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]

4. Analysis of one analogy of the Christian solution

Where do these creeds come from if not the Bible? And if they do not come from the Bible, who came up with them?

You blatantly just ignored how I connected them to the Bible, cutting off the rest of the quote without responding to it. Come on.

Yes and in your rebuttal, you made a new initial claim. The new claim now has a fresh burden of proof. Just because I started this thread does not mean that any and all claims by my opponent is now free from any burden of proof. If I started my thread with "God just has one nature" then the burden of proof would be on me. But my thread makes no mention of how many natures God has. You are the first to make any claim regarding how many natures God has. Ergo, the burden of proof regarding the topic of how many natures a being can have is on you.

My rebuttal is still within the context of the initial claim, not a new initial claim. You said Christianity is incoherent given its beliefs. One of those beliefs is that Jesus has two natures. Your critique assumes the two natures belief. If you want to drop that initial claim of yours as rationally unsupported we can address a different argument.

I am not changing anything in my argument. I am merely pointing out another shortcoming in yours. Even if entities can have several natures, it still would not address the core issue of my thread regarding why God needed to become Jesus in order to save us. I see no logical necessity in God becoming Jesus in order to help us surrender. You have yet to explain why this is a logical necessity.

If the critique is now 'Christianity is untrue because it hasn't supported its claim that Jesus had two natures' then you have changed your argument. Your initial argument was that 'Christianity is untrue because it is incoherent givin its stated beliefs'.

As to your latter point I have explained many times why it is a logical necessity. I have yet to convince you, but that is different then explaining why it is a logical necessity.

Ok

- who is Jesus sacrificing himself to?
- why is he sacrificing himself to this entity?
- who is Jesus saving us from?

What do you mean by 'sacrificing'? I have clearly shared my view in these terms:

- Jesus is surrendering his human nature to the Divine and sharing that with all humans who want it
- To provide us with a way to get back into a rightful relationship with the Divine
- Saving us from our life of self-reliance

I studied philosophy for three years. By definition, that makes me a philosopher. I, a philosopher, assume an omnipotent being without a body would be able to urinate. Ergo, your claim has just been proven false.

Fair enough. I should have worded my statement differently.

Are you claiming that immaterial entities cannot create things?

Not at all. I didn't say an immaterial being could not create urine, but that without a body it could not urinate (personally was implied, but not clearly stated), which is the process of discharging urine from the bladder.

I never said "God cannot communicate", I said God cannot speak. He cannot listen. Both of these things are very much material as they make use of generating and receiving sound waves (physical things) that travel through air (more physical things) that are then received by membranes in our inner ear (more physical things). If God has no physical membrane, how can he pick up on the sound vibrations we make through our vocal chords?

If by speak you mean 'generating sound waves' this would not necessarily preclude beings without a body. There is no reason I see to assume an immaterial being cannot have an effect on the material.

If by speak you mean 'make sounds with a physical mouth' then I agree God cannot speak.

If by listen you mean 'receive sound waves by the membranes in our inner ear', then God cannot listen.

As for thinking and understanding - yeah those are also physical things. Any neurologist would tell you this. There are very material chemical and electric processes involved in thinking

There are material, chemical and electrical processes involved in the thinking of material beings, but that's not a part of the definition of thought. A thought is not a material thing we can see, touch, smell, etc.

Well hell then Luke might as well have said that George Bush can do all things, because then one could argue "yes, George Bush can do anything as long as it is logically possible and so if George Bush cannot do something, then it's because that something is logically impossible to him".

If this is how you interpret Luke, then essentially Luke is saying "God can do anything as long as that something is something that God can do". But this would be an utterly pointless statement then as this is true for literally anyone. I can do anything as long as that something is not something that I cannot do. So if your interpretation is true, then Luke was wasting ink, making an obvious statement.

Basically, your interpretation of Luke is that "God can do everything, except for those things that he cannot do". Oh.. really Luke...? How insightful of you...

What you responded to there had nothing to do with my understanding of the verse from Luke. Unless I missed your sarcasm, you had just agreed with me that Luke was not saying that God could do logically impossible things.

I then reiterated my point earlier (that you've disagreed with) about how it is logically impossible for a being to exercise an ability it does not have (like God and surrender...without Incarnation, of course). It's good to see that you do actually agree with this.

