Easter celebration

Citizen said:

Oh, I see what you mean.

Why not take a look at post #168 above.

I would argue that instead of having a spirit, a person is a spirit. Said differently, the thing behind the eyes that is aware of itself, I would argue, is a spirit.

Click to expand...

So sentience = haivng a spirit? But what makes you think this phenomenon is seperate from the physical body? It's seems much more likely that sentience is the result of the physical make up rather than another entity inside the body.

Nightmare said:

LOL why the unreasonable faith in science and observation?

Click to expand...

Probabillity.
It's much more likely something I can observe and test is real than a fairytail someone told me.

twoskinsonemanns said:

Probabillity.
It's much more likely something I can observe and test is real than a fairytail someone told me.

Click to expand...

+1 Like I said in post #168, "Just like anything else, a fella's degree of certainty about something depends on how much he observes that something."

Nightmare said:

He has never seen an alpha particle, but only what some (self-proclaimed) scientist explains is the effect of the particle on some Rube Goldberg contraption. Perhaps he believes in the existence of an electron for sitting in front of a television.

Click to expand...

I know. But, if he chooses to reject not only the conclusions but the data behind it, who am I to tell him he's wrong when he didn't observe the same things himself.

For example, my family member's report of a ghost in her home shortly after she moved in.

I know this person. I saw no reason to think her not credible.

There were her reported observations. Separately she gave me her conclusion about those observations.

Three events.

The first, curtains started moving all by themselves around the living room one evening. She checked. No windows open. Not every curtain that moved had a floor vent under it. All cats sleeping on the bed. She simply thought it strange. Couldn't explain it.

The second event, she's watching TV one evening, and the ceiling fan takes a few slow spins all by itself. Windows and doors closed. Now she's starting to wonder.

So, she checks with a neighbor. The previous owner was an elderly fella who had died in the home several months earlier. Somebody else tells her the classic line about talk to the person/ghost in comforting tones and tell them everything will be OK. I think she added her own 'I'll take care of the place'.

She did that on the third event. Self-spinning ceiling fan again, I think.

Now, she did not report getting a reply. She just said those things into the living room air, not aimed at anything particular. And,

it never happened again. Neither curtains nor fan decided to move all on their own ever again after that.

She concluded it was the old man, still hanging around.

So, I have her report of her observed events. And, separately, I have her conclusion about those events.

And, I have the same for everybody else who reported ghost experiences to me. Events, and conclusions about those events. Plus, I have those three personal encounters across the years.

So, I have all that personal experience to hang my certainty on.

If somebody else ain't got that much, I can't really blame him for not taking my say-so.

twoskinsonemanns said:

I'm open to a logical discussion. Would you agree that when god made adam the exact way he did he knew adam would choose to sin?

Surely he could have made adam slightly different so he would choose not to sin.

Click to expand...

Now, now. Lets be nice.

What if He made Adam so Adam could chose sin or not. (That was just a comment to illustrate loading the question when we're feeling contradictory.)

What is this thread about, really? The Resurrection? Does anybody really think its only about that? How about this thread is about the very nature of Man, what he can aspire to, what he can look forward to.

Its about the one dang thing that has made existence bearable these last thousands of years: HOPE. The hope for something better.

So, lets please not attack another fella's hopes. Lets share, but lets not attack.

Citizen said:

Now, now. Lets be nice.

What if He made Adam so Adam could chose sin or not. (That was just a comment to illustrate loading the question when we're feeling contradictory.)

What is this thread about, really? The Resurrection? Does anybody really think its only about that? How about this thread is about the very nature of Man, what he can aspire to, what he can look forward to.

Its about the one dang thing that has made existence bearable these last thousands of years: HOPE. The hope for something better.

So, lets please not attack another fella's hopes. Lets share, but lets not attack.

Click to expand...

Yahweh the christian god is a wee bit of a ****, if he was omniscient and let wrong be done if he knew it was to be done. Other examples in the bible paint him not to be such a nice dude.

It's been fun following this conversation.

