Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Method of Madness: post-hoc reasoning and confirmation bias.
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 750 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 241 of 253 (123141)
07-09-2004 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by Sleeping Dragon
07-08-2004 9:23 AM


Qui es Veritas?
Thank you for your reply.
Definition of truth? Look up the dictionary. I'm happy with any definition you come across as long as the dictionary is a valid one.
Truth as defined by dictionary.com
1. Conformity to fact or actuality.
2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
3. Sincerity; integrity.
4. Fidelity to an original or standard.
5. Reality; actuality.
a. often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality
b. and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.
So, if the scientific method is the only trustworthy method of establishing fact, but science can't find truth... How the hell do we find truth? Is life just an illusion? Are we figments in the imagination of another being in another universe? Are we all simulations in a computer matrix? What the hell is life all about???
You've made some weird remark in post 223 stating that truth is "assimilated" to become our "biased outlook". Forget it, what you said doesn't make much sense either way and I was only humouring myself with the explanation.
Oh yes. If you took a walk in a bad neighborhood without any bias, you might get shot. You learn that certain kinds of characters and certain places are dangerous to go to. If you did not assimilate these facts or truths to form your bias outlook of the neighborhood, you would quickly get yourself into trouble.
Do you still not understand? I'm happy that you believe that the bible is true. You can believe that it is true until kingdom comes for all I care. However, there is a clear difference between BELIEVING and BROADCASTING.
When you assert that something is true while you possess no physical proof, you could be misleading (even though it may be with good intentions) as opposed to informing. You could be spreading falsehood instead of truth. I will state this one last time: You believing something is truth does not make it true.
Haha... "believe it is true till kingdom comes" I will. Do you know who's kingdom you're referring to? Ah the irony...
"Believe" me I understand. But proof exists for whatever purposes those who posses it have in mind. There is such a vast sea of opinions and ideas and facts and whatnot that there is no way you can believe while relying solely on yourself to swim through this sea and determine truth. That's the way God intended it to be.
"I am truth," says Jesus, "What is truth?" says Pilate.
Furthermore, you told me science cannot truly find truth, so what does it matter whether I have physical proof or not? How do you know every word out of your mouth is not a lie? What defines a lie? No, I do think proof is important, and God does prove himself to those who choose to know him.
I'm not in the business of proving anything (though due to my discussions on here I am finally motivated to acquire more knowledge of prophecy), although I have sufficient reasons to believe what I believe is true and nothing contradicts my beliefs.
Of course me believing it is true does not make it true! I believe it is true because it IS true! Muhahaha... This must be infuriating.
Consider: I will now make a 100% accurate prophecy -
"The brother has fallen from the kingdom lost.
Before her time of glory, the judgment awaits.
For the ape has summoned the courts of deception.
And the beast was set loose beyond the plane."
Every single line of the above prophecy will be realised on newspaper headlines within one week from now. Care for a wager?
Of course it would be easy to fulfill this prophecy! there is no context. What brother? What kingdom? What glory? What judgment? What ape? What courts? What beast? What plane? Who wrote it? When did they write it? Why did they write it? Where did they write it? Who did they write it to?
What separates the physical (us) from the metaphysical (God and Angel and Devils and Easter bunnies) apart from the fact that they are much more powerful beings (ESPECIALLY Easter bunnies).
Have you seen "Donny Darko"? There's a mighty disturbing easter bunny there... anyways... I think what separates us from angels and demons is a dimensionality. It seems as though angels and demons are very much bound by time and space (you could say physical), but not bound by atomic matter. God of course is not bound by anything except his character. Our soul and spirit and the spirits of angels and demons are truly metaphysical I guess because they have no physical qualities whatsoever.
So like I said. Who has the capacity to physically disprove God? It is an impossible task defined by the very limitations of science (the physical realm).
The nature of the universe with it's fine-tuned physical laws and the good/evil nature of humans with their moral laws begs the question: Why are things the way they are? Why in a universe ruled by randomness are things almost infinitely complex? And how did all this come from nothing? What is nothing? Is nothing a figment of our imagination? No, we can't even imagine nothingness. Even empty space has a sea of planck particle pairs and is seething with energy. We are not truly creative. We can only analyze and synthesize information already present in new ways.... anyways...
If you choose, all of this is VERY convincing proof that God exists.
If you choose, none of this is proof that God exists. Everything comes down to a choice. Kinda reminds me of Adam and Eve in the garden with the fruit. I chose the former and you chose the latter. I said, "God if you're there I want to know you," and he made himself known to me, while you cannot get past the "God if..." so you will never know him.
Nah...I'm much too lazy. I'll just pick post-hoc reasoning and confirmation bias from our debate.
Please analyze my first and most straightforward argument:
Shraf says a just God is incompatible with injustice in the world.
Human/time bound perspective: If you take the limit as n -> infinite for x/n where x is a constant, you get 0. So if x is time spent in injustice and n is time spent in eternal bliss, injustice vanishes.
God/no time perspective: While it may seem to us like God is holding off his justice, and thereby unjust for a time, he will bring everything to account at the end of human history. Since God is not bound by time and all of human history may as well happen at an infintesimally small period of time, it matters not whether God brings justice at the beginning, middle, or end of history, God's justice simply IS.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Sleeping Dragon, posted 07-08-2004 9:23 AM Sleeping Dragon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by crashfrog, posted 07-09-2004 12:50 AM Hangdawg13 has replied
 Message 246 by Sleeping Dragon, posted 07-09-2004 9:45 AM Hangdawg13 has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 242 of 253 (123147)
07-09-2004 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by Hangdawg13
07-09-2004 12:40 AM