If you want to know my interpretation of Luke 1:36-37, the angel was addressing a question from Mary about how she would give birth having not had sex with a man. The angel tried to reassure her by providing an example of God going against what seemed natural with someone Mary knew. The angel was saying that although Mary's pregnancy seems impossible, it is possible with God.

Ok then what is the definition of surrender?

The general idea is to give up autonomy and live life in concert with God.

Why is it essential?

It is how humans were made to work.

And where did you get this definition from if not from a dictionary?

From the Biblical accounts.

If I willingly choose to surrender and ask for God's help (pre-Jesus) then I am making the free will decision to surrender. From this point onward, accepting God's help in surrendering is in accordance with my free will. Please explain why God helping is takes away our free will but Jesus helping us doesn't?

That's not what I'm saying. God helps in two ways, neither of which take away our free will:

(1) telling us what to do and leaving the actual doing of it to us
(2) helping us to actually do it (what you call Jesus helping us)

If we willingly did it from God's help (1), there would be no need for Jesus.

Ok now you're pointing out the flaws in us. I want to know what flaws are present in God that prevents him from successfully helping us without becoming Jesus first?

Okay, the 'flaws' in God without the Incarnation (i.e., Jesus) are (1) His desire to not negate our free will and (2) his inability to surrender.

What ability does God gain in becoming Jesus and how does he use this ability to help us surrender?

God gains the ability to surrender. And I've been answering how God helps us surrender more specifically.

The Law is not an example of God successfully helping us surrender. The Law failed. The Law is an example of God unsuccessfully trying to help us surrender. I am asking if it's possible for God to successfully help us surrender without becoming human first.

The success is dependent upon both us and God. It was possible for God to successfully help us surrender without becoming human first through the giving of the law. It could have been successful if (1) God overrode our self-reliance and determining that we have to surrender. God doesn't want to do (1). I think that shows a more loving God.

Under this limitation, it is still possible for God to successfully help us surrender without becoming human first by (2) our actual choosing to freely surrender on our own. We do not do this.

So, we can only surrender now if someone helps us surrender using a different method. This method must go beyond mere presenting what we should do. It needs to actually help us perform the needed action. God cannot perform the action. God cannot actually help us perform an action He doesn't have. Thus, God needs to gain the ability of surrendering.

If our lack of cooperation was the problem, then why did God changing his method solve the problem? How does God becoming Jesus suddenly make us cooperate?

But our lack of cooperation with what? The context of that statement was concerning the first method: God giving us the law. I was saying that we didn't cooperate with that method. We didn't actually choose to surrender as the law told us to do.

The difference with the Incarnation is that Jesus helps us to actually choose to surrender in those aspects.

Again, you are being vague. What does "God is the power of us then performing that action" mean?

It means we would not perform the action without God's movement in us. To give me help in what I'm not conveying properly, could you describe what it means for us to perform the action of writing the letter A. Or could you describe what it means for us to perform the action of helping a homeless drunk.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 191 by The Tanager]

You said Christianity is incoherent given its beliefs. One of those beliefs is that Jesus has two natures. Your critique assumes the two natures belief. If you want to drop that initial claim of yours as rationally unsupported we can address a different argument.

I agree that "Christianity is [not] incoherent given its beliefs." Yes, the belief that Jesus had two natures, along with other Christian beliefs, are 'coherent.' The problem with so many of those beliefs is not their alleged incoherence. The problem is they call for belief in the supernatural, are self contradictory, defy "OLD Testament" teaching and Jewish tradition in general, are full of blasphemy as defined by that tradition, and in short simply do not make rational sense. But they are coherent.

[Justin108]

So you're calling me a liar? You think I do know how to choose my belief but I just don't want to?

No, I think your adherence to the belief that beliefs are mechanistic processes is causing your (possible) confusion.

Confused about what exactly? There are only 3 logical options
1. I cannot choose belief
2. I do not know how to choose belief
3. I am a liar

If either 1 or 2 is true, then God is essentially damning me either for my inability (1) or lack of knowledge (2). This leaves option 3 - that I am a liar. Which is it?

Then why are you unable to make the free will choice of believing in fairies?