I know that there are those here that want to look objectively at it, which I understand- here's my take on it, hopefully it adds the the discussion.

Believing in a higher power or savior almost by definition must be done by exercising faith, or believe in that which is not necessarily seen. So it, to me, makes it hard to only think objectively on it.

Another thought- there seems to be some confusion in the way this world came to be and some ....could we say.....second guessing of our creator (if you believe in that kinda thing). If you read the bible, it is said that his ways(God's ways) are not our ways, and there is much reference to us not being able to comprehend the mind of god in this life. I won't dig up references, I'm not trying to debate anyone here just my own reading.

Now, if you don't believe in the bible quite the same way I do, that doesn't really help- I get it. Which loops back to my first point about taking it on faith. I don't see it as blind faith, but educated faith.

The other thing that I strongly believe is that not only did adam fall that men might be, but also that our Lord created us, and gave us a way to be imperfect, and through Christ, become like him. That may seem almost blasphemous to some christians, but I can't help but draw the parallel between being a father to my (future) children and a spiritual father, if you will.

Would you safeguard your kids from making any choices wrong? Would you even put them in situations where they could learn on their own right from wrong?

This is the way that I see the situation with Adam and the fall of man.

I don't really like to get into the religious talk- I don't want any of you to feel like I'm talking down to you, arguing with you, or belittling your beliefs. Just offering my perspective on the matter.

Also- I don't care what "brand" of religion you are(if any)- "by their fruits ye shall know them"

Nightmare said:

About spirit; see the Holographic Principle, Leonard Susskind's explanation of it (he hints at athieism) includes his Minus First Law, that information is never destroyed or lost. Vastly most of the information in this Universe is trapped in the horizons of Black Holes (that may number 10^18). Our personal information, that makes up our ego-soul, might be found in a holographic sphere around it's physical presence - seen metaphorically by the Christian Fathers as a Halo. There is a vast literature on the holographic mind.

Click to expand...

Thank you sir for this excellent contribution to the discussion!

twoskinsonemanns said:

I understand the hesitation to get into deeply. I was refering to hard evidence. Scientific observable evidence. Not ghost stories. Obviously many people have had unexplained personal experiences they believe to be ghost or spirits. I wouldn't call that evidence.

Click to expand...

I'd like to add something to the answers you've received already. Science is one way we perceive things. It has its usefulness, but also has it's limitations. No doubt science is logic throughout, but logic is found outside of science. We can logically perceive things many ways, science being only one.

Science is very useful for perceiving the creation, but not the Creator

Citizen said:

Now, now. Lets be nice.

What if He made Adam so Adam could chose sin or not.

Click to expand...

Be nice? I was trying to perfectly polite. Trying to ask a sincere logical question. I was raised Baptist from birth and was taught god was omniscient and totally absent from sin.
Along those beliefs I was taught when god was making adam he knew exactly what choice adam would make.
Please explain it. If every variable concerning creation was designed by god, how could adam have done anything else?
Adam indeed chose, according to his programming.

Alright adam. I've designed both of your inputs to be HIGH.
Now it's your choice but I want your output to be HIGH.
You chose LOW?!?! Eternal fire!

sudden valley gunner said:

Yahweh the christian god is a wee bit of a d!ck, if he was omniscient and let wrong be done if he knew it was to be done. Other examples in the bible paint him not to be such a nice dude.

Click to expand...

If the Christian God is indeed the Creator, then he's less of a dick than you may think considering that all life exists, well, because of him. The "Giver of Life" has to earn him some anti-dick points right? That would make him a wee bit of a wee bit of a dick... maybe.

Would he be more of a dick if he just killed us the first time we made a mistake?

If he made us without capacity for being dicks ourselves, then we'd be robots. No fun.

twoskinsonemanns said:

Be nice? I was trying to perfectly polite. Trying to ask a sincere logical question. I was raised Baptist from birth and was taught god was omniscient and totally absent from sin.
Along those beliefs I was taught when god was making adam he knew exactly what choice adam would make.
Please explain it. If every variable concerning creation was designed by god, how could adam have done anything else?
Adam indeed chose, according to his programming.