So, if the scientific method is the only trustworthy method of establishing fact, but science can't find truth... How the hell do we find truth? Is life just an illusion? Are we figments in the imagination of another being in another universe? Are we all simulations in a computer matrix? What the hell is life all about???
Welcome to Philosophy 101. The questions you've just asked come under the heading of "Cartesian Doubt."
Hopefully your next question is "if we can't know the difference between any of these alternatives, does it really matter?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-09-2004 12:40 AM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-09-2004 2:31 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 245 by coffee_addict, posted 07-09-2004 4:53 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 750 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 243 of 253 (123179)
07-09-2004 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by crashfrog
07-09-2004 12:50 AM


Welcome to Philosophy 101. The questions you've just asked come under the heading of "Cartesian Doubt."
Wow. I learned something.
Hopefully your next question is "if we can't know the difference between any of these alternatives, does it really matter?"
Well, does it? The feeling deep in the pit of my gut tells me it does. I must have a purpose there must be a reason for everything. If I ignored that, I would die of depression. Life contains more sorrow than happiness. But the indescribable fulfillment I have with a relaionship with God and the incomprehensible happiness that I have as a result confirm to me that that void I feel is designed for God to fill.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by crashfrog, posted 07-09-2004 12:50 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by crashfrog, posted 07-09-2004 4:45 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 244 of 253 (123208)
07-09-2004 4:45 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Hangdawg13
07-09-2004 2:31 AM


Well, does it?
I guess it's up to you, I guess. Myself I don't worry so much about what I can't ever, by definition, know.
I don't usually throw myself against brick walls, conceptual or otherwise. A difference that is no difference is no difference, as Rrhain likes to say. If there's no situation where the "real" nature of reality makes any difference, who cares?
Science is just as useful in a "fake" reality as in a "real" one, if you catch my drift.
I must have a purpose there must be a reason for everything.
Ok, but what does that have to do with the nature of reality? These are two separate questions. You'll find, I hope, that your purpose is something you have to choose for yourself. It has nothing to do with the nature of reality.
But the indescribable fulfillment I have with a relaionship with God and the incomprehensible happiness that I have as a result confirm to me that that void I feel is designed for God to fill.
Well, I'm glad it works for you, but remember that even abuse victims find fulfillment in their relationships with abusers. I recall using the same words - "indescribable" - to explain my relationship with God; it turned out that the reason I thought it was "indescribable" is because it's hard to describe the feeling of "I should be fulfilled but I'm not; maybe if I pretend I am I will be."
Your milage may vary, I guess.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-09-2004 2:31 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 245 of 253 (123210)
07-09-2004 4:53 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by crashfrog
07-09-2004 12:50 AM