A problem in your critique seems to be built on a misunderstanding of 'free will choice' as the ability to believe anything with no actual reason or against the influences limiting your decision making.

I have no actual reason to believe in the Christian God. So with that logic, I am unable to. Just as you are unable to believe in fairies.

I do not consider Christianity to be a reasonable option. Therefore, going by your logic, I do not have a choice but to reject Christianity.

No, my logic was not about our personal feelings concerning the strength of the arguments, but the type of argument we are responding to, whether it purports to be rational or not.

What rational arguments are there for the Christian God?

The burden of proof is on you for claiming no one believes in fairies for reasons other than fideism or personal experience. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because we know of no one that believes in fairies does not mean that no such person exists. The burden of proof is on you.

Why do I need to prove something to you that you already agree with? Isn't that wasting our time?

What makes you think I agree with you?

[Justin108]

Instead of giving me philosophical arguments for god, give me a philosophical argument for YHWH. Can you do that? I doubt it. Applying these philosophical arguments to YHWH is just as ad hoc as applying them to fairies.

My first critique is that it appears to commit the ad hoc fallacy, because you are taking the conclusion of the argument and then defining 'fairy' to mean exactly what the conclusion of the argument points toward. Not only that, but you are going against what everyone else historically means when they talk about fairies. And you are doing this specifically to support your claim that the cosmological argument can point to something other than God.

And Christians do exactly this by substituting "the first cause" with "YHWH". But since you stated that you do not personally use the cosmological argument this way, we don't need to get into this.

My second critique is: it has wings? Immaterial wings? And is made out of 'immaterial' magical fairy dust? How does that work?

How does anything God does work? Theists never need to apply a scientific explanation to how exactly God does what he does. If an entity is omnipotent, he does not need to have a specific process in how he does things. In Genesis, God made light by just saying "let there be light". I could ask the same question of "well how does that work?".

Despite being immaterial, God has often been described as having apparently material qualities (footsteps in Genesis, a backside seen by Moses, etc.). Heaven, a place I assume to be immaterial as well, is also described in various material ways.

My third critique is how does the cosmological argument point towards the cause of the universe being tiny? having wings? or a tiny little wand?

How does the cosmological argument point to the cause of the universe being anti-homosexuality and pro-circumcision? I fully agree with you on this. Assuming these additional traits to the first cause is entirely unjustified. So just as one cannot use this argument to support fairies, one cannot use this argument to support YHWH. Ergo, fairies and YHWH appear to have the same amount of philosophical support - that is to say none.

You have yet to provide any such evidence.

Why haven't I provided it yet? Because I've been trying to get what point you want to start at before moving on.

What do you mean "what point I want to start at"?

It seems that the 50/50 describes your personal feelings or confidence concerning the arguments, rather than an objective standard.

I never claimed it to be an objective standard. In post 168, I specifically said...

It needs to be good reason for that person. People are different. It takes less to convince some than others. If God wanted a very skeptical person to believe, he will have to provide a lot of evidence to that person.

So, I don't think your critique that "a God who wanted me to believe in him would give me more evidence" is warranted

Yes it is. I have about a 50/50 belief in a god. I have absolutely zero belief in the Christian God. If God wanted me to believe in him then he will have to provide me with more evidence

I know very little to nothing about this god. My guesses are that this god is sentient, made the universe, is probably immortal and has quite possibly existed for eternity. I make no further assumptions about this god.

They would not be assumptions, if they come as conclusions of the rational arguments we have been alluding to that you said point "about 50/50" to the existence of a God. So, if you put the cosmological argument into this category, then God is timeless, changeless (at least without the world in existence), beginningless, immaterial, uncaused, personal...

How does the cosmological argument conclude that the first cause is personal? This is an unjustified assumption about the first cause.

If you want to include the moral argument, then this God is concerned with how we act and seems to be against much of our actions. If you accept other arguments, then we could add other characteristics.

There is absolutely zero evidence that the first cause cares about morality. This is another unjustified assumption about the first cause

[Justin108]

It isn't a matter of either determinism or preference. Both can exist and both do exist. We have free will in choosing what to eat, yet most of us have a clear preference for food rather than sand. Similarly, we seem to have a clear preference for self-reliance over surrender. Why do you bring up determinism when I say we prefer self-reliance, but you do not bring up determinism when I say we prefer food over sand?

