What's Sinful About Wanting Proof?

[jgh7]

Thomas in the bible wanted proof that Jesus had been resurrected. I think the story goes he wanted to stick his fingers through the holes in Jesus' hands to make sure it was the same Jesus who was crucified and thus now resurrected.

He is referred to negatively throughout history as doubting Thomas. There are numerous sayings in the bible along the lines of it being better to believe without seeing than to see and believe. I equate this to mean that faith without absolute proof is more righteous than belief from absolute proof, and that desiring absolute proof in order to believe could be viewed as sinful.

Why is that so? What is more righteous about believing without solid proof? Conversely, what is sinful/wrong about wanting solid proof in order to believe?

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 36 by imhereforyou]


"Free will is the ability to do anything without consequence (good or bad). If there are consequences for one's free will, then that negates TRUE free will."

First time I've heard that definition.

I'm with you. I suspect that that interpretation is unique to imhereforyou.

The way I figure it, if you were encased in concrete up to your neck, free will would be about all you had left. You'd have lost physical freedom, but you could still think or decide anything you wanted.

[ttruscott]

You are arguing for my point. Not only do I disbelieve the letter from Nigeria, but I distrust the letter from heaven. Is there a difference? Both require what seems unquestioning trust. Is it bad to withhold that trust until certainty knocks at the door? Go well.

Belief without proof is faith. I withhold my faith from the Nigerian by a faith in the suspicion of the Nigerian's truthfulness. The only reason to withhold faith from YHWH is also due to a suspicion of HIS being false. If I state where I stand in unequivocal terms, I'd have to say I believe the Nigerian is lying. This would seem to be also the base position you hold about YHWH, HE is not god or at least not a good god if he even exists.

In other words, there is a decision made without proof in withholding acceptance, hidden within the waiting for proof, that means the decison has been finalized, ie, both the Nigerian and YHWH are liars.

If I do not not disbelieve them there is no waiting, I reach for the prize. The only reason to withhold acceptance, deny hope in their prize and wait for proof is a lack of belief in their truthfulness...the decision to believe they are probably liars has been made. Waiting for proof is not waiting to make a decision about their truthfulness, but is confirmation one distrusts them. Waiting for proof is not neutral, half way between acceptance and rejection...it is a rejection itself when compared to acceptance which reaches out for the offer. It is a withholding of because one distrusts.

[imhereforyou]

[Replying to post 36 by imhereforyou]


"Free will is the ability to do anything without consequence (good or bad). If there are consequences for one's free will, then that negates TRUE free will."

First time I've heard that definition.

I thought free-will was about freedom on inner levels to think for ourselves, to agree or not, to choose this or that.

That's one of the great things about being individual - when asked what YOU think you can reply with what YOU think and not, necessarily, what others say you should think.

[imhereforyou]

Free will is the ability to do anything without consequence (good or bad). If there are consequences for one's free will, then that negates TRUE free will.

Since all decisions about life have consequences I see why you are firmly on the no free will side of things.

But nope, I can't see the logic of your contention. Why is there no free will if there is a consequence?

You don't have to see. That's the glory about being an individual.

[FarWanderer]

Free will is the ability to do anything without consequence (good or bad). If there are consequences for one's free will, then that negates TRUE free will.

Since all decisions about life have consequences I see why you are firmly on the no free will side of things.

But nope, I can't see the logic of your contention. Why is there no free will if there is a consequence?

You don't have to see. That's the glory about being an individual.

Or the folly of not explaining yourself well.

By 'not having consequences' do you mean to say the acting agent is not held accountable to an authority?

[imhereforyou]

Free will is the ability to do anything without consequence (good or bad). If there are consequences for one's free will, then that negates TRUE free will.

Since all decisions about life have consequences I see why you are firmly on the no free will side of things.

But nope, I can't see the logic of your contention. Why is there no free will if there is a consequence?

You don't have to see. That's the glory about being an individual.

Or the folly of not explaining yourself well.

By 'not having consequences' do you mean to say the acting agent is not held accountable to an authority?

Meaning if there are consequences to all actions, all actions are limited by those consequences and thus, not truly, 100% free.
Free will is limited by consequences.
By limiting it, it's not truly free.

[ttruscott]

Meaning if there are consequences to all actions, all actions are limited by those consequences and thus, not truly, 100% free.
Free will is limited by consequences.
By limiting it, it's not truly free.

All actions are limited by their consequences or results....really?
If there are two results, options, the action of choosing which result you want to happen is not limited by the act of choosing in the least. The act of choosing does not limit the results one seeks. You seem to be lost in your own sophistry...

If I can choose A or B, how does A limit my act of choosing? The will is the part of our choosing mechanism. If it is free from outside or inbuilt necessity to choose one option over another, that is free. If it is controlled by any outside force or internal limitation then it is not free but controlled by something else.

[imhereforyou]

[Replying to post 47 by ttruscott]

All actions are limited by their consequences or results....really?

Yes. If I pick this gum over that one, I will like it (good) or not (bad).

If there are two results, options, the action of choosing which result you want to happen is not limited by the act of choosing in the least.

If I like the gum, I will be happy. If I don't, I won't be happy. If I don't want to risk being unhappy, I won't buy the gum. The risk of being unhappy and impacted me in such a way I won't buy the gum. Therefore, the potential result has caused me to alter my decision and thus, has had an effect on my free will.

If I can choose A or B, how does A limit my act of choosing?

See above.

If I'm threatened with eternal death if I do this or that, it has the potential to change my action of doing this or that and therefore, my free will.

When God threatens humanity with eternal death in Hell for not obeying him, it has an impact on the actions of those people. It's called using fear to get a result.

You constantly beat your dog (if anyone does that they should be killed immediately but that's another topic) for peeing in the house, the dog will do everything it can not to pee in the house won't it?

No need to make it more complicated to prove your point: God threatens with eternal condemnation for not obeying him and that impacts the ultimate free will of people.

You can disagree all you want, but that's how it works as I see it.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 48 by imhereforyou]

This all falls apart when you realize dogs are much smarter than we are. I am startled you didn't see this flaw in your analogy.

But freewill, is usually about "the Fall", and I mean realistically, we don't know how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden, isn't it possible, not being instructed or knowing what death was, or sin was, that after countless centuries of Paradise, they simply half-forgot the warning, and there was the Serpent saying an encouraging word or two.

God, presumably being as absentee a Father as he is today, just wasn't around to stop them...

I mean wouldn't you take a bite after a few centuries, out of sheer boredom or curiosity?

Or maybe with God being as absent as he was today, Adam and Eve simply agreed with the Serpent and rebelled against the nonsense, just as the Serpent did.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 48 by imhereforyou]

What do you make of those who would disobey such a Good on principle, even if it meant going to Hell?