Review: Theism and Explanation

[QuestionMark]

I don't hate myself, and that comment strikes me as extremely puzzling.

Nor do I disbelieve in free will. I just happen to have a coherent and sensible conception of what it is.

You just said that if you were the Creator you'd have creations with only good will all the time. That's taking away free will, because you as the Creator would be the definition of good. You'd just be creating automatons in your own similitude.

[QuestionMark]

Speaking in Christianese is a symptom of piety. Piety is a symptom of bulls**t.

It's also a form of artful meditation, in which you take up manners of speaking to remind yourself and others of different times and ways.

[QuestionMark]

As I've said before:

JM,
     I don't rush to conclusions. Falsifiable is not a good test for many forms of knowledge, evolution included. The only way to falsify The Theory Of Universal Common Descent would be to make observations of the past, for instance. Otherwise the theory will always still be viable. Popper's falsifiability was criticized by evolutionists for this reason.

Essentially true things cannot be falsified. You cannot falsify 1+1 for instance, it just doesn't make sense. I think it's the same way with lots of axioms.

Anyway, perhaps someday you'll lay down the accusation of incoherence and realize that I'm simply disagreeing with you.

[Pastafarian]

You just said that if you were the Creator you'd have creations with only good will all the time. That's taking away free will, because you as the Creator would be the definition of good. You'd just be creating automatons in your own similitude.

ok, but I've always been curious: doesn't that describe what's going to happen in heaven? Or at the end of the Earth? Why the wait?

[Pastafarian]

Speaking in Christianese is a symptom of piety. Piety is a symptom of bulls**t.
It's also a form of artful meditation, in which you take up manners of speaking to remind yourself and others of different times and ways.


Fair enough. :)

[QuestionMark]

ok, but I've always been curious: doesn't that describe what's going to happen in heaven? Or at the end of the Earth? Why the wait?

The short answer is glory... if men were like the elect angels who were are sustained by God with no part of their nature that could cease being obedient to Him then men would not experientially know that God's ways are worthy of praise. We were made to glorify God and enjoy Him, and there is more glory and more joy this way.

[JustMyron]

Falsifiable is not a good test for many forms of knowledge, evolution included.

Who said falsifiability was a test for knowledge? The reason people don't like arguing with someone who will not accept that their belief might be false no matter what evidence is presented for or against is not because falsifiability is in any way a test for knowledge.

It's simply that if you're going to believe whatever you want regardless of the evidence and in spite of anything anyone might say, there's no point in talking to you about that topic. If you will not accept the possibility that you might be wrong, then don't waste people's time asking questions as if you care about the answers.

[QuestionMark]

Myron I think one of my biggest problems is that I actually take you seriously.

When you say that you have no free will I think you're telling the truth (about your own belief) and when you say morality is meaningful I take you seriously... but your beliefs when taken as a whole don't make any sense, and that is the problem.

When I look at you, I remember all the inconsistencies and you're just a jumble of random facts.

So when you say free will is an illusion and talk about falsifiability as if it is meaningful, I can't help but think you're insane.

If free will is an illusion then falsifiability is a joke, whatever happens happens regardless of our perceptions of it, and our knowledge of a thing (which isn't even true knowledge) has little meaning if we have no way to avoid the situations we will be put into anyway.

When you say there's no point in talking to me, you're right, but not because of anything having to do with me. There's no point in talking to me because in your world you don't have a choice, and I don't have a choice, and knowledge ultimately doesn't matter, and neither of us can do anything ultimately meaningful for better or worse.

As always JM, your worldview is insane.

[JustMyron]

As always JM, your worldview is insane.

As I said the last time you said that: Have a lovely day 

[QuestionMark]

I am, thanks :D

[Pastafarian]

QM, ok so god wants all the glory. Fine.
Again, why the (comparatively) ridiculously short but resulting in millions damned to hell wait?!And hang on, aren't you of the "predestined, chosen by god, it has nothing to do with me" ilk? What, is heaven gonna be better for you knowing people like me are burning in hell? God chose you and somehow that gives him glory? This makes no sense to me.

You know, I remember as a believer getting confused and feeling uneasy when looking at the big picture. I remember the only way to calm myself was to focus on some small aspect of it. Like free will. Or glory to god. Ignore hell, of course... But when you put it all together it just sounds insane! And then you have the cheeck to accuse JM of having an insane world view!! It's just incredible!

[QuestionMark]

Pasta,
     They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. It took me several years of very serious thinking to even begin to accept the idea of God's sovereignty over election. Once I did accept the idea(not even convinced of it, but considering it) I started to see things all over the Bible about it. God's sovereignty in the election of His children is one of the central themes of the Bible but somehow people miss it.

     More importantly, it's only a part of a greater theme, the glory of God. There are other major things like God's perfect righteousness(not only in His own behavior, but in His judgments) and the overarching theme of grace(which goes hand in hand with a love which is unconditional, which is why no one can earn it).