Alright adam. I've designed both of your inputs to be HIGH.
Now it's your choice but I want your output to be HIGH.
You chose LOW?!?! Eternal fire!

Click to expand...

Your logic gate analogy is wanting. You forgot the timer gate. I don't have a cool pic, but I'm sure you know the one, with a pickup and delay time setting. It's more of an AND gate with a dick-load of inputs in series with a timer. Adam is subject to the timer gate, the Creator is not. Knowing the result doesn't remove the validity of the choice. I mean, if you believe in the Creator, you gotta buy the fact that Adam had a real, honest to goodness choice. We're all programmed to some degree, DNA blah blah, but I believe we do have an ability to make choices which are undetermined until the timer gate changes state.

In any case...

Not eternal fire. The inevitable failure of Adam was part of the plan for the redeemer... no failure, no need for a redeemer. Raised Baptist? You know the story. So the NOR gate is actually "Jesus". Because only one input needs to be HIGH and BAM, no eternal fire.

twoskinsonemanns said:

Be nice? I was trying to perfectly polite. Trying to ask a sincere logical question. I was raised Baptist from birth and was taught god was omniscient and totally absent from sin.
Along those beliefs I was taught when god was making adam he knew exactly what choice adam would make.

Click to expand...

OK. I withdraw the comment about lets be nice. I took it wrong.


For all readers,

How does it change the equation if omniscient refers to being capable of knowing everything/anything instead of actually knowing everything? Meaning The Supreme Being is capable of knowing anything and everything knowable, instead of actually knows everything and anything. Its a subtle but important difference. Knowing everything would require zero perception or prediction. And, necessarily includes knowing things that have not yet happened. What's the point in being able to create if He already knows every detail of everything He is going to create, including at the far end of eternity?

Personally, I am inclined toward the capability of knowing anything/everything. Meaning, there is nothing He would be reluctant to know: no flinch from knowing something. His perceptions are fully on, wide open, no restrictions--self-imposed or otherwise. Up to and including Himself--knowing Himself, His own nature, His own characteristics, His own capabilities. Wouldn't those last items really be the high point of knowledge for a being? God or otherwise?

Citizen said:

OK. I withdraw the comment about lets be nice. I took it wrong.


For all readers,

How does it change the equation if omniscient refers to being capable of knowing everything/anything instead of actually knowing everything? Meaning The Supreme Being is capable of knowing anything and everything knowable, instead of actually knows everything and anything. Its a subtle but important difference. Knowing everything would require zero perception or prediction. And, necessarily includes knowing things that have not yet happened. What's the point in being able to create if He already knows every detail of everything He is going to create, including at the far end of eternity?

Personally, I am inclined toward the capability of knowing anything/everything. Meaning, there is nothing He would be reluctant to know: no flinch from knowing something. His perceptions are fully on, wide open, no restrictions--self-imposed or otherwise. Up to and including Himself--knowing Himself, His own nature, His own characteristics, His own capabilities. Wouldn't those last items really be the high point of knowledge for a being? God or otherwise?

Click to expand...

A remarkable question. And the difference isn't subtle at all IMO.
I've been accused of not understanding the nature of god. But it seems some believe man's creation was like god buying a puppy and hoping it loves him.
But I was taught that god was ALL powerful. Existing outside any limits of time and space. All existence of mass and energy created and sustained by him.
Every chemical reaction, every transfer of energy ordained and allowed.
The universe is not a self propelled play where god waits and watches eagerly to see what will happen next.

georg jetson said:

you gotta buy the fact that Adam had a real, honest to goodness choice.....The inevitable failure of Adam was part of the plan for the redeemer...

Click to expand...

These statements seem to be at odds.
And so also our concept of god.

georg jetson said:

If the Christian God is indeed the Creator, then he's less of a dick than you may think considering that all life exists, well, because of him. The "Giver of Life" has to earn him some anti-dick points right? That would make him a wee bit of a wee bit of a dick... maybe.

