failed to address one single illustration from real life I have presented, to demonstrate how the reality of free will exists and works. or atleast how it CAN work
So you see jibes are no replacement for actual responses and demonstrations of how someone may be incorrect
You mean that you can show a case where Pharaoh agreed to let the Israelites go even when God had "hardened his heart?" to make him do otherwise ? Then go on
.
Bertot writes: Sure not a problem. Its called the majority of the story. Look very closely at these passages Exodus, 7:4, 13, 14, 16, and 22. Exodus 8:9-10, 15, 19, 25, 28, 32. Exodus 9:2, 7, 12, 17, 21, 27, 34-35. 10:3-4, 10, 11, 16, 17, 20 24. Exodus 11:1, 9. 12:31-32. !4:5
Paul writes
Well let's look at them.
Exodus, 7:4, 13, 14, 16, and 22: Pharaoh does NOT decide to let the Israelites go in ANY of these verses.
Exodus 8:9-10, Pharaoh says that he';l let the Israelites go, but there's no claim that God had hardened his heart on that occasion
8:15, 19, 25, 28, 32. No actual letting go in here (excepting that the Israelites are allowed to go and sacrifice, but for that, too there's no indication that God hardened the Pharaoh's heart)
If the majority of the story has the Pharoah successfully resisting God's hardening of his heart, then it's a bit odd that you are quoting so many verses where that doesn't happen.
Exodus 9, 10, 11 still no examples.
Well I guess there's nothing more to say. You can't answer my arguments at all.
Well thats a good approach, sluffing off every actual thing they had to say that demonstrates that Pharoah was never NOT in a position to make a decision.
Sine you can find nothing that indicates that Hardening of heart means that God took away his ability to reason and makes decisions and the majority of the text implies Pharoah was only further angered by Gods encouragement, it must follow, that only someone wishing to find fault where none exist, is the case
Was Pharoah asked to let the people go, before it was said his heart would be hardened? Well Yes. Was God coiercing him then?
At bare minimum, once again the secular fundamentalit humanist fails to find an actual reason for disbelief. But continues to nit pick until they are convinced in thier own mind a problem exists
Yet if we were to take another body of writings with the same verbage, no such charges would be brought to bare. Hmmmm interesting
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1141 by PaulK, posted 04-05-2013 11:58 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1146 by PaulK, posted 04-08-2013 1:58 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 1147 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-08-2013 2:30 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1146 of 1221 (695577)
04-08-2013 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1145 by Dawn Bertot
04-07-2013 10:13 PM


Let's just cut this short.
First "Free Will" is a term in the English language and it's meaning is governed by usage and no other reality. And usage clearly makes a distinction between freely willed and coerced decisions as I have shown.
Second, referring to points in the text where God apparently did not apply mind control does NOT change the fact that at other places He does. No person with any sense would even consider that it could be any other way.
These two points refute all your arguments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1145 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-07-2013 10:13 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 1147 of 1221 (695579)
04-08-2013 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1145 by Dawn Bertot
04-07-2013 10:13 PM


The reason you wont and have not adressed any of them is because you know by simple observation and examination they are valid. Thier mere existence silences the idea that it is logically possible to interfer directly with someones free will, hence you are left with nothing but to claim them as assertion.. But I am sure your audience is aware you have failed to deal with a single example.
Actually, the audience is aware that you've talking a lot of silly crap, and doing so in a ludicrously pompous manner into the bargain.
You would have to show how it is both biologically and rationally possible to be "under the control of another" before just assuming that this is possible.
Matthew 19:26.
And really, Dawn, you are worrying about things being biologically possible? Do you know the Bible has a talking donkey in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1145 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-07-2013 10:13 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1149 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-08-2013 5:17 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 1148 of 1221 (695629)
04-08-2013 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1138 by Dawn Bertot
04-05-2013 11:25 AM


Is it logically possible that God was trying to Show off or demonstrate a point, sure. But how much sense does it make to give someone free will, then pull it away at the last moment?
Well, the Lord character is, actually, a self-admitted jealous god.
If God is actually God, he could have simply freed the children by miracle, then performed miracles, exclusively in the wilderness.
Or maybe he would have just kept his people out of slavery in the first place!.. who can really say?
But there is always two sides to every story correct? So from a rational standpoint, given the WHOLE context, it is more reasonable to assume that Gods actions through patience and longsuffering, only served to harden his heart further.
So you're stepping outside of the story to rationalize this, which I guess is okay. But there's nothing in the story that suggests that the heart-hardening was metaphorical and that the pharaoh did have free will. The problem for you is that it contradicts what you believe about the Lord character from other stories. Fair enough, I guess, but not at all convincing.
Everything he is doing is for them, not him.
...
If I am ever in a situation where my children need my physical attributes to protect them, it should be obvious that my goal is to use those abilites to PROTECT them, not to say to the opposing party, LOOK WHAT I CAN DO.
Well, how jealous are you? The Lord is willing to punish up to four generations of children because their parents had another god before him. I don't think we can say that he's doing that "for the children". And jealousy is self-serving by definition.
ts called the majority of the story. Look very closely at these passages Exodus, 7:4, 13, 14, 16, and 22. Exodus 8:9-10, 15, 19, 25, 28, 32. Exodus 9:2, 7, 12, 17, 21, 27, 34-35. 10:3-4, 10, 11, 16, 17, 20 24. Exodus 11:1, 9. 12:31-32. !4:5
I'm not digging all that up. Just tell me your point. If you're trying to show where the pharaoh hardened his own heart, then I agree there were times in the story when he did do it by his own free will. But that's beside the point that later the Lord did remove the Pharaoh's free will so that he could inflict more plagues. As was mentioned above, he even outlined his plan before he enacted it.
Hows that for starters, Catholic scientist?
Pretty good! Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1138 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-05-2013 11:25 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1156 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-09-2013 7:13 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 1149 of 1221 (695678)
04-08-2013 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1147 by Dr Adequate
04-08-2013 2:30 AM