the frog writes:
Hopefully your next question is "if we can't know the difference between any of these alternatives, does it really matter?"
You remind me of a lot of sci fi episodes out there. One in particular is Buffy not knowing if her life as a slayer is real or that the mental hospital she finds herself in is the real one. In the end, she decided that it doesn't matter as long as she's happy with her decision.

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by crashfrog, posted 07-09-2004 12:50 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by nator, posted 07-09-2004 10:30 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Sleeping Dragon
Inactive Member


Message 246 of 253 (123308)
07-09-2004 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by Hangdawg13
07-09-2004 12:40 AM


To Hangdawg13:
Thank you for your reply.
Reply to your post:
How the hell do we find truth? Is life just an illusion? Are we figments in the imagination of another being in another universe? Are we all simulations in a computer matrix? What the hell is life all about???
Well, if you are looking for "truth" - that is, the "supreme reality" - then you are really assuming that the current physical reality that you eat, drink, breathe, and procreate in is NOT the complete picture.
A question that comes to mind is: Why must there be more to life than what is around us?
Another question that comes to mind is: Why couldn't the act of "living" be the purpose and meaning of life?
To propose life as an illusion is to question physical reality as the supreme reality. That is a little like saying: "My eyes are telling me that the apple I hold in my hand is red, but how do I know what colour it really is?"
To answer any of the questions in the above quote would require me to write a thesis, and I am afraid I simply don't have the time to do so (nor do I believe this forum would support such a notion). However, in answer to "what the hell is life all about?", I would suggest that life is the pursuit of happiness, as I observed that we tend to do things that maximise our happiness.
You learn that certain kinds of characters and certain places are dangerous to go to. If you did not assimilate these facts or truths to form your bias outlook of the neighborhood, you would quickly get yourself into trouble.
Ahhhhhh....you're talking about prejudice - the notion of pre-judging based on experience and/or attitude. But as I stated previously, science is based on what evidence shows instead of what we WANT it to show, thus the scientific method is decidedly objective.
I'm not saying that scientists are not subjective, but the method they use - if used properly - will minimise their bias to acceptable and useful levels.
Do you know who's kingdom you're referring to? Ah the irony...
The pun was used intentionally. I have attended enough fellowship meetings to be familiar with Matthew 6:10-14.
But proof exists for whatever purposes those who posses it have in mind.
If proof exists only for those with a preconceived notion in their heads, then the evidence that was presented hardly qualifies as "proof" now, doesn't it?
God does prove himself to those who choose to know him.
Choose from the following:
I must believe that you're a police officer before your badge seem real to me.
I must be shown that your badge is real before I place trust on your claim that you are a police officer.
you told me science cannot truly find truth, so what does it matter whether I have physical proof or not?
Because you're trying to describe the physical world using the bible. Science enhances our understanding of the physical realm through physical evidence. If you want to use the Bible to do the same, then you must play by the same rules.
How do you know every word out of your mouth is not a lie?
You don't. Which is why you are welcome to attack and criticise anything I say if you believe that I's engaging in MSU.
Of course me believing it is true does not make it true! I believe it is true because it IS true! Muhahaha... This must be infuriating.
Q.E.D.
Of course it would be easy to fulfill this prophecy! there is no context. What brother? What kingdom? What glory? What judgment? What ape? What courts? What beast? What plane? Who wrote it? When did they write it? Why did they write it? Where did they write it? Who did they write it to?
Hahahahahahaha.....so tell me, which of the Bible's prophecies enjoyed a more accurate (less vague) description than mine?
In answer to some of the questions you posed: I wrote it, I wrote it in the last post, I wrote it to show you how ambiguous your so-called "evidence for the truth of the Bible" is, I wrote it in my house, I wrote it to you.