So if I've gained anything in these years I can offer you my perspective. These things are helpful:

1. Accept the possibility that God may actually be just(just as in doing exactly what is right and good).
2. Accept the possibility that letting you do what you want isn't in itself evil(as in, free will).
3. Accept the possibility that when you do evil, God will judge you perfectly in a way that you yourself could not disagree with.

The Bible presents a world where in the end everyone is judged and their sentence perfectly correlates to their crimes. The ultimate verdict on man is not that he is innately worthy of hell, but that in himself there is no eternal life. Men were not made eternal.

Each man acts within the bounds God has given him, and each man merits certain blessings or curses, and that is justice. Each and ever human receives God's common grace, namely a life to live and enjoy, breathing and seeing beautiful things with wondrous experiences. In short, life is a gift.

But God will judge those who freely do evil, and yet God wants a people for Himself, a fulfillment to all of Creation that will reflect His glory. He has designed this people to enjoy praising and worshipping Him. He has recreated them in such a way that their highest thrill and satisfaction is to know and glorify God.

Where the two thoughts meet is that in order for them to have greater joy, God must be revealed, and so instead of all of the wrongdoings of people being swept under the carpet they will be revealed. God will be shown just, and every man in need of grace if we are to live.

In the end, the only question that really remains in my life is whether it is good of God to let us have our way.

I think that God has designed it so that this question reflects more on us than on Him.

Do we want God to be gracious to us? Do we actually think that perfect grace through mercy shown at the Cross is what is right? If we actually think that a humble Creator who loves His children perfectly is the 'way things should be' then we should LIVE THAT WAY.

What usually happens though, is that people say God should act one way, and then they live hypocritically in violation of their accusation.

So do you think God should be perfectly loving?

[Pastafarian]

Hi QM,

I understand your argument. I do see a few problems with it though.

1. Accept the possibility that God may actually be just(just as in doing exactly what is right and good)
2. Accept the possibility that letting you do what you want isn't in itself evil(as in, free will).
3. Accept the possibility that when you do evil, God will judge you perfectly in a way that you yourself could not disagree with.

Well, I disagree with the option of sending ANYBODY to hell, ever. I cannot understand that. No matter what my child could do wrong I could not conceive of torturing her for eternity. I don't see the point.
The standard answer is of course that god cannot abide evil or sin unless the sinner magically has the stench of his evil removed by professing faith in Jesus. Which somehow magically removes the problem (but not the sin...).

The Bible presents a world where in the end everyone is judged and their sentence perfectly correlates to their crimes.

Bulls**t! Unruly teenagers are to be stoned to death... working on the Sabbath:death etc etc etc...

The ultimate verdict on man is not that he is innately worthy of hell,

That's a new one for me, to be honest. "We all, like sheep, have gone astray etc etc etc"

Now here's a serious problem:
 

but that in himself there is no eternal life. Men were not made eternal.

Ok, so I'm NOT going to burn forever and ever? Or does god, having made us not eternal, choose to make some eternally happy and others eternally damned, whereas he could have just left the damned to disappear?



"So do you think God should be perfectly loving?"

I don't think so, no. But to be fair, that's because we're talking about the equivalent of the Loch Ness Monster here for me :/
But from a believer's perspective, yes. I cannot marry creating and maintaining hell with that perfectly loving god. Nor can I conceive of ANY situation where the punishment of never-ending suffering fits the crime!! What on Earth would be the point? No hope of redemption, no hope of growth, no protection provided to the "good", "chosen" ones (god can protect you lot, surely?)... what is the point??

I'd tell you the most obvious point to hell, but you already know that having been here so long.

[Switch]

I don't hate myself, and that comment strikes me as extremely puzzling.

Nor do I disbelieve in free will. I just happen to have a coherent and sensible conception of what it is.

You just said that if you were the Creator you'd have creations with only good will all the time. That's taking away free will, because you as the Creator would be the definition of good. You'd just be creating automatons in your own similitude.

No, beings who do good all the time because they only desire good are not automatons. Just like beings who do good sometimes and bad sometimes (us!) are not automatons because our desires are a mix of good and bad.

All descisions come from the knowledge that a being has about what it can do and what it most wants to do. That is free will.

[QuestionMark]

Pasta,
    Do you mean to say that God shouldn't be held to a standard of being perfectly loving [to everyone] all the time? Or do you mean to say that He should?

Switch,
     If your Creation had only the capability of doing the best good all the time then they wouldn't have free will. They'd be doing whatever you wanted all the time.

[Pastafarian]

Well, if there was a god then it could do and be whatefer it pleases. You're not answering my arguments/questions though.

And regarding your comments to Switch: a) I agree with Switch and b) will we be able/desire to do any evil in heaven?

[QuestionMark]

And regarding your comments to Switch: a) I agree with Switch and b) will we be able/desire to do any evil in heaven?

Nope, the elect can't resist God's grace, and they are participants with the Holy Spirit to do His work. They've passed from death into life, why would they want to die again?

