| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Epignosis 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32581
|
 Posted: September 07 2012 at 21:44 |
 thellama73 wrote:
A couple of more points on this:
Regarding the burden of proof, I see it differently. My mind tells me that I can choose whether to have another beer or not. You claim that this is an illusion. Doesn't the burden of proof fall on the one who contradicts what the senses tell us?
Also, I believe a worldview that doesn't recognize free will has profound practical implications. The justice system has special rules for insanity because an insane person can't control himself and doesn't fully understand the impact of his actions. If all our decisions are predetermined by our experiences and the configuration of our brains, how can anyone truly be responsible for his actions, and if he's not responsible how can we punish him anymore than we punish animals or the insane?
|
You have misconstrued my position. I wholeheartedly believe you have freewill, but I am a compatibalist, meaning that freewill is not random. You choose to have another beer (or not) because of causes that press upon your mind. This choice is not an illusion. It is caused, however. Your choices are therefore new causes on future choices. Isn't that cool?
As for the justice system, and recognizing the thread we are in, I will answer the way I wish to: The Bible says we are born sinners. That is, we are wired to f**k up.
Question:
I am a forgetful man. Suppose I, in my routine, forget to take my children someplace before work, and I whistle off to my classroom, July 5th, leaving them all in the car. When I come back to the parking lot, there are three dead children. Am I at fault? What do you think, but more important why do you think it?
Edited by Epignosis - September 07 2012 at 21:45
|
|
|
 |
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: September 07 2012 at 21:37 |
Epignosis wrote:
Buridan's ass? He will not starve to death. Why? Because he will eat both of them. He has two meals instead of one! 
++++
I understand that's glib and ignores the heart of the matter, so let me address it here:
The ass will subconsciously choose one, just as we make subconscious choices all the time. Jackasses do not regard "equal" or "not equal," and really, neither do you. You make a choice based on the data your brain observes whether "you" like it or not.
That "random" thing you do has a cause. Do you really believe in uncaused things?
|
But what makes the subconscious choose left rather than right if there is no difference between the two? I don't believe in uncaused things, but I believe the will can be a cause. Just because my will can cause me to do something doesn't necessarily mean that it must.
|
|
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: September 07 2012 at 21:34 |
|
A couple of more points on this:
Regarding the burden of proof, I see it differently. My mind tells me that I can choose whether to have another beer or not. You claim that this is an illusion. Doesn't the burden of proof fall on the one who contradicts what the senses tell us?
Also, I believe a worldview that doesn't recognize free will has profound practical implications. The justice system has special rules for insanity because an insane person can't control himself and doesn't fully understand the impact of his actions. If all our decisions are predetermined by our experiences and the configuration of our brains, how can anyone truly be responsible for his actions, and if he's not responsible how can we punish him anymore than we punish animals or the insane?
|
|
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32581
|
Posted: September 07 2012 at 21:32 |
thellama73 wrote:
It's really just a philosophical puzzle with o way to prove or disprove it, but how would you respond to the thought experiment about a donkey having to choose between two pieces of food equidistant from him, with no discernible different between them and no inherent preference for left or right? If the two choices are truly identical, how would such a decision be made unless the mind is capable of free will?
|
Buridan's ass? He will not starve to death. Why? Because he will eat both of them. He has two meals instead of one!
++++
I understand that's glib and ignores the heart of the matter, so let me address it here:
The ass will subconsciously choose one, just as we make subconscious choices all the time. Jackasses do not regard "equal" or "not equal," and really, neither do you. You make a choice based on the data your brain observes whether "you" like it or not.
That "random" thing you do has a cause. Do you really believe in uncaused things?
|
|
|
|
Ambient Hurricanes
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 25 2011
Location: internet
Status: Offline
Points: 2549
|
Posted: September 07 2012 at 21:27 |
Epignosis wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
As a Christian materialist, I have a different approach.
Do we have freewill? Yes, in the sense that our volition is caused by man's brain and external stimuli. Our desire to do anything (output) is the result of stimuli and neurological activity (input). The phrase,
"If I knew then what I know now, I would..." indicates a change of the
input (knowledge); all circumstances being exactly the same, the future
of those circumstances will be exactly the same.