As for the context, I would of course wait until a suitable event occurs (such as the judgment of Saddam Hussein) before applying my idiosyncratically worded prophecy to the situation - the art of post-hoc reasoning and confirmation bias widely practiced by Christians worldwide!
think what separates us from angels and demons is a dimensionality. It seems as though angels and demons are very much bound by time and space (you could say physical), but not bound by atomic matter. God of course is not bound by anything except his character. Our soul and spirit and the spirits of angels and demons are truly metaphysical I guess because they have no physical qualities whatsoever.
Now this is vague. Where did you derive all this from? No religious text could possible go into such detail, so I can only assume that you made it up.
Pray tell me:
How do angels, beings of metaphysical dimensions, materialised into the physical realm to wrestle with the wrestling world title defender Jacob? How does God, a being whose character cannot be restricted, restrict Himself into the form of a mortal human to be killed? Does God exist on all dimentions (even the first and second)?
These are just some of the questions you have to answer when you want to explain the physical world with the dogmatic guide that is the Bible.
The nature of the universe with it's fine-tuned physical laws and the good/evil nature of humans with their moral laws begs the question: Why are things the way they are? Why in a universe ruled by randomness are things almost infinitely complex? And how did all this come from nothing?
Point 1: While many others and myself would consider "living happily" as the purpose of our lives, you and many others would search for other purposes that require life-long servitude. If that's what turns you on, who am I to argue (and why should I care)?
Point 2: You seem to be taken in by the "this world is so wonderful there must be a reason for it" argument.
Consider the following hypothetical scenario:
There exists 200 trillion different realities, each had the potential of exploding into a universe and coming into existence but only 200 billion actually does.
Out of the 200 billion universes, only 200 million has the capacity to develop suitable climates for life.
Out of the 200 million life-supporting universes, only 200,000 can produce intelligent life.
Out of those 200,000 intelligent-life producing universes, only 200 can produce life that is advanced enough to ponder "What the hell am I doing here?"
Instead of using a self-centered approach to thinking - we are so important, we are so special, we are so unique, our world is so beautiful - why not consider the notion that we are one of the billions of life in billions of universes? Our complexity may pale in comparison to other civilisations out there - and I'm not just talking about space.
If you choose, all of this is VERY convincing proof that God exists.If you choose, none of this is proof that God exists.
The choice is in "belief". It has nothing to do with reality. If you must believe a preconceived notion in order to see reality as a case for your beliefs, then this is textbook example of post-hoc reasoning and confirmation bias. I'm happy we're back on topic.
Shraf says a just God is incompatible with injustice in the world.
Human/time bound perspective: If you take the limit as n -> infinite for x/n where x is a constant, you get 0. So if x is time spent in injustice and n is time spent in eternal bliss, injustice vanishes.
God/no time perspective: While it may seem to us like God is holding off his justice, and thereby unjust for a time, he will bring everything to account at the end of human history. Since God is not bound by time and all of human history may as well happen at an infintesimally small period of time, it matters not whether God brings justice at the beginning, middle, or end of history, God's justice simply IS.
Easy.
Consider:
I have the choice to pour HCL onto an anthill or to refrain from exercising my sadistic tendencies. If I choose to pour, then it will take me 30 seconds to bring death, destruction, pain and suffering upon the ants. Of course, the other choice is that I will simply let them do whatever they want.
Now, if I pour the acid, I will hurt them for a short time, but then according to your reasoning, because I will never hurt them ever again: 30 seconds/infinity = zero. Therefore even if I caused undue pain and suffering on them, I really haven't done anything in the long run.
Even though I may seem a monster and an absolute FW to the ants for those 30 seconds, I will act like an angel (that is, I will do nothing) in the rest of eternity (during the bulk of which I would be dead).
So by your reasoning, I can do whatever the hell I damn well please to anything/anyone I want because in the long run, the consequences of my actions will approach zero.
See the flaw in your reasoning?
Patiently awaiting your reply.