[QuestionMark]

Well, if there was a god then it could do and be whatefer it pleases. You're not answering my arguments/questions though.

I can't answer you until I'm sure I understand you... so I'm asking questions.

Pasta,
    Do you mean to say that God shouldn't be held to a standard of being perfectly loving [to everyone] all the time? Or do you mean to say that He should?

So... do you think that God is obligated to be perfectly loving to everyone all the time, is that your moral code?

[JustMyron]

And then you have the cheeck to accuse JM of having an insane world view!! It's just incredible!

No, it's not really that incredible. I think he was mainly just trying to change the subject from whether having non-falsifiable beliefs and yet pretending to be interested in whether people can falsify them makes any sense.

[Waldo]

If my understanding of the life to come is correct, we will have no knowledge of evil.  According to Moses, there was no knowledge of evil in the beginning.  That came about as a result of disobedience. 

[Pastafarian]

QM: sin and death: well duh! That's the bloody point, isn't it? Take you, an elect. You know that god is righteous and yet you sin. You need to have god magically take away your desire to sin before you'll stop. Now go reconcile that with your bit about robots. I am tiring of your constant deflecting though, these round and rounds about free will are a minor issue compared to other problems with your post that I have raised.


I have answered your question QM. Maybe you should try quoting my answer instead of your own question?! No QM, as I already said, twice now, I do not believe in god. God has nothing to do with my moral code and I don't expect any god to behave in any way. How hard is this to understand man?! You're trying to set me up for god knows what but I don't believe any if it dude.

I have a code by which I live. Much of it I can articulate, but not all. Much of it is fixed, some more fluid. Actually, no. My questions are clear as are my arguments. Care to do me the curticy of reciprocating here?

[Pastafarian]

Sorry about spelling, on my phone and struggling!

[Pastafarian]

Hi Waldo,

 I had a very interesting experience reading your post: I read it, realised you'd said "they had no knoledge of evil" in one breath and then "they disobeyed (were evil)" in another and thought "hang on! Waldo's normally lucid! What's going on here?"

then I remembered the story about the apple and the serpent. Now I can see that A & E shouldn't be held accountable for "being disobedient" if they had no knowledge of right and wrong but I'm sure that BECAUSE it's a bible story, you will now perform some mental gymnastics. Am I correct?

[QuestionMark]

QM: sin and death: well duh! That's the bloody point, isn't it? Take you, an elect. You know that god is righteous and yet you sin. You need to have god magically take away your desire to sin before you'll stop. Now go reconcile that with your bit about robots. I am tiring of your constant deflecting though, these round and rounds about free will are a minor issue compared to other problems with your post that I have raised.

God does not give the elect a chance to perish without salvation, you're right. In that sense He takes away free will. But it wasn't as if they never had freedom of the will. They had it, surrendered it to the corruption of sin, and being helpless He graciously comes to their aide. So, all men get free will, and all men use their free will to do as they 'will'.

There are no automatons in the picture, even those who are saved are saved by a conviction of the mind, they are given a 'reset' with the promise that nothing sin can do will keep them from God's overwhelming grace.

My point was not that it's wrong for God to not give people a choice, but rather to counter Switch's claim that it would be better if we never had one. I don't think it's better if we never had a choice.

I have answered your question QM. Maybe you should try quoting my answer instead of your own question?! No QM, as I already said, twice now, I do not believe in god. God has nothing to do with my moral code and I don't expect any god to behave in any way. How hard is this to understand man?! You're trying to set me up for god knows what but I don't believe any if it dude.

You don't like talking do you? Reasonable discussions are not east, there are many ways to misunderstand someone. So what I am saying is this: Now that I know you don't believe God is obligated to do anything, why do you think God is wrong?

[Pastafarian]

Quid pro quo. Last chance to stop dodging my questions, and now you'll have to go find those you've ignored.

And the above about free will is another dodge. What. About. When. You're. Perfect. In. Heaven? 

[Switch]

Switch,
     If your Creation had only the capability of doing the best good all the time then they wouldn't have free will. They'd be doing whatever you wanted all the time.

Their capability wouldn't be limited at all. They'd be able to do lots of things. They would choose only good things because they desired only good things.

[QuestionMark]

Quid pro quo. Last chance to stop dodging my questions, and now you'll have to go find those you've ignored.

And the above about free will is another dodge. What. About. When. You're. Perfect. In. Heaven? 

Pasta I think our conversation is over, I just answered your questions.

[QuestionMark]

Their capability wouldn't be limited at all. They'd be able to do lots of things. They would choose only good things because they desired only good things.

It wouldn't be limited at all yet they would always choose good things. So you think being unable to choose to do any less than you want them to isn't a limitation?

You're a curious sort :D

Some animals are more equal than others?

[Pastafarian]

Edit: moderated.

[QuestionMark]

Pasta it seems to me you are pretending to be interested in the discussion but you really just like the pompous posturing.

Do you read books?