Thus, omniscience only requires God to know the initial input. Any output (which in turn becomes new input) can be determined mathematically. If we had a powerful computer that knew all input of a die throw (starting position, velocity, inertia, etc.), that computer could calculate the number thrown.
In this sense, if God created the world, He set into motion a series of events that, to a mind able to calculate all the data, the very end (?) result could be extrapolated.
Kind of gives new meaning to the idea of God "resting" on the seventh day.  
|
I understand this view, and have heard it a lot, but I don't buy it. I think the human mind is capable of spontaneous decisions and that given the exact same inputs could potential come up with different outputs. That's what makes people different from machines (or dice.)
|
Sorry I neglected to respond to this in a timely fashion.
Even a spontaneous decision is not a truly random one. It is caused by the mechanisms in the brain.
I disagree that the exact same inputs could result in a variety of outputs. I think the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that they can.
I disagree that people are different from machines. Nothing wrong with being a machine, you know. Even School House Rock joyfully confessed that one.
|
I don't really know anything about how the human brain works, but don't scientists have ideas like chaos theory that say there is randomness in any system?
In my worldview class the other day, we were actually just talking about the idea that naturalism presupposes determinism, and I brought up your view.
|
|
I love dogs, I've always loved dogs
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: September 07 2012 at 21:21 |
|
It's really just a philosophical puzzle with o way to prove or disprove it, but how would you respond to the thought experiment about a donkey having to choose between two pieces of food equidistant from him, with no discernible different between them and no inherent preference for left or right? If the two choices are truly identical, how would such a decision be made unless the mind is capable of free will?
|
|
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32581
|
Posted: September 06 2012 at 17:23 |
thellama73 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
As a Christian materialist, I have a different approach.
Do we have freewill? Yes, in the sense that our volition is caused by man's brain and external stimuli. Our desire to do anything (output) is the result of stimuli and neurological activity (input). The phrase,
"If I knew then what I know now, I would..." indicates a change of the
input (knowledge); all circumstances being exactly the same, the future
of those circumstances will be exactly the same.
Thus, omniscience only requires God to know the initial input. Any output (which in turn becomes new input) can be determined mathematically. If we had a powerful computer that knew all input of a die throw (starting position, velocity, inertia, etc.), that computer could calculate the number thrown.
In this sense, if God created the world, He set into motion a series of events that, to a mind able to calculate all the data, the very end (?) result could be extrapolated.
Kind of gives new meaning to the idea of God "resting" on the seventh day.
|
I understand this view, and have heard it a lot, but I don't buy it. I think the human mind is capable of spontaneous decisions and that given the exact same inputs could potential come up with different outputs. That's what makes people different from machines (or dice.)
|
Sorry I neglected to respond to this in a timely fashion.
Even a spontaneous decision is not a truly random one. It is caused by the mechanisms in the brain.
I disagree that the exact same inputs could result in a variety of outputs. I think the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that they can.
I disagree that people are different from machines. Nothing wrong with being a machine, you know. Even School House Rock joyfully confessed that one.
|
|
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: August 24 2012 at 08:01 |
Epignosis wrote:
As a Christian materialist, I have a different approach.
Do we have freewill? Yes, in the sense that our volition is caused by man's brain and external stimuli. Our desire to do anything (output) is the result of stimuli and neurological activity (input). The phrase,
"If I knew then what I know now, I would..." indicates a change of the
input (knowledge); all circumstances being exactly the same, the future
of those circumstances will be exactly the same.
Thus, omniscience only requires God to know the initial input. Any output (which in turn becomes new input) can be determined mathematically. If we had a powerful computer that knew all input of a die throw (starting position, velocity, inertia, etc.), that computer could calculate the number thrown.
In this sense, if God created the world, He set into motion a series of events that, to a mind able to calculate all the data, the very end (?) result could be extrapolated.
