Is forgiveness without a price a virtue?

[Justin108]

Is it a good thing to be able to forgive without any price?

If so, is God imperfect for being unable to forgive sin without Jesus' sacrifice?

[The Tanager]

2. Radical claims require radical evidence.

I know of no argument for the Christian God that uses sound logic, valid and reliable evidence. Unless you can provide me with such an argument, you cannot claim that there are rational arguments for the Christian God.

We are in the middle of the attempt. Wait until the end to assess whether it was a rational argument or not.

Testimony. If we consider testimony to be part of rational argument, then we would have to consider Big Foot sightings and alien abduction claims as "rational". I disagree.

So, are you saying that history is irrational? There is no reason to respond to the rest until we talk about this point.

[The Tanager]

3. The Effect of Sin

Ok so in conclusion, you agree that the odds of everyone choosing self-reliance are staggeringly low. So basically, you're telling me that the odds of your version of events actually happening (that everyone chose self-reliance over surrender) are staggeringly low? If the odds of your version of events took place are staggeringly low, why would you believe this version of events? Why would you believe in something when you yourself agree that the odds of it happening are so low?

Basically you're giving me an explanation to justify Christianity, and in that explanation you admit that the odds of this explanation actually being true are highly unlikely.

The odds of winning the lottery are staggeringly low. Susie Q says she won the lottery. Why would you believe that Susie Q won the lottery when you agree the odds of it happening are so low? Because probability does not equal truth. You look at other things to determine the truth of the matter. But in this part of the discussion you have been using probability to determine what we should believe is true on the matter.

[The Tanager]

4. An analysis of one analogy of the Christian solution

Doing something "with us" does not necessarily mean God needs to do exactly what we do. God having a physical influence on our actions, physically guiding us into doing what needs to be done does not require him to do the exact same things.

Essentially, the only actual difference between 1) and 3) is our own participation. If God makes us do something and we resist, then he is negating our free will. But if he makes us do it while we simultaneously try to do it, then he is not negate our free will. It's like helping someone climb a ledge. If I pushed them and they didn't want to go up, then I am negating their free will. But if I push them as they try to get up, then I am perfectly within their free will. God can "push us" so to speak without "climbing" with us. He does not need to do exactly what we do in order to physically help us.

You are misusing an analogy again. Analogically, I'm saying God cannot "push us" without having the ability of "pushing" NOT the ability of "climbing." Climbing is the action we need to do. We can climb by at least two methods: propelling ourself up the ledge and being pushed up the ledge. God can't 'push' us up the ledge without having the ability of 'pushing.'

If you use this vague term one more time, I am ending this discussion.

You want me to talk about what Christianity says is required of us (surrender) without using that word? If you want to end the discussion, then just end it. I've explained it in non-vague ways and will continue to use the term.

Give me a concrete example. Give me a scenario like the homeless man earlier. Give me a concrete example of what we need to do in that situation to surrender, and then explain to me why God cannot do that.

1. We have a will to walk by the homeless man.
2. We need to not follow that selfish will (this is what we need to surrender).
3. We need to do what God wants us to do, to help the homeless man.

How are you saying God can accomplish 2 and 3?

Wait, didn't Abraham do this when he was about to sacrifice Isaac?

Did I say no one has ever surrendered?

[Justin108]

No. My argument is...

S1: Belief in a given claim is a belief
S2: Belief in a given claim that we intrinsically find irrational is not a choice
C: Therefore, beliefs in that which we intrinsically find irrational is not a choice

How is that an argument? C is the exact same thing as S2? You are just making a claim that we have no control over beliefs "which we intrinsically find irrational."

Very well then... You claim that you have no control over your belief in fairies. What argument would you use to support your claim that you have no control over your belief in fairies?

I think you need to clarify P2 further. What do you mean by we intrinsically find something irrational?

How would you define your disbelief in fairies? Would you consider it to be intrinsically irrational? Or would you use a different term to describe it?

