Summations Only

It might be a little unfair to respond to Anastasia when she isn’t here to defend herself.Suffice to say that I don’t find her points convincing - even as a possible explanation of the Trinity.

I’m not seeing much here to comment on, but I think this example can be greatly improved

quote:

---

Let me give you an example. Say I have a five year old son. If I were to leave a chocolate chip cookie on the table about a hour before dinner time and my son was to walk by and see it, I know that he would pick up the cookie and eat it. I did not force him to make that decision.

---

The big problem here is that you are not your hypothetical son.If you were to make it entirely about yourself it would be better. Intellectually you know that you shouldn’t eat the cookie. If there was another instance of you outside the room, he would say that you should not eat the cookie. But because you are there, in the room with that cookie you eat it anyway.

So you are arguing that your hypothetical 5 year old son is the devil and it’s entirely his fault he ate the cookie, even though you left it out there knowing he would eat it?

quote:

---

Potter talks of the necessity of the possibility of evil. In Genesis, why was the tree of knowledge even in the garden if it was potentially harmful? (To give them the possibility of disobedience.)

---

I think that taking Genesis 3 literally and forcing it into Christian belief is a mistake in the first place. It does read much more like a pagan myth than Genesis 1.But consider - if God truly is omniscient there is no possibility, only inevitability. And Adam and Eve lacked the understanding of right and wrong. It really is like your five year old, only more so.

quote:

---

Leaving an apple on the table could well be called a deliberate set-up, but it allowed for the possibility of disobedience.

---

But if it is a deliberate set-up the person who set it up must bear some of the responsibility - especially if the child is unable to understand that they are doing anything wrong.

quote:

---

No. Just because G o d foreknows does not make Him responsible

---

Of course it does. We are responsible for the foreseeable consequences of our actions. [quote]... ant more than you guessing your 5 year olds reaction makes you responsible if in fact you never placed the cookie in his path

quote:

---

And God does not place every temptation in our daily paths either. ringo would argue that Gods foreknowledge makes Him responsible for everything but thats a huge and convenient copout.

---

I say that God’s foreknowledge makes him responsible for the consequences of his actions - because they are all foreseeable - and forseen by him. And as the creator of all, that includes everything.

quote:

---

Ellis Potter pushes the belief that God(Jesus Dad,Creator of all seen and unseen...yes THAT One! ) is relational within Himself and that He talks to Himself just as we humans talk to ourselves in our own head and yet are not schizophrenic or bi-polar.

---

Talking to yourself isn’t the same as being two different people. (I don’t know if it’s related to the two hemispheres of the brain, but if it is it would be an indication that we aren’t as much of a unity as we like to think). Anyway the Trinity is a deeper division, and Potter argues for a 100% division which contradicts his idea here.

quote:

---

Potter argues that no other human monotheistic gods do this

---

I’ve already said this twice, but what about the Hindu Trimurti?

quote:

---

And I say that God is not responsible for free willed agents of His creation choosing to adapt a path that would not be preferable in the grand scheme of things

---

You can say that but it still isn’t true.

quote:

---

For if God was ultimately responsible---indeed liable---why even allow free will to potentially exist anyway?

---

I don’t believe that libertarian free will can exist.

Jesus could only have failed if God is not fully omniscient. If God were merely a passive observer, your argument would have merit, but as creator - and a creator who actively intervenes - if God is omniscient then God controls everything and has full responsibility.Using free will as a form of plausible deniability is unworthy of God. That sort of excuse is low even for a human.

quote:

---

Wiki basically agrees with you

---

That quote does not. My assertion is that libertarian free will is a logical impossibility (unless a merely random element is accepted as free will - but how can we be held responsible for a random element?)So, my objection has nothing to do with the theology.

quote:

---

Potter agrees with something I used to always push that people never understood where I made it up at. The fact that Potter also says it shows me that it is an intuitive conclusion of the living Spirit (which teaches us all things)

---

It really doesn’t.

I basically agree with Daniel Dennett on Free Will - he was cited in the discussion.But if Libertarian Free Will is a logical impossibility and even God can’t arrange it then God certainly isn’t going to believe we have it..

What I’ve read of Dennett is hardly curmudgeonly, and I don’t see why his religious beliefs should undermine his philosophical work any more than it would undermine Dawkin’s biological work.

quote:

---

Dennett thus believes to a degree in chance as a causative agent---a belief which I find as silly as you find in a "spiritual war".

---

I don’t see any justification for that in what you’ve quoted.Even if you mean that Dennett is not a hard-core determinist (and you object to any idea of chance at all) you can’t justify it from what you’ve quoted.

quote:

---

To me, philosophy is no more than logic. Correct me with an example if I were wrong.

---

That’s because you don’t understand logic.Where does philosophy get it’s starting premises from? Logic needs premises but gives you none to begin with.

Phat then: Phat now:

quote:

---

That's because there is no "3rd" member.

---

Do remember to follow the context of the conversation.And the subject.

quote:

---

Im trying. Of course, some of my views and beliefs evolve as I ponder them and question them

---

If you’ve changed your mind have the honesty to just say that instead of contradicting yourself. Admitting that Ringo was correct on that point rather than continuing to argue would be the way to go.

quote:

---

The subject is the meaning of the Trinity. Perhaps Trinity was the wrong description

---

No, the topic doesn’t magically become wrong because you’ve now rejected the idea of the Trinity.