Kind of gives new meaning to the idea of God "resting" on the seventh day.
|
I understand this view, and have heard it a lot, but I don't buy it. I think the human mind is capable of spontaneous decisions and that given the exact same inputs could potential come up with different outputs. That's what makes people different from machines (or dice.)
|
|
|
|
Morsenator
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2009
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 397
|
Posted: August 24 2012 at 01:48 |
Epignosis wrote:
As a Christian materialist, I have a different approach.
Do we have freewill? Yes, in the sense that our volition is caused by man's brain and external stimuli. Our desire to do anything (output) is the result of stimuli and neurological activity (input). The phrase, "If I knew then what I know now, I would..." indicates a change of the input (knowledge); all circumstances being exactly the same, the future of those circumstances will be exactly the same.
Thus, omniscience only requires God to know the initial input. Any output (which in turn becomes new input) can be determined mathematically. If we had a powerful computer that knew all input of a die throw (starting position, velocity, inertia, etc.), that computer could calculate the number thrown.
In this sense, if God created the world, He set into motion a series of events that, to a mind able to calculate all the data, the very end (?) result could be extrapolated.
Kind of gives new meaning to the idea of God "resting" on the seventh day.
|
I pretty much agree on this, although I'd like to point that it's one heck of a complex process, and I'm not completely sure if it is even theoretically possible to build a computer which is able to calculate it (still would be no problemo for God, of course). I'm interested: you seem to somewhat support the information processing theory established in psychology after the cognitive revolution (something like this basic model here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wiki_.pdf&page=1), am I correct?
|
|
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32581
|
Posted: August 23 2012 at 19:40 |
As a Christian materialist, I have a different approach.
Do we have freewill? Yes, in the sense that our volition is caused by man's brain and external stimuli. Our desire to do anything (output) is the result of stimuli and neurological activity (input). The phrase,
"If I knew then what I know now, I would..." indicates a change of the
input (knowledge); all circumstances being exactly the same, the future
of those circumstances will be exactly the same.
Thus, omniscience only requires God to know the initial input. Any output (which in turn becomes new input) can be determined mathematically. If we had a powerful computer that knew all input of a die throw (starting position, velocity, inertia, etc.), that computer could calculate the number thrown.
In this sense, if God created the world, He set into motion a series of events that, to a mind able to calculate all the data, the very end (?) result could be extrapolated.
Kind of gives new meaning to the idea of God "resting" on the seventh day.
|
|
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: August 23 2012 at 10:35 |
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
Figured I'd respond here instead.
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion,[b] but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. 19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— |
Give me your in interpretation of the passage, because I cannot for the life of me find anything worth calling good in it. I parsed through and saw this gem, though. This is just an odious, life-denying philosophy to me, and its passage like this that make me wonder why some Christians would see the value in seeing they are nothing without God. And I take issue as well with the "believing in him and not being put to shame" nonsense. This passage, to my eyes is terrible, soul-crushing nonsense. I am wondering if I am missing something, because I don't think a person could choose to believe this kind of faith is a good thing, which makes me all the more firm in my statement that belief is not a choice, but a conclusion based on experience and subconscious thought.
I get that you think this passage reflects the reality of the world in some way, but...do you actually want that to be true? Sounds horrible to me.
|
What ever does it matter if I want it to be true? Do my desires determine truth? Should my idea of God determine what he is really like? Should my desire for free will in my salvation determine whether I have it? I don't believe this because I think it's nice, or because I want to, or because it makes me feel good. I believe it because I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that His word is truth.
My interpretation of the passage is that it means exactly what it says. No one receives injustice from God. We all deserve death, and yet some, by the grace of God, receive eternal life. I don't know why He chooses some and not others. I don't know why He desires all people to be saved but only chooses some. I do know, however, that God is Love, that He is perfect, righteous, just, and merciful, and that whatever He wills is what is good, and I know this because He has sent His Son, Jesus Christ, into the world, and that this Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world out of love for His Father and for us, and that God proved that Jesus was His own Son by raising Him from the dead.
|
It's not so much that I think reality is contingent on our desires, but I think the metaphysical claims of Christianity are, on their face, so ridiculous that I'm having trouble finding a reason for people subjecting themselves to this anti-human totalitarianism. I am not trying to be rude, but given the thread and circumstance, I probably am.