You told me that I should "decide to follow what you think reason is telling you"

I think reason is telling me to reject Christianity just as you think reason is telling you to reject fairies.

Yes, I think we should follow what seems rational to us. But I also think you have information available to you to see that Christianity is actually rational.

Unless you can prove your claim that I have information available to me that demonstrates Christianity to actually be rational, your claim is baseless. Someone can just as readily claim that you have information available to you to see that fairies is actually rational.

Is your will mechanistic in regards to belief in fairies?

I cannot choose to believe in the existence of fairies because there is no rational reason offered for me (one without personal experience of them) to.

I cannot choose to believe in the existence of YHWH because there is no rational reason offered for me (one without personal experience of them) to.

"Why is your belief in the existence of God any different, Tanager?", you'll be asking yourself again. Because there are rational arguments out there available to you, whether you have engaged them and found them wanting or have not engaged them. "Then share it," you'll think in frustration. I am in section 2 step by step.

Moving on to section 2 then

[Justin108]

Testimony. If we consider testimony to be part of rational argument, then we would have to consider Big Foot sightings and alien abduction claims as "rational". I disagree.

So, are you saying that history is irrational?

I am saying radical claims require more than just testimony. Claiming someone came back from the dead is most certainly a radical claim. Before we assess established history, answer this: do you believe in claims of Big Foot sightings? Do you believe in alien abduction claims?

[Justin108]

3. The Effect of Sin

Ok so in conclusion, you agree that the odds of everyone choosing self-reliance are staggeringly low. So basically, you're telling me that the odds of your version of events actually happening (that everyone chose self-reliance over surrender) are staggeringly low? If the odds of your version of events took place are staggeringly low, why would you believe this version of events? Why would you believe in something when you yourself agree that the odds of it happening are so low?

Basically you're giving me an explanation to justify Christianity, and in that explanation you admit that the odds of this explanation actually being true are highly unlikely.

The odds of winning the lottery are staggeringly low. Susie Q says she won the lottery. Why would you believe that Susie Q won the lottery when you agree the odds of it happening are so low?

I would doubt Susie Q until she supports her claim somehow.

Because probability does not equal truth.

I agree. But when truth is unknown (as is the case regarding God, the notion of self-reliance vs. surrender, etc.), it is a rational step to look at probability. When truth is unknown, the most rational route to take is looking at what is most likely. Your scenario is highly unlikely and so there is no rational reason to believe it.

[Justin108]

You are misusing an analogy again. Analogically, I'm saying God cannot "push us" without having the ability of "pushing" NOT the ability of "climbing."

"Pushing" and "climbing" are two different things.

To substitute the analogy

climbing = surrender
pushing = ???

So in this analogy, God does not need the ability to climb (surrender), he only needs the ability to push. Yet you have constantly been insisting that God needs the ability to surrender... Why does God need the ability to surrender in order to "push" us?

Climbing is the action we need to do. We can climb by at least two methods: propelling ourself up the ledge and being pushed up the ledge. God can't 'push' us up the ledge without having the ability of 'pushing.'

What is "pushing" in this analogy and why does God not have this ability?

Give me a concrete example. Give me a scenario like the homeless man earlier. Give me a concrete example of what we need to do in that situation to surrender, and then explain to me why God cannot do that.

1. We have a will to walk by the homeless man.
2. We need to not follow that selfish will (this is what we need to surrender).
3. We need to do what God wants us to do, to help the homeless man.

How are you saying God can accomplish 2 and 3?

How are you saying Jesus can accomplish 2 and 3? In non-vague terms. Don't say "Jesus helps us surrender". I want to know exactly in concrete terms what Jesus does in this scenario.

[The Tanager]

1. Does the Christian God reject people for beliefs they don't have control over?

How would you define your disbelief in fairies? Would you consider it to be intrinsically irrational? Or would you use a different term to describe it?