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-09-2004 12:40 AM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-09-2004 7:18 PM Sleeping Dragon has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 247 of 253 (123318)
07-09-2004 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by coffee_addict
07-09-2004 4:53 AM


ooooo, yeah, that was a really good one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by coffee_addict, posted 07-09-2004 4:53 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 750 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 248 of 253 (123453)
07-09-2004 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Sleeping Dragon
07-09-2004 9:45 AM


Well, if you are looking for "truth" - that is, the "supreme reality" - then you are really assuming that the current physical reality that you eat, drink, breathe, and procreate in is NOT the complete picture.
I spose.
A question that comes to mind is: Why must there be more to life than what is around us?
Well, you evidently entertain that notion:
why not consider the notion that we are one of the billions of life in billions of universes? Our complexity may pale in comparison to other civilisations out there - and I'm not just talking about space.
How do angels, beings of metaphysical dimensions, materialised into the physical realm to wrestle with the wrestling world title defender Jacob?
Just because they are not bound by atomic matter does not mean they are not able to control it.
So by your reasoning, I can do whatever the hell I damn well please to anything/anyone I want because in the long run, the consequences of my actions will approach zero.
Only if whatever the hell you damn well please is righteous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Sleeping Dragon, posted 07-09-2004 9:45 AM Sleeping Dragon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Sleeping Dragon, posted 07-09-2004 11:56 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

  
Sleeping Dragon
Inactive Member


Message 249 of 253 (123511)
07-09-2004 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Hangdawg13
07-09-2004 7:18 PM


To Hangdawg13:
Thank you for your reply.
Reply to your post:
Just because they are not bound by atomic matter does not mean they are not able to control it.
And you know that they are not bound by atomic matter because...?
Well, you evidently entertain that notion:
I don't see any evidence to suggest that we as intelligent lives must be unique or alone in existence, nor that we live in the only universe in existence. So yes, I certainly entertain those notions.
Only if whatever the hell you damn well please is righteous.
Right, and the "injustice" that God created -
While it may seem to us like God is holding off his justice, and thereby unjust for a time,
is "righteous"...how?
You justified the injustice God displays by saying that it will all be balanced out by His infinite glory in the long run. I've countered your argument by demonstating that your reasoning will write-off the consequences of ALL actions that doesn't last for eternity. Your point appears to be a desperate grasp at straws.
Patiently awaiting your reply.

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-09-2004 7:18 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-11-2004 7:42 PM Sleeping Dragon has replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 750 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 250 of 253 (123808)
07-11-2004 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Sleeping Dragon
07-09-2004 11:56 PM


I'm back.
And you know that they are not bound by atomic matter because...?
Because they can travel through other atomic matter and accelerate faster than anything made of atomic matter could withstand.
Right, and the "injustice" that God created -
God didn't create the injustice... But don't reply to this because this will spin off into another debate about sovereign God vs. free-will.
is "righteous"...how?
God owes us nothing. As sinners we all deserve his wrath right now, but he holds it off because he is willing to give us a chance to be justified and have eternal life. This is grace. The fact that he ALLOWS the world in it's present form to continue is pure grace.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Sleeping Dragon, posted 07-09-2004 11:56 PM Sleeping Dragon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Sleeping Dragon, posted 07-12-2004 2:22 AM Hangdawg13 has replied

  
Sleeping Dragon
Inactive Member


Message 251 of 253 (123876)
07-12-2004 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by Hangdawg13
07-11-2004 7:42 PM