|
|
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: August 23 2012 at 10:30 |
|
I see. I did not understand that part.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Ambient Hurricanes
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 25 2011
Location: internet
Status: Offline
Points: 2549
|
Posted: August 23 2012 at 10:28 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
What ever does it matter if I want it to be true? Do my desires determine truth? Should my idea of God determine what he is really like? Should my desire for free will in my salvation determine whether I have it? I don't believe this because I think it's nice, or because I want to, or because it makes me feel good. I believe it because I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that His word is truth.
|
You believe because you believe? I'm sure that's true, but it's a bit tautological, circular, and does not explain much.
|
I believe one thing because it follows from another thing that I believe for other reasons.
|
|
I love dogs, I've always loved dogs
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: August 23 2012 at 10:14 |
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
What ever does it matter if I want it to be true? Do my desires determine truth? Should my idea of God determine what he is really like? Should my desire for free will in my salvation determine whether I have it? I don't believe this because I think it's nice, or because I want to, or because it makes me feel good. I believe it because I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that His word is truth.
|
You believe because you believe? I'm sure that's true, but it's a bit tautological, circular, and does not explain much.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Ambient Hurricanes
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 25 2011
Location: internet
Status: Offline
Points: 2549
|
Posted: August 23 2012 at 09:55 |
stonebeard wrote:
Figured I'd respond here instead.
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion,[b] but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. 19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— |
Give me your in interpretation of the passage, because I cannot for the life of me find anything worth calling good in it. I parsed through and saw this gem, though. This is just an odious, life-denying philosophy to me, and its passage like this that make me wonder why some Christians would see the value in seeing they are nothing without God. And I take issue as well with the "believing in him and not being put to shame" nonsense. This passage, to my eyes is terrible, soul-crushing nonsense. I am wondering if I am missing something, because I don't think a person could choose to believe this kind of faith is a good thing, which makes me all the more firm in my statement that belief is not a choice, but a conclusion based on experience and subconscious thought.
I get that you think this passage reflects the reality of the world in some way, but...do you actually want that to be true? Sounds horrible to me.
|
What ever does it matter if I want it to be true? Do my desires determine truth? Should my idea of God determine what he is really like? Should my desire for free will in my salvation determine whether I have it? I don't believe this because I think it's nice, or because I want to, or because it makes me feel good. I believe it because I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that His word is truth. My interpretation of the passage is that it means exactly what it says. No one receives injustice from God. We all deserve death, and yet some, by the grace of God, receive eternal life. I don't know why He chooses some and not others. I don't know why He desires all people to be saved but only chooses some. I do know, however, that God is Love, that He is perfect, righteous, just, and merciful, and that whatever He wills is what is good, and I know this because He has sent His Son, Jesus Christ, into the world, and that this Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world out of love for His Father and for us, and that God proved that Jesus was His own Son by raising Him from the dead.
|
|
I love dogs, I've always loved dogs
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: August 22 2012 at 23:05 |
Figured I'd respond here instead.
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion,[b] but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. 19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— |
Give me your in interpretation of the passage, because I cannot for the life of me find anything worth calling good in it. I parsed through and saw this gem, though. This is just an odious, life-denying philosophy to me, and its passage like this that make me wonder why some Christians would see the value in seeing they are nothing without God. And I take issue as well with the "believing in him and not being put to shame" nonsense. This passage, to my eyes is terrible, soul-crushing nonsense. I am wondering if I am missing something, because I don't think a person could choose to believe this kind of faith is a good thing, which makes me all the more firm in my statement that belief is not a choice, but a conclusion based on experience and subconscious thought.
I get that you think this passage reflects the reality of the world in some way, but...do you actually want that to be true? Sounds horrible to me.
