+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive)
+---- Thread: Intermediate step to beginning of life uncovered (/Thread-Intermediate-step-to-beginning-of-life-uncovered)
RE: Intermediate step to beginning of life uncovered - Benton - 06-15-2015
(06-15-2015, 05:07 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: * Indeed
** What do you mean "presuppose"? By definition it isn't a free choice if I was created to behave in a certain way.
*** Why would I view time as anything but?
**** Humans are "created". Supposedly by this all-knowing God character. Instead of being "told" (he doesn't speak), he programmed us to behave in accordance to his foreknowledge of our behavior. Otherwise, he wouldn't be omnipotent and we could act in a way counter to his knowledge.
That seems like the most reasonable deduction based on the supposed evidence of his omniscience (knowledge of our actions before we have consciousness) and omnipotence (the fact that he created us with foreknowledge of how we would act). Computer programs behave similarly.
We are ultimately computer programs if God exists.
** Presuppose. As in, you have to presuppose that to make it work.
*** Because it's a theory older than Newton's. We hold onto Newton's because it makes things easier to measure and quantify but read up on Immanuel Kant.
**** Frame it that way ("he programmed us to behave in accordance to his foreknowledge of our behavior") and no, there isn't free will. Unless He didn't program us. Maybe He provided some basic building blocks (DNA) a few billion years ago and let it work itself out. It turned into you, me and a few trillion other people over the years. All with the ability to think reason and make decisions.
He defined our abilities (DNA) but not what we did with them (free choice).
And that's how I consider the creation allegory. God made matter, God defined some of it and created the basics for life (DNA) and let it grow. The fact that it took billions of years didn't matter as time is relative to the person experiencing it.
RE: Intermediate step to beginning of life uncovered - WhoDeyWho - 06-15-2015
(06-15-2015, 05:51 PM)Benton Wrote: ** Presuppose. As in, you have to presuppose that to make it work.
*** Because it's a theory older than Newton's. We hold onto Newton's because it makes things easier to measure and quantify but read up on Immanuel Kant.
**** Frame it that way ("he programmed us to behave in accordance to his foreknowledge of our behavior") and no, there isn't free will. Unless He didn't program us. Maybe He provided some basic building blocks (DNA) a few billion years ago and let it work itself out. It turned into you, me and a few trillion other people over the years. All with the ability to think reason and make decisions.
He defined our abilities (DNA) but not what we did with them (free choice).
And that's how I consider the creation allegory. God made matter, God defined some of it and created the basics for life (DNA) and let it grow. The fact that it took billions of years didn't matter as time is relative to the person experiencing it.
He did more than create the "basics". He created everything with perfect knowledge of what it would blossom into. He ultimately programmed it that way.
RE: Intermediate step to beginning of life uncovered - Beaker - 06-15-2015
(06-15-2015, 04:11 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: But it does. If God knows your actions before you exist to act, then you don't have "free will". Only the illusion of it.
Then god is not really all knowing then, is he? And thus the illogical dichotomy.
RE: Intermediate step to beginning of life uncovered - Beaker - 06-15-2015
(06-15-2015, 04:22 PM)Benton Wrote: You guys need a thesaurus. And a dictionary.
Knowing something is going to happen is not the same as making it happen.
Knowing something will happen BEFORE even creating the being, then punishing that being for making that choice does not follow the logic of a loving god.
RE: Intermediate step to beginning of life uncovered - rfaulk34 - 06-15-2015
(06-15-2015, 02:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Just, throwing this out there. I am seeing omnipotent being thrown out there as synonymous with all knowing a lot in this thread. The word you are looking for is omniscient.
Heathens... what can you do?
RE: Intermediate step to beginning of life uncovered - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 06-15-2015
(06-15-2015, 09:25 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Heathens... what can you do?
Easy to get those terms confused when you're all of that and a bag of chips.
RE: Intermediate step to beginning of life uncovered - Benton - 06-15-2015
(06-15-2015, 06:07 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: He did more than create the "basics". He created everything with perfect knowledge of what it would blossom into. He ultimately programmed it that way.
If I put together a motor, four wheels and steering, you've got a car. Where you go with it is up to you.
RE: Intermediate step to beginning of life uncovered - Benton - 06-15-2015
(06-15-2015, 06:15 PM)Beaker Wrote: Knowing something will happen BEFORE even creating the being, then punishing that being for making that choice does not follow the logic of a loving god.
Stop thinking so linearly. It's weird someone supporting a scientific approach has such a closed mind.