Would he be more of a dick if he just killed us the first time we made a mistake?

If he made us without capacity for being dicks ourselves, then we'd be robots. No fun.

Click to expand...

Let me step back a second and say I am not meaning offense.

Yet if Yahweh of the bible is the almighty god he has some great contradictions. Creates everything claims to be the god of love, yet lets his creations sin and suffer pain. According to the bible all the pain and suffering we see today our "imperfection" is because our great great great(so on) gran pappy lusted after his wife and ate a fruit of knowledge after being told not to. That just doesn't seem to justify the massive amounts of pain and suffering by his offspring the last several thousand years.

Then some time later he did decide to wipe out all those in the world with a global deluge including women and children. I find it hard to believe that out of the potentially millions of people there were only 1 good guy and his family that was worthy of saving. Unless the one factor was their belief which then still doesn't seem like a good enough reason to kill them.

He told Abraham to kill his son, then said nope just kidding.....kind of a jerk move.

He had a chosen people to whom it was ok to slaughter the current inhabitants to give them land, I think part of the problem today is that US politics influenced by this notion still protect and do the same thing to the same patch of land with the same people.(actually not really genetically the same)



There are even worse beliefs that are not biblical that some christians put forth like eternal damnation in a fiery hell.

On the other hand there is the god that sacrifice his only son for our sins, gave us life and the beauty in it.

Nightmare said:

LOL My sainted mother taught that "Heaven or Hell is here and now, depending on what you put into it." She was misanthrope/misogynist almost to the point of rejecting Christianity. Instead she advanced way into Rosicrucianism.

Click to expand...

That is an interesting thought one I have dwelt over myself.

sudden valley gunner said:

Let me step back a second and say I am not meaning offense.

Yet if Yahweh of the bible is the almighty god he has some great contradictions. Creates everything claims to be the god of love, yet lets his creations sin and suffer pain. According to the bible all the pain and suffering we see today our "imperfection" is because our great great great(so on) gran pappy lusted after his wife and ate a fruit of knowledge after being told not to. That just doesn't seem to justify the massive amounts of pain and suffering by his offspring the last several thousand years.

Then some time later he did decide to wipe out all those in the world with a global deluge including women and children. I find it hard to believe that out of the potentially millions of people there were only 1 good guy and his family that was worthy of saving. Unless the one factor was their belief which then still doesn't seem like a good enough reason to kill them.

He told Abraham to kill his son, then said nope just kidding.....kind of a jerk move.

He had a chosen people to whom it was ok to slaughter the current inhabitants to give them land, I think part of the problem today is that US politics influenced by this notion still protect and do the same thing to the same patch of land with the same people.(actually not really genetically the same)



There are even worse beliefs that are not biblical that some christians put forth like eternal damnation in a fiery hell.

On the other hand there is the god that sacrifice his only son for our sins, gave us life and the beauty in it.

Click to expand...

The story of Job was a tough one to swallow. God decides to brag to satan about Job one day? Causes unbelieveable grief to a faithful follower just for kicks?

Yeah I know in the end he got back his riches and stuff but his children were all murdered. Who could get over that?

twoskinsonemanns said:

The story of Job was a tough one to swallow. God decides to brag to satan about Job one day? Causes unbelieveable grief to a faithful follower just for kicks?

Yeah I know in the end he got back his riches and stuff but his children were all murdered. Who could get over that?

Click to expand...

Oh yea didn't even think of that but yep....

Greetings.

I've been away studying philosophy and western religion for the past ~3 years (and change) at a northern VA University.

My studies specifically have been focused around Theodicy/Theological Fatalism (The Problem of Evil/Epicurean Paradox), and The Problem of Free Will.

I like these kinds of topics because they bring to light the type of issues that are brought forward by both interested parties on the topic of religion (Apologetics, mostly), and most importantly, the claim that these terms are part of their professed deities nature.