Edited by stonebeard - August 22 2012 at 23:06
|
|
|
|
Ambient Hurricanes
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 25 2011
Location: internet
Status: Offline
Points: 2549
|
Posted: August 22 2012 at 19:15 |
Epignosis wrote:
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Matthew 17:3-5 wrote:
When
Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was
seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the
chief priests and the elders. “I have sinned,” he said, “for I have betrayed innocent blood.”“What is that to us?” they replied. “That’s your responsibility.” So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.
|
1 John 1:9 wrote:
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. |
I wonder if John's promise applies to the grief-stricken, repentant Judas. 
|
I've
always heard that Judas wasn't saved because he believed in his own sin
but not the mercy of God to forgive him; all law and no Gospel. He
didn't put his trust in Christ for forgiveness, but believed that he was
beyond redemption.
|
I
don't see anything in the text that shows that (it may be there- I have
not studied Judas in depth). But he spent the final years of his life
with Jesus- surely he understood something.
|
Every single one of the disciples lost faith when Jesus died. I don't see why Judas would be any different.
Jesus
says about the one who betrayed him, "it would be better for him if he
had not been born." This wouldn't apply to Judas if he had been saved
in the end, and he was definitely sorry for his sin, so I think we can
infer based on the text that he lacked faith in the forgiveness Christ
had won for him.
|
1. You are (evidently) a Calvinist. You surely don't believe they "lost faith" in any meaningful sense.
2.
You believe in an eternal fiery hurtful hell. Isn't then what Jesus
said to Judas true of all unbelievers at one point in their lives?
2a. Jesus also says "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it
would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck,
he had been cast into the sea." (Mark 9:24)
Does
your response imply then, that (however you interpret the initial
clause) "causing one of" the "little ones" "to stumble" is an
unforgivable thing?
|
I'm not a Calvinist. I'm a Lutheran, but I used Calvinism as the example in my post in the thread this originated in because it's most identified with predestination and because the Lutheran doctrine of soteriology is incomprehensible and I didn't think it would be the best example. I don't believe that God predestines people to Hell, but I do believe that he knows who will end up there. So what Jesus said would be true for one He knew would not come to faith, but not for someone who He knew would come to faith (I'm not at all sure about the fire and physical pain, either; I think there's a strong possibility that Hell is a place of spiritual, not physical, torment. I don't know either way, really). I think that passage means that, though causing someone to stumble isn't unforgivable, it would be better to die before committing that sin because it could endanger someone else's salvation.
|
|
I love dogs, I've always loved dogs
|
|
AlexDOM
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 02 2011
Location: Indianapolis
Status: Offline
Points: 775
|
Posted: August 16 2012 at 16:28 |
Epignosis wrote:
Thank God school is back in session.
|
Excited to be back at college and serving in Cru
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32581
|
Posted: August 15 2012 at 17:03 |
Thank God school is back in session.
|
|
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: August 15 2012 at 13:56 |
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
I know you didn't say it, but I don't see you or anyone else calling anyone presumptuous for making that claim. I don't consider anyone presumptuous for denying God's existence and, likewise, I don't think I'm presumptuous for denying the existence of meaning in life without God. |
Why would I call someone else that for not believing in God? pre·sump·tu·ous/priˈzəmpCH(o͞o)əs/| Adjective: | | (of a person or their behavior) Failing to observe the limits of what is permitted or appropriate. |
|
I don't see how that applies to someone stating that they don't believe in a specific entity.
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
You're misunderstanding me. I find meaning, not in a character of literature, but in the true, historical Son of God, Jesus Christ. If someone denies Jesus to my face, he effectively says that I have not found meaning in my life but not that I cannot. My statements don't imply that there is no meaning in your life; only that you have not found that meaning. The one who denies God does the same to me. |
No it's not. You could think someone is real and still find meaning regardless of the actual situation. Since you believe in the biblical story of redemption, if I were to write an exact reproduction of the New Testament but set it on Mars 20,000 years from now, that would be fictional. However, someone could still read that and then have the same experiences as you with regards to meaning, etc. Yet you would admit that the story granting them these feelings is fictional.
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
Ditto |
Double ditto.
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
I know, see my reply to Dean above. Perhaps I misunderstood you.
However, "making a statement and asserting it to be true" is not presumption, and if it is then presumption cannot be understood as a negative concept. |
See Dean's response to your response above this response.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
The Christian Thread