RE: Intermediate step to beginning of life uncovered - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 06-15-2015
(06-15-2015, 09:41 PM)Benton Wrote: If I put together a motor, four wheels and steering, you've got a car. Where you go with it is up to you.
If I know your destination before you leave I know where you will go and where you won't. If I know you're going to NYC you won't wind up in LA.
RE: Intermediate step to beginning of life uncovered - Benton - 06-15-2015
(06-15-2015, 09:54 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If I know your destination before you leave I know where you will go and where you won't. If I know you're going to NYC you won't wind up in LA.
And me knowing (which doesn't have anything to do with making your car) changes your decision how? If you decide to go to NYC, and I know that, how does my knowing decide that you end up there?
Omniscient doesn't mean I sent you there.
RE: Intermediate step to beginning of life uncovered - Beaker - 06-15-2015
(06-15-2015, 09:44 PM)Benton Wrote: Stop thinking
Religion asks.
RE: Intermediate step to beginning of life uncovered - Benton - 06-16-2015
(06-15-2015, 11:16 PM)Beaker Wrote: Religion asks.
Ah, thanks. I'll take that as a compliment that your best answer is none at all.
RE: Intermediate step to beginning of life uncovered - WhoDeyWho - 06-16-2015
(06-15-2015, 09:44 PM)Benton Wrote: Stop thinking so linearly. It's weird someone supporting a scientific approach has such a closed mind.
Perhaps I should just stop thinking at all and rely on "faith" to make sense of things that don't make sense otherwise?
RE: Intermediate step to beginning of life uncovered - WhoDeyWho - 06-16-2015
(06-15-2015, 10:00 PM)Benton Wrote: And me knowing (which doesn't have anything to do with making your car) changes your decision how? If you decide to go to NYC, and I know that, how does my knowing decide that you end up there?
Omniscient doesn't mean I sent you there.
How can he know a decision that I didn't exist to make?
God supposedly made the car (he created humans)
and knew where the car would go (he knows my thoughts and actions before I even have them).
That sounds like a software engineer who knows exactly how the software he creates will perform because he programmed them to perform that way.
RE: Intermediate step to beginning of life uncovered - bfine32 - 06-16-2015
(06-16-2015, 01:01 AM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: Perhaps I should just stop thinking at all and rely on "faith" to make sense of things that don't make sense otherwise?
It is funny. If a satisfactory answer to a question of scripture cannot be given, then this means it is not true. If a satisfactory answer to a question of science cannot be given, then this means we just haven’t discovered it yet.
It is sad that you thought you were being "clever" with this response. The scripture tells us we should walk by faith and not by sight.
RE: Intermediate step to beginning of life uncovered - michaelsean - 06-16-2015
(06-15-2015, 05:44 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: Why else would they be put here? To do something else counter to his foreknowledge? Are you saying he put them here with the hope they would act counter to his knowledge of the way they would act?
See how the implication makes no rational sense?
I don't know why you keep bringing up Adam and Eve. I'm not a literalist. All I am saying is that in your argument one can go from having free will to being predestined by another being obtaining some knowledge of their future even if the two beings never communicate.
What you did today was always going to.happen because what you did today did happen. If that's not predestination, then merely having that knowledge can't be predestination.
RE: Intermediate step to beginning of life uncovered - rfaulk34 - 06-16-2015
(06-15-2015, 08:34 AM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: So as a parent if you knew your child was going to kill himself and you had the power to prevent it would you comfort yourself knowing you let your child exercise "free will"?
This falls way short of an apples to apples comparison as God's job and my job as a parent aren't the same.
Quote:The notion of free will coupled with an all knowing God who knows every thought and action you would take before you were even born seems absurd.
You only have the illusion of free will. Like those human batteries in the Matrix.
If God doesn't exist then "free will" makes sense.
Apparently free will doesn't exist because a parent who loves their children, protects them, feeds and clothes them, gives them everything they need to be safe and thrive in this world will never have that child reject them or harm them because every experience they've ever had has been good and they have no bad reference to influence them and their decision. It was all laid out from the beginning.
Since things like DNA, peers and any number of outside influences shape how a person reacts, we both know the previous paragraph isn't true.
The good a parent does isn't always enough to guide a child to treat them in a way they should be treated. After all things are considered, a decision is made based on all inputs one has experienced and that child may choose to react negatively against the one who doesn't deserve it. Because...free will.
In the same way, someone who has been mistreated may still choose to love the person mistreating them, for various reasons. Because...free will.
Positive does not always lead to positive and negative does not always lead to negative. All things come into play and a choice is made. That choice hasn't been made for you just because someone has knowledge of it. I don't know how else i can explain that.