I would like to have the following considered, and conduct an examination of the claims:

• Omniscience -
  From the Latin words meaning "all" and "knowledge", an etymological, and cultural review shows that the word describes that which has "knowledge of all things". Apologists have long tried to explain this away by altering the meaning of an omniscience as being "that which has knowledge of all knowable things". However, this claim removes true omniscience, by introducing a vacuum of knowledge, wherein said "knowledge of all things", now does not have knowledge of all things, because there are things that are not known. In essence, instead of saying "Our deity knows absolutely everything!", it is like saying, "Our deity is just way, way, way smarter than us, because there's still things it cannot explain!"
  
  Effectively, any time you ask a question, an omniscience must know the answer or it is not omniscient. The only logical limitation to this is where the questions are nonsensical.
  
  For example: "Excuse me omniscience, but can you show me a square circle?"
  The omniscience would know this is nonsensical, and simply by totalitarian nature of its knowledge, state as much.
  
  So, the following finding is a priori (A part of the claim by its very nature) true:
  
  - An omniscience must know everything, which means it would parallel Laplaces Demon
  
  
  "Woah, woah, Mr. Philosopher guy...what the heck is Laplaces Demon?" - says those reading this wall of text.
  
  No problem. Let me explain!

• Laplaces Demon
  
  Pierre-Simon Laplace was a French Mathematician, Physicist, and Astronomer. He postulated the following:
  
  "We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes." - Pierre-Simon Laplace
  
  One realizes that an omniscience, necessarily possessing this knowledge, would by definition actually be Laplaces Demon.
  
  Let's ask this omniscience some questions!:
  
  "Omniscience, can you tell me how many atoms are in the moon?"
  *Omniscience provides precision answer that is accurate in every detail with incontrovertible precision.*
  
  "Omniscience, can you tell me the motion of every particle of every particulate, or energy in the universe?"
  *Omniscience provides precision answer that is accurate in every detail with incontrovertible precision.*
  
  As you can see, an omniscience cannot have vacuums of knowledge. If it does, it is not omniscient.
  
  This also transfers to claims of an atemporal (regardless of time) nature.
  
  "Omniscience, do you know what I will have for breakfast tomorrow morning?"
  *Omniscience provides precision answer that is accurate in every detail with incontrovertible precision.*
  
  Now, please realize that the omniscience must merely know the answer, but does not necessarily have to share it.
  We are talking claims of knowledge here, and not the declarations itself.

Now I'm going to move us forward into Theological Fatalism, and discuss how this all affects The Problem of Free Will.

The Problem of Free Will is a philosophical paradox that states that free will is incompatible/nullified, by omniscience.
This is because omniscience necessarily knows all outcomes to the end of time.
These "outcomes" may not be altered, otherwise this invalidates the omniscience.

"Omniscience, what will i have for breakfast tomorrow?"
*Omniscience knows precisely what you will have down to every minute detail*

This means how you hold the fork, position the plate, and every thought you have unfolding out as omniscience has already seen.
This includes you grabbing that pack of bacon, and putting it back 3 different times, heeding the advice of your doctor to eat some grains in the morning.

Literally everything!

From the prime movement of the universe, to the end of time (and possibly outside of this dimension), omniscience has totalitarian, incontrovertible knowledge of everything.

This cannot be altered, without negating omniscience.

"Omniscience, what will I eat for breakfast tomorrow morning?"
*Omniscience knows you will have bacon and eggs*
*You grab a bagel and cream cheese*

Omniscience invalidated. Entity is not omniscient in an existence where it can be wrong.


There have been theists who recognize the folly of some claims (omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, etc.), and thus Calvinism (and varying other denominations) was born.


So, in closing, knowing what we do now with the information provided:

-An omniscience would know the outcome of all endeavors before they were set in motion.
-Therefore a decision for the introduction of evil was made in the positive, temporally prior to prime movement.
-Therefore evil was introduced intentionally.
-Therefore the death of all children was predestined.
-Similarly, everything you do is predestined, and free will is illusory/non-existent, if an omniscience exists. (Alvin Plantingas defense of free will has not solved this, but that's a whole other post in and of itself.)

Hope you enjoyed!