Please explain to me your understanding of the term "attractiveness"? I do not mean visually attractive, rather attractive in a general sense. Why can I say "coca cola is more attractive to the people than rusty water" but I cannot say "self-reliance is more attractive to the people than surrender"?

Why do you think I was saying it was a matter of either determinism or preference?

Because you keep bringing up mentions of a mechanical process despite the fact that I never claimed this to be a mechanical process. I recognize it as free will, but cannot see it as anything but self evident that self-reliance is more attractive. Either it is more attractive, or it is a massive coincidence that we all end up choosing it over surrender. I never once made the claim that it was mechanical.

You are saying this preference is determined by our nature just like our preference for food over sand is determined by our nature.

That would be the most rational explanation. Either that or coincidence. I see no logical alternative. And just to clarify, I am not saying our choices are determined, I am saying our preference seems to be determined.

I don't agree with that comparison. I agree our nature determines our preference for food over sand. But I think our preference for self-reliance is the result of our many free choices.

How do you explain the fact that literally no one has ever made choices that lead to them preferring surrender over self-reliance?

It's much more like an addict's preference for drugs.

Drugs are addictive by their nature. We are addictable to drugs by our nature. The reason we get addicted to drugs but not to tomatoes is because tomatoes are not addictive.

Why is self-reliance addictive but surrender isn't?

Suppose there was a scientific experiment where subjects were given a choice between two drugs, Drug-A and Drug-B. They get to use one of the two drugs every day for a year. By the end of the year, everyone ended up choosing Drug-A more than Drug-B. Everyone got addicted to Drug-A and no one got addicted to Drug-B.

Any scientist would make the conclusion that Drug-A is therefore more addictive than Drug-B. Either that, or it is a massive coincidence.

We aren't naturally inclined to become addicted to drugs

But some substances are more addictive than others.

It doesn't change a thing. If one day, everyone on earth picked the exact same lottery numbers, despite it being a free will decision, I will still believe it to be an extraordinary coincidence. Wouldn't you?

Yes, but not in the sense of being the result of chance (like in rolling a dice), but being the result of people exercising their free will to the same end for different reasons.

Is it an extraordinary coincidence that everyone on earth chose the exact same lottery numbers one day? Yes or no? Stop bringing up dice. I never said this was a mechanical process. I said it was a coincidence. So YES or NO. Is it an extraordinary coincidence that everyone on earth chose the exact same lottery numbers?

Why did we all begin choosing self-reliance more than surrender if self-reliance was not more attractive? There are logically only two explanations. Either by attraction/preference, or by chance... there is no 3logical third option.

For the person who has never taken drugs but chooses to start, they did not do that because their attraction to drugs made them choose it.

No but the addictive qualities of the drug made them keep coming back. If you were to apply this to self-reliance vs surrender, then it would seem that self-reliance is very addictive whereas surrender isn't.

I have always agreed that we choose what is attractive to us as opposed to attraction playing no role (chance). But you've seemed to go beyond this and say whatever the strongest attraction is determines our action.

I never once argued that. I have consistently been saying that we appear to be more attracted to self-reliance over surrender. I never said we are determined to choose self-reliance, merely that we are more attracted to self-reliance

[Justin108]

Where do these creeds come from if not the Bible? And if they do not come from the Bible, who came up with them?

You blatantly just ignored how I connected them to the Bible, cutting off the rest of the quote without responding to it. Come on.

That's because the rest of what you said contradicts your first two sentences. First you said...

Christianity is not just the Bible. There are also things like creeds.

then you say ...

But these come out of what is revealed in the Bible and do not contradict it. The Bible talks about Jesus being with God before being a human, which means he could not have had a human nature at that point. But he had to have some kind of nature. John 1:1, 14 talks about Jesus being divine and then being made human. Col. 2:9 talks of the Divine being joined with humanity.

So you tell me that the creeds are not just from the Bible, and then you tell me all the creeds are from the Bible...

Yes and in your rebuttal, you made a new initial claim. The new claim now has a fresh burden of proof. Just because I started this thread does not mean that any and all claims by my opponent is now free from any burden of proof. If I started my thread with "God just has one nature" then the burden of proof would be on me. But my thread makes no mention of how many natures God has. You are the first to make any claim regarding how many natures God has. Ergo, the burden of proof regarding the topic of how many natures a being can have is on you.

