If there's one issue that keeps apologists busy, it's the issue of unanswered prayer. Skeptics often point out that the hungry children who pray for food often die of starvation. If God exists, then why don't we see better results from prayer? Christian apologist Kyle Butt answers this question on pages 229-244 of A Christian's Guide to Refuting Modern Atheism. He explains that effective prayer must conform to the following:
1. Prayer must be "in the name of Jesus." That is, prayer must be in accord with Jesus' teachings and authority.
2. It is necessary for prayer to be in accord with God's will. God has a way of doing things that no prayer can change.
3. The person praying must believe she will receive what she requests. Otherwise, she won't receive what she requests!
4. The person praying must be a righteous person. So all you sinners, forget it!
5. Prayer won't work if the petitioner prays with selfish desires.
6. Persistence in prayer is important. One or two prayers might not be enough.
I'm eager to read what other members here have to say about these guidelines, but allow me to start out saying that if 1 is true, then anybody who is not a Christian won't benefit from prayer. I wonder if those non-Christians see that their prayers aren't doing any good.
Guideline 2 seems odd. It's like God saying: "I'll do anything you ask as long as I want to do it."
I'd say that 3 can result in a "snowball effect" which is to say that if a doubter's doubt can lead to a prayer not being answered, then the doubter might doubt even more!
Regarding 4, it seems to me that sinners need answered prayer more than the righteous.
Guideline 5 also seems odd because if you're petitioning God for something you want or need, then you are thinking of yourself, and what's wrong with that?
Finally, 6 doesn't explain why God can't just grant the petition with one prayer request, and neither does it tell us how many prayers it takes to succeed. Could it be that the person praying is praying for something that in time she'll get whether she prays or not?
Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Banned
- Posts: 453
- Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2020 7:32 pm
- Has thanked: 17 times
- Been thanked: 122 times
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14164
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 911 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
- Contact:
Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.
Post #251Semantics. The main point is that Christian Mythology includes the notion of free will, and you as a Christian believe in that notion. The notion is being critiqued by myself and others. As I requested - You can start by explaining how humans knew about moral choice before they had the ability to know good from evil. Surely logic has it that knowledge of good and evil have to develop first before morals can be understood.The Tanager wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 11:24 amActually unknown soldier first brought up free will, claiming a Biblical passage went against it. Then unknown soldier said free will is used as an excuse to get God off the hook with evil. I explained how I thought it wasn't. Then unknown soldier had more critiques and I responded to them. Then other people made critiques of what I was saying, eventually you. Everything I have said is in response to critiques made against Christianity, usually that Christianity is inconsistent, not that some element is untrue. My responses have (rightly so) been of a defensive manor in that way.
I am open to hear any interpretation of that mythology if it is at least sensible enough that it can withstand any critique.In spite of what you said to Tam, your argument here does seem to take a particular interpretation of what the tree of knowledge of good and evil is.
As I pointed out to Tam, it is the ONLY way in which to create beings of free will...who will actually act that out in order that the results can be studied...so without the fabled couple eating the fruit, they would not have been able to react as if they knew the consequences of free will. They would still be - as you refer to that state - "Robots".The humans didn't know good from evil until they ate of the fruit. Adam and Eve know what God says is good to do: don't eat the fruit.
So I can ascertain from that reasoning, that the god proposed by Christian Mythology requires that this happens. It may be considered 'evil' not do what this god commands, but if they hadn't of done it, they would not know that. So your statement that they knew what god says is 'good' swings against that mythology. Otherwise the tree would have been named "The Tree of the knowledge of evil" (since the pair of freshly created humans somehow already know what good is.)
So what is it that this god really wants? Robots or free will creatures? He obviously cannot have both and according to your interpretation of the mythology Eve making her own decision based upon what she thinks of as 'good' even though she obviously cannot possibly know what either good or evil is until she experiences both for herself.Eve decides to eat it anyway because she saw it was good for food, that it was a delight to her eyes, and the tree might make her wise (without having to trust God and in direct contradiction to trusting God), three things she determined to be 'good,' and she went with what she deemed 'good' rather than what God deemed 'good.' Contextually, she is choosing for herself what is 'good' for her to do rather than trusting omniscient wisdom's idea of what is good for her to do.
According to your argument, her experience with this god before that fateful event has given her some knowledge of what is good, but how can she understand that if there is no counterpart in which she can experience the difference? And without that, how can she truly be a creature with actual free will?
How is "trusting omniscient wisdom's idea of what is good for her to do" going to make her a real person rather than simply a robot?
In relation to me in this real world situation, I myself have no judgement to make on the mythology. My task is simply to critique points you and other Christians make in defense of all of your combined interpretations of the mythology.The choice is to either gift a being free will, giving them the possibility of experiencing love, or to enslave their will, giving them no possibility of experiencing love but making it so they cannot commit evil either. What do you think the better choice and why?
In that, - alongside how I interpret the idea of a Creator in relation to my real world experience, I see the whole mythology as a scientific experiment conducted by a creator-imaged as somewhat emotionally attached to his creation, desperately wanting it to work and sometimes frustrated with the results.
He wants his creation to recognize him whilst being within the creation he has set up to make this possible.
I would have to say that such a creator-type as this god, today, should be pretