Subject:
|
Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Dec 2000 03:08:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
846 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> SRC...
> > Tom...
> > > Dave!...
> > > > Me...
> > > > > Tom...
> > > > > > But according to others in this group, man doesn't HAVE free will -
> > > > > > God knows everything anyone will do from cradle to grave - where
> > > > > > is the free will in that?
> >
> > I don't know whom the "others" are, (or the group for that matter)
> > but I see no Biblical basis for saying man doesn't have free will.
> > Quite the opposite in fact.
>
> An omnipotent, omniscient God removes free will from the equation.
(I'll give a more logical breakdown below, but first:)
Omnipotent= Can do anything, by the definition you are using.
"grant free will" falls under the catagory of anything last I checked.
> If your God is not omnipotent/omniscient, how can you elevate him to Godhood?
> At most he would simply be one/many steps higher on the ladder than us.
> That wouldn't make him worth worshipping to me.
Ok. Let's specifically break out this omniscient/omnipotent thing.
As I demonstrated elsewhere (rock:make/lift) omnipotence is paradoxical and
self-defeating as defined. This gives a couple of immediate possibilities:
1:The definition is correct, and our understanding is too limited, or
2:The definition is incorrect.
A similar case can be made for omniscience.
If (1) is the case, then you cannot catagorically state that omni(state) denies
free will. Without a full understanding of omni(state), and lacking objective
evidence, we cannot reliably ascribe attributes (or the lack of attributes) to
it.
If (2), then we must look for the most accurate definition within our frame of
reference. That's the premise I've been debating under in the last day or
so... I guess I should have assumed less, and broken this down from day 1. :/
<snipped the well-beaten horse of morality>
> Here's my somewhat final word on this:
> People of Faith "have faith" that they KNOW the Truth, and nothing others say
> will change their mind (not a single Christian in here has even remotely
> acknowledged that Buddhists or other religions MAY be right and Christianity
> wrong).
Bzzt, wrong. Thanks for playing, though. I have acknowledged before (and will
again) that I don't necessarily have the low-down on Truth. I think I've
got a decent understanding, but I've never claimed I can't be wrong. I can't
hunt down the specific cite right now (and, to be honest, am likely too lazy to
do it some other time), but it was somewhere in the 'morality vs ethics' thread
a year or so ago.
> I "have faith" that Christians/you-name-it are wrong, and NOTHING they can say
> will change my mind.
>
> At that point, it is Faith against faith, and debating it is a wash. But that
> won't stop me from poking at people that won't stop poking at me.
I'm sorry if it's looked like I'm poking at you, I've been trying to have a
debate about some cool philosophical curiosties with some fairly smart folks
that I have enjoyed debating with. I guess I'll stop now. :/
James
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