My rebuttal is still within the context of the initial claim, not a new initial claim. You said Christianity is incoherent given its beliefs. One of those beliefs is that Jesus has two natures.

Christianity does not believe that. You believe that. The belief that Jesus has two natures is not a universal Christian belief. In fact I have never heard it before you made that claim.

Your critique assumes the two natures belief.

Umm... what?

If the critique is now 'Christianity is untrue because it hasn't supported its claim that Jesus had two natures' then you have changed your argument.

No I have added to it. I never said Christianity is untrue because it hasn't supported its claim that Jesus had two natures. Rather, Christianity is probably untrue and this is yet another reason why.

There's a difference between changing an argument and adding another argument. None of my previous arguments have changed.

Your initial argument was that 'Christianity is (probably) untrue because it is incoherent givin its stated beliefs'.

Yes and this argument still stands. Ergo, I didn't change it, I just added to it.

I never said "God cannot communicate", I said God cannot speak. He cannot listen. Both of these things are very much material as they make use of generating and receiving sound waves (physical things) that travel through air (more physical things) that are then received by membranes in our inner ear (more physical things). If God has no physical membrane, how can he pick up on the sound vibrations we make through our vocal chords?

If by speak you mean 'generating sound waves' this would not necessarily preclude beings without a body. There is no reason I see to assume an immaterial being cannot have an effect on the material.

If by speak you mean 'make sounds with a physical mouth' then I agree God cannot speak.

If by listen you mean 'receive sound waves by the membranes in our inner ear', then God cannot listen.

The end result is the same. Sound is being generated. So if "speak" can be defined as "making audible sounds and generating speech" then what does it matter if God did it in a "human way"? I would call God generating speech as "speaking" regardless of whether he has a mouth, just as I would consider God making urine as urinating regardless of whether it came out his bladder. At this point, the argument is about semantics and I'd rather not.

Let's get to the main point here - the supposed logical necessity of God becoming human in order to help us surrender. To trim the debate, I only expect you to respond to the below issue of what exactly "surrender" entails for this subsection of the debate.

If I willingly choose to surrender and ask for God's help (pre-Jesus) then I am making the free will decision to surrender. From this point onward, accepting God's help in surrendering is in accordance with my free will. Please explain why God helping is takes away our free will but Jesus helping us doesn't?

That's not what I'm saying. God helps in two ways, neither of which take away our free will:

(1) telling us what to do and leaving the actual doing of it to us
(2) helping us to actually do it (what you call Jesus helping us)

- Why is it necessary for God to become Jesus in order to do (2)?
- Why can't we substitute "what you call Jesus helping us" with "what you call God helping us"?
- Why can't God help us actually do it?

If we willingly did it from God's help (1), there would be no need for Jesus.

Yes but God only told us what to do in (1). Why didn't God help us actually do it as he does in (2) without first becoming Jesus?

The process you describe looks like this
1) God tells us what to do. We fail
2) God becomes Jesus
3) Jesus helps us actually do it

The process I am suggesting looks like this
1) God tells us what to do. We fail
2) God helps us actually do it

Why would my process not work as well as your process?

What ability does God gain in becoming Jesus and how does he use this ability to help us surrender?

God gains the ability to surrender. And I've been answering how God helps us surrender more specifically.

And in every one of these examples, I have demonstrated that God would be able to do the exact same thing without needing to become Jesus first.

Again, you are being vague. What does "God is the power of us then performing that action" mean?

It means we would not perform the action without God's movement in us.

"God's movement in us"? Does God literally move our arms, legs, etc. in the process of helping the homeless man?

To give me help in what I'm not conveying properly, could you describe what it means for us to perform the action of writing the letter A. Or could you describe what it means for us to perform the action of helping a homeless drunk.

It of course depends on how exactly we help the homeless drunk. If we were to help him by giving him money (a simplified example), then the actions we perform are
- move hand to pocket
- take out wallet
- take out money
- give money to homeless drunk

Does God do these things for us? Does he literally take control of our body, move our hand, take out our wallet, take out money and give it to the homeless drunk? Is this what you mean when you say "God's movement in us"?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to post 192 by Danmark]

Okay. If you want to join in on any of the areas of discussion in this thread with specific critiques and your support/reasoning for making that critique I look forward to hearing your thoughts. I have learned from you in the past and would welcome further challenges and insights.