To Hangdawg13:
Thank you for your reply.
Reply to your post:
You understand that our discussion has now progressed off topic? You have not addressed my points on post-hoc reasoning and confirmation bias. I will, however, humour you with a reply to your last post.
Because they can travel through other atomic matter and accelerate faster than anything made of atomic matter could withstand.
Reference?
What do you mean by "accelerate faster than anything made of atomic matter could withstand"?
God didn't create the injustice
I don't need to reply to it. You said he did:
While it may seem to us like God is holding off his justice, and thereby unjust for a time
I think you just contradicted yourself there.
God owes us nothing. As sinners we all deserve his wrath right now, but he holds it off because he is willing to give us a chance to be justified and have eternal life. This is grace. The fact that he ALLOWS the world in it's present form to continue is pure grace.
I owe ants nothing. Anything less powerful than myself deserves my wrath right now, but I hold it off because I am a nice person (sometimes) and is willing to give them a chance to worship me during their pitifully short lifetime. This is grace. The fact that I allow the anthill in my garden to exist instead of pouring bleach down the hole is pure grace.
Your reasoning makes no more sense than the above.
Patiently awaiting your reply.

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-11-2004 7:42 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-12-2004 10:03 PM Sleeping Dragon has replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 750 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 252 of 253 (124119)
07-12-2004 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Sleeping Dragon
07-12-2004 2:22 AM


I think you just contradicted yourself there.
No, my point was that no matter what it seems like to us from our time perspective, God's justice IS. If you could see all of time at once like God, his justice would be undeniable.
God did not create the injustice. We did through sin. He allows this to continue for a time to prove a point. At the end of human history he will bring all things to account. Your reasoning is hindered by your human perspective.
I owe ants nothing. Anything less powerful than myself deserves my wrath right now, but I hold it off because I am a nice person (sometimes) and is willing to give them a chance to worship me during their pitifully short lifetime.
An ant does not deserve your wrath unless it stings you. After it stings you it deserves your wrath (in my opinion). If you decide to pluck it off and send it on it's merry way despite it's sin against you and give it another opportunity to worship you, THIS is grace.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Sleeping Dragon, posted 07-12-2004 2:22 AM Sleeping Dragon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Sleeping Dragon, posted 07-13-2004 2:30 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
Sleeping Dragon
Inactive Member


Message 253 of 253 (124173)
07-13-2004 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Hangdawg13
07-12-2004 10:03 PM


To Hangdawg13:
Thank you for your reply.
Reply to your post:
No, my point was that no matter what it seems like to us from our time perspective, God's justice IS. If you could see all of time at once like God, his justice would be undeniable.
Well, this is not reasoning, this is an assertion. You're asserting that no matter what we observe in this physical reality, in the long run, the injustice we see now will be balanced out at some indefinite point in time. This is a mere claim.
If you are going to assume that God's justice "IS", then I can also assume that Satan's (or God's) injustice "IS" and that no matter what good things happen in this world, we're all going to fry in the end.
You're basing your claim on the Bible. I'm basing mine on my imagination. Both are unfounded. Both should be disregarded. Period.
God did not create the injustice. We did through sin. He allows this to continue for a time to prove a point. At the end of human history he will bring all things to account. Your reasoning is hindered by your human perspective.
No. Your reasoning is hindered by an unsupported assertion. On what basis are you asserting that "God did not create injustice"? If you answer with "the bible", then you're again using dogma in debates.
An ant does not deserve your wrath unless it stings you. After it stings you it deserves your wrath (in my opinion). If you decide to pluck it off and send it on it's merry way despite it's sin against you and give it another opportunity to worship you, THIS is grace.
You/bible assert that we deserve God's wrath for sinning (disobeying God).
By the same token, who are you to tell me whether or not an ant deserves my wrath? As you can clearly see, the ant has blatantly disobeyed my orders of "Kneel before my feet." and instead opted to "Eat ice-cream" and indulge in its sweet, sugary, sinful pleasures. Surely this disobediance is unacceptable to a being as great as I?!
By the way, you have yet to refute my point on post-hoc reasoning and confirmation bias.
Patiently awaiting your reply.

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-12-2004 10:03 PM Hangdawg13 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