To me intrinsic irrationality would denote that it is an essential part of being a rational creature to see a certain belief as irrational. That is, that we couldn't see that certain belief as rational. I don't think that is your claim, though. That is not my claim about our belief in fairies.

Very well then... You claim that you have no control over your belief in fairies. What argument would you use to support your claim that you have no control over your belief in fairies?

I'm honestly not certain on my belief there. It is my belief that I don't have control over my disbelief in fairies, but that I do have control over my disbelief of other things (like that my friend is telling me the truth). I believe that because I have never seen a historical, philosophical, scientific argument for the existence of fairies. If someone were to insist that I even have control over my disbelief in fairies granting the lack of such arguments, I wouldn't ask them to prove it. I would think there would be other areas of disagreement that would hit at the crux of my disagreement with them and I would focus on that.

Now, if you are only saying that your disbelief in God is exactly the same as this...that you have not ever seen an historical argument for the Resurrection, then I will agree with you that you don't have control over your disbelief in the Christian God. And let's drop this section and get onto section 2 where I am talking about the historical argument for the Resurrection.

You seemed more sure of your disbelief in the Christian God than that, though. I figured you were more well-versed with things like an historical argument for the Resurrection, but that you rejected it as untrue. You would then have been saying that you still think God-belief is identical to fairy-belief and, therefore, you could use arguments against fairy-belief to prove God-belief to be irrational. I wasn't faulting that logic, but your premise that God-belief and fairy-belief are identical. If they are distinct kinds of belief, then arguments for/against one don't necessarily have implications for belief in the other. That was the flaw I saw, if I understand your critique correctly.

If I wanted to pursue a proof that I don't have control over my disbelief in fairies, then I would need to show that people (probably) do not have the ability to control beliefs in situations that only present one rational alternative. I would then need to show that a particular belief only has one rational alternative. I feel the first part might be doable, but I'm not sure either of us could do the second one by the very nature of the claim. But let's say all I ask you to do is to prove that historical arguments for the Resurrection are irrational alternatives.

Or you can drop this claim of yours as unsupported (or that I have misunderstood it all these many days) and we can just focus on section 2.

[The Tanager]

2. Radical claims require radical evidence

I am saying radical claims require more than just testimony. Claiming someone came back from the dead is most certainly a radical claim.

I agree it requires more than just testimony. You wanted to reject testimony from the definition I offered of 'rational argument.' I didn't say a rational argument is an assertion that is supported by testimony alone. I said:

A rational argument is an assertion or claim that is defensible because it is well supported by sound logic and reliable evidence, examples testimony or generally accepted information. To be rational, an argument need only be reasonably believable.

Can testimony play a part in a rational argument? Are you ruling out an historical argument from being a rational argument?

Before we assess established history, answer this: do you believe in claims of Big Foot sightings? Do you believe in alien abduction claims?

No. But the why of the "no" is important. I don't reject these simply because they are personal testimony. I'm not saying "I disbelieve claims of Big Foot sightings because people claim to have seen Big Foot."

[The Tanager]

3. The Effect of Sin

I agree. But when truth is unknown (as is the case regarding God, the notion of self-reliance vs. surrender, etc.), it is a rational step to look at probability. When truth is unknown, the most rational route to take is looking at what is most likely. Your scenario is highly unlikely and so there is no rational reason to believe it.

What is the context of this section? It came out of the larger critique you were making versus Christianity. That critique was that Christianity, as it stands, contradicts itself. I started this section to explain how I felt you were misunderstanding what Christianity teaches about sin and its effect on us and, therefore, are wrong in saying Christianity contradicts itself.

Your critique here has seemed to morph into there being no reason to think [my understanding of] Christianity is right in it's teaching concerning the effect of sin. I entered the discussion analyzing the first critique. Am I then afraid to support my beliefs? No. But my support for what is the true effect of sin would run through what we are doing in section 2. So, if you want to drop your original critique [as it regards what Christianity says about the effect of sin and how this leads to contradictions] as unsupported, we can focus on section 2.