And really, Dawn, you are worrying about things being biologically possible? Do you know the Bible has a talking donkey in it?
Ill get to the latest posts as quickly as time permits, but this one I wanted to address immediately.
By biological I simply mean physically really happening (reality). If you are worried and perplexed by a talking donkey i would have you note that if you walk in your living room, there sits a TALKING BOX, called the television.
The point being that if enough intelligence is applied in certain areas, wonderful and marvelous things can happen.
I would venture to guess that you neither have enough intelligence to make a donky speak and you are probably jealous that you do not have that capacity.
So it is obvious you lack the intelligence either to make it happen and lack the intelligence to understand how that may be possible.
as usual Dr Inadequate you lose coming and going.
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1147 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-08-2013 2:30 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1150 by Tangle, posted 04-08-2013 5:28 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 1155 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-09-2013 7:11 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 1150 of 1221 (695682)
04-08-2013 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1149 by Dawn Bertot
04-08-2013 5:17 PM


Dawn Bertot writes:
Ill get to the latest posts as quickly as time permits, but this one I wanted to address immediately.
And I'm so glad you took the time, I've had an otherwise sane and unamusing day.
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1149 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-08-2013 5:17 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1151 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-08-2013 5:31 PM Tangle has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 1151 of 1221 (695684)
04-08-2013 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1150 by Tangle
04-08-2013 5:28 PM


And I'm so glad, you took the time, I've had an otherwise sane and unamusing day.
You are welcome to take over where Paulk has fallen flat on his face. But I will also understand if all you can offer is jibes and insults.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1150 by Tangle, posted 04-08-2013 5:28 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1152 by Tangle, posted 04-08-2013 5:58 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 1152 of 1221 (695686)
04-08-2013 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1151 by Dawn Bertot
04-08-2013 5:31 PM


Sorry Dawn, but defending biblical talking donkeys by reference to TV and intelligence is way beyond weird and totally made my day.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1151 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-08-2013 5:31 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1153 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-09-2013 5:07 PM Tangle has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 1153 of 1221 (695846)
04-09-2013 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1152 by Tangle
04-08-2013 5:58 PM


Sorry Dawn, but defending biblical talking donkeys by reference to TV and intelligence is way beyond weird and totally made my day.
Since you chose to ignore my previous challenge, Ill reissue it. You are free to take up where Paulk couldnt, trying to represent free will as simply a grammatical concept.
He failed to deal with the basic argument that under any circumstance a person with thier faculties can still make a choice in the opposite direction.
He failed by ignoring, evading and setting aside every example i provided him. he dealt not with a single one
He failed to demonstrate how coiercion, influence and interference, could eliminate free altogether.
Simply put he failed to demonstrate why God would give free will then quickly remove it, other than by reading into hyperbolic language, somethoing that is obviously not there. Or at bare minimum, doesnt need to be
He failed to demonstrate why the believer should have any reason to doubt either God or the scriptures, atleast in this instance
the only thing he did demonstrate is that as usual the secular fundamentalist humanist has overstated the case, ignore simple truths and is usually looking for any loophole to avoid belief and the truth.
Sorry Dawn, but defending biblical talking donkeys by reference to TV and intelligence is way beyond weird and totally made my day.
Im sorry are there talking boxes or not?
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1152 by Tangle, posted 04-08-2013 5:58 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1154 by Tangle, posted 04-09-2013 6:24 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 1157 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-09-2013 7:13 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 1154 of 1221 (695855)
04-09-2013 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1153 by Dawn Bertot
04-09-2013 5:07 PM


Dawn Bertot writes:
Since you chose to ignore my previous challenge, Ill reissue it. You are free to take up where Paulk couldnt, trying to represent free will as simply a grammatical concept.
Sorry Dawn, I respectfully decline - I know when I'm out of my depth; I'm not qualified to deal with your kind of weird.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1153 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-09-2013 5:07 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 1155 of 1221 (695859)
04-09-2013 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1149 by Dawn Bertot
04-08-2013 5:17 PM


Ill get to the latest posts as quickly as time permits, but this one I wanted to address immediately.
By biological I simply mean physically really happening (reality). If you are worried and perplexed by a talking donkey i would have you note that if you walk in your living room, there sits a TALKING BOX, called the television.
The point being that if enough intelligence is applied in certain areas, wonderful and marvelous things can happen.
I would venture to guess that you neither have enough intelligence to make a donky speak and you are probably jealous that you do not have that capacity.
So it is obvious you lack the intelligence either to make it happen and lack the intelligence to understand how that may be possible.
as usual Dr Inadequate you lose coming and going.
It appears that I have made a donkey speak.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1149 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-08-2013 5:17 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024