[The Tanager]

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

Confused about what exactly? There are only 3 logical options
1. I cannot choose belief
2. I do not know how to choose belief
3. I am a liar

If either 1 or 2 is true, then God is essentially damning me either for my inability (1) or lack of knowledge (2). This leaves option 3 - that I am a liar. Which is it?

(1) I cannot choose belief
(2) I can choose belief, but don't know how to choose belief
(3) I can choose belief, I know how to choose belief (and do it), but I don't think I do.
(4) I can choose belief, I know how to choose belief, but I'm saying that I don't.

I think (3) is probably the case. So, just because (1) and (2) are eliminated, that doesn't mean (4) [your option 3] is the right answer. You think that reason determines your belief mechanistically. I don't think that is the case. I think there are beliefs out there that have multiple reasonable alternatives. Yet you believe one alternative over the other. Thus you are making a choice between two reasonable alternatives.

If you want to say that (3) is not true, what reason do you have to say that? Personal feeling/experience is not admissible. And so I return to your burden in your argument that you have not carried. Can you support your positive claim that beliefs are mechanistic processes?

I have no actual reason to believe in the Christian God. So with that logic, I am unable to. Just as you are unable to believe in fairies.

No, you do have actual (supposed) rational reasons to believe in the Christian God: the philosophical, scientific and historical reasons we are trying to get at in section 2. You may think they are weak, but at least you are aware that they are there. Those same kinds of rational reasons do not seem to exist concerning the reality of fairies.

What makes you think I agree with you?

Oh, so you are aware of a philosophical/scientific/historical argument people make for the existence of fairies? Great! Let's look at it/them.

[The Tanager]

2. Radical claims require radical evidence

How does anything God does work? Theists never need to apply a scientific explanation to how exactly God does what he does. If an entity is omnipotent, he does not need to have a specific process in how he does things. In Genesis, God made light by just saying "let there be light". I could ask the same question of "well how does that work?".

Even an omnipotent being that does something would have an explanation (even if that was unknown) of how it accomplishes that. But my comment of 'how does that work' wasn't asking for that. I should have said it differently to avoid this confusion. I was saying that an 'immaterial wing' is a logical contradiction. A wing is something material.

Despite being immaterial, God has often been described as having apparently material qualities (footsteps in Genesis, a backside seen by Moses, etc.). Heaven, a place I assume to be immaterial as well, is also described in various material ways.

It was not clear that you were using it analogously or as a metaphor. The accounts I know of concerning fairies is that they are actually material things in a univocal sense.

And--tangent--Heaven, in my understanding of Biblical Christianity is not an immaterial place.

I fully agree with you on this. Assuming these additional traits to the first cause is entirely unjustified. So just as one cannot use this argument to support fairies, one cannot use this argument to support YHWH. Ergo, fairies and YHWH appear to have the same amount of philosophical support - that is to say none.

First, if this was actually what I was claiming, it wouldn't be the same amount of support. YHWH doesn't go against what the cosmological argument tells us, but is the type of being that the argument points to, even if not directly to everything included in the idea of YHWH. The cosmological argument would, however, rule out fairies as the first cause. Those aren't equal results.

Second, I have quite clearly said that the cosmological argument is not the only philosophical/scientific/historical support for YHWH.

I never claimed it to be an objective standard. In post 168, I specifically said...

Justin108 wrote:

It needs to be good reason for that person. People are different. It takes less to convince some than others. If God wanted a very skeptical person to believe, he will have to provide a lot of evidence to that person.

I didn't say you had claimed that. I was making a distinction and sharing it. You are free to agree with my assessment or not. You could then share if we were on the same page or not. I just didn't want to leave it unsaid.

But my main point is that even for that person there could be a difference between what they feel the argument is and what the argument actually is. Just because someone feels it is not rational to believe such-and-such, doesn't mean they are right that it is not rational.