'Free will' vs 'free choice' and 'there's no such thing as free will because of omniscience' is BS. OMG, here comes a rant...
I've seen too many times where someone says, 'religion is for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers' or 'religion is for people that are afraid to face the unknown without help'...or just pick your favorite quote. The truth of the matter is, while organized religion can easily be bad due to the fallible nature of man, faith in God is rejected by the 'highly intelligent' because they don't want to believe there is someone, unseen, more intelligent than themselves. Superior intellect is a roadblock to faith when empirical evidence is the basis for every belief,even though it's clearly known that a belief in God is based in faith--belief that is not based on proof. And that 'intelligent' person's rationale that, "if it can't be observed, i reject it" is as valuable is a pile of dirt because they've chosen to ignore seeking, the way it was meant, the very real truth that is out there and provable when it's sought in the proper way.
"Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered." Proverbs 28:26
/rant
Quote:Christians use it as a catchall for excusing God for his obvious intentional creation failures.
No.
RE: Intermediate step to beginning of life uncovered - rfaulk34 - 06-16-2015
(06-15-2015, 09:28 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I'm pressed for time so I need to keep it short. You are born knowing you will die. No choice. God created Adam and Eve knowing they would fail. Failure was the only outcome. The future was fixed. Predetermination, fate, destiny, etc. God didn't ask them to choose. He asked them for blind obedience. How do you know the difference between good and evil? Between right and wrong? Your conscience. Adam and Eve were created without a conscience that's why they didn't know the difference between good/evil/right/wrong/easy way/hard way. They had no way of comprehending the serpent's deceit. They didn't choose the hard way because they couldn't understand it was the hard way.
The knowledge of good and evil isn't the same as obedience. They were told what they could eat and they were told what not to eat and they were told what would happen if they did eat from one particular tree. As soon as they were told, while every tree was available to them, they had a choice. Obey or ignore. They chose to ignore even though they were warned exactly what would happen. God wouldn't tell them they would die without them having some concept of death. There's nothing logical about telling someone about death if they didn't know what it was. That's not the same as have knowledge of good and evil. Up to that point, it was only evil that they didn't know about. Didn't know about, as in, they had not experienced it. If they had never been exposed to evil, they would never have the ability to do "evil". As a side note, what's the opposite of live? Obviously, the answer is die. What's the literal, visual opposite of live?evil. *Rod Serling music* do do dodo do do dodo. Anyway... It's true your conscience was the result of the original sin. That's not to say they needed to experience something to know not to do it. They were told, explicitly, not to do it and why.
You say they had no way of comprehending the serpent's deceit. Who created them and everything around them? Not the serpent. He was created as well. Knowing the difference between the creator and the created...why would Eve still choose to eat the fruit after she was told not to, knowing the consequences, assuming she understood the concept of death? Because...free will.
Quote:One of the reasons God expelled Adam and Eve was so they wouldn't eat from the Tree of Life and become immortal. Genesis 3:22 I think. Eve was surely going to die anyway. Not right away. Not at that moment. But, eventually they were going to die whether they ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil or not.
They weren't allowed to eat of the Tree of Life because they ate from the ToK. Until that point, they were free to do so.
Quote:I assume Hindus believe similarly. Or any believer in any religion. What book is responsible for more death and suffering?
Religions excluded. Assuming the bible is a work of fiction, is what i meant.
P.S. I REALLY hate the way this is formatted, when trying to separate a quote. Constantly having to go back and remove or add quote tags... :angry:
RE: Intermediate step to beginning of life uncovered - rfaulk34 - 06-16-2015
(06-15-2015, 09:51 AM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: My question to you is why did no "historical men" outside of the bible document the many miracles claimed in it?
Especially the one where all the "saints" come out of their graves when Jesus gives up the ghost. You think that would have been worthy of a few lines in the history books.
http://www.bethinking.org/jesus/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non-christian-sources
http://bobsiegel.net/articles/2010/02/are-there-historical-references-to-jesus-his-miracles-and-his-resurrection-outside-the-new-testament/
RE: Intermediate step to beginning of life uncovered - rfaulk34 - 06-16-2015
(06-15-2015, 12:57 PM)Beaker Wrote: I have often posed that question. If god is omnipotent, it makes no sense that he would create evil beings, just to condemn them to hell....since he supposedly loves all his creations and wants them beside him. He would know before he even created them what choices they would make. If he didnt know, then he was not really omnipotent after all. Just bad fundamental logic.
How is that fair to the millions that will make the right choice?
If you want free will, the bad comes with the good. All still had a choice to choose properly.
Apparently, there actually is no bad fundamental logic there.