Yes it is. I have about a 50/50 belief in a god. I have absolutely zero belief in the Christian God. If God wanted me to believe in him then he will have to provide me with more evidence

Or you need to reassess the evidence God already provided you with. I'm not saying that is the case. I'm just saying that is a logical possibility. Which means your critique isn't warranted.

How does the cosmological argument conclude that the first cause is personal? This is an unjustified assumption about the first cause.

It's not an assumption. You see, this is why I wanted to know your 'starting point' and what you felt the '50/50' arguments showed about God. I don't want you thinking I'm just making assumptions. There are Christians (and non-Christians) that will make assumptions or arguments without fully thinking through, simply because it gives them the result they way. I don't want to be like that.

Causes can be either impersonal (like scientific explanations, laws, initial conditions) or personal (like agents with wills).

First, scientific explanations, laws, initial conditions rely upon time, the natural order, physical material to make sense.

Second, the possible timeless and immaterial entities we have experience with are minds and abstract objects, like numbers. But abstract objects don't stand in causal relation to anything. So we are left with unembodied minds, which would be personal not impersonal.

Third, timeless causes that are impersonal (like scientific laws) wouldn't have temporal effects. For instance, if the temperature was below zero Centigrade from eternity, any water that existed would also have been frozen from eternity. Water could not have begun to freeze a finite time ago. Once the sufficient conditions for water to freeze are met, the water will freeze. But the cosmological argument has already shown the universe is a temporal thing, with a timeless cause. The only way to account for this, then, is a personal agent, it seems to me.

There is absolutely zero evidence that the first cause cares about morality. This is another unjustified assumption about the first cause

So, are you saying we need to also look at the moral argument before moving onto the historicity of the Resurrection? That's why I want to know the starting point you want for this next part of our discussion.

[The Tanager]

3. The Effect of Sin

How do you explain the fact that literally no one has ever made choices that lead to them preferring surrender over self-reliance?

So, we've switched from preferences to choices now. The options are now threefold. Our choice is either:

(1) determined by our nature
(2) determined by the excercise of our free will (for whatever reason(s))
(3) chance

I explain it by (2). And you said you recognize it as free will and not a mechanistic process. But it seems like you are saying that within (2) our choice is what it is because of a stronger preference for self-reliance. But if our choice is free, then preferences don't determine what we choose.

So, it isn't that it's an either/or 'self-reliance is more attractive or it is because of coincidence (which you said you meant chance.)'

Drugs are addictive by their nature. We are addictable to drugs by our nature. The reason we get addicted to drugs but not to tomatoes is because tomatoes are not addictive.

Why is self-reliance addictive but surrender isn't?

Why are you saying they aren't both equally habit-forming?

Suppose there was a scientific experiment where subjects were given a choice between two drugs, Drug-A and Drug-B. They get to use one of the two drugs every day for a year. By the end of the year, everyone ended up choosing Drug-A more than Drug-B. Everyone got addicted to Drug-A and no one got addicted to Drug-B.

Any scientist would make the conclusion that Drug-A is therefore more addictive than Drug-B. Either that, or it is a massive coincidence.

But what if everyone got addicted to Drug-A because they chose Drug-A 75% or 85% or 95% or 100% of the time? They chose Drug-B only 1 out of every 4/5/10/20 times? That is a coincidence, but not in the sense that chance was the cause of their choice. They had control over the choice; chance didn't determine their choice for them. If everyone chooses drug-A, then that is why they are addicted to drug-A. That says nothing about whether drug-B was more or less habit-forming.

You'd have to adjust your experiment to say that each subject was given two drugs in some alternating but equal pattern where there was an equal number of choices between the two, but the people were addicted to Drug-A and not Drug-B.

Then your view that we are more attracted to drug-A/self reliance would be warranted. But this isn't the case with self-reliance and surrender. We are choosing self-reliance more. That explains our addiction to it; not the other way around.

Is it an extraordinary coincidence that everyone on earth chose the exact same lottery numbers one day? Yes or no? Stop bringing up dice. I never said this was a mechanical process. I said it was a coincidence. So YES or NO. Is it an extraordinary coincidence that everyone on earth chose the exact same lottery numbers?

My answer doesn't change. It's still yes, but not in the sense of being the result of chance, but being the result of people exercising their free will to the same end for different reasons. I will say it is coincidence in that sense, but you earlier defined coincidence as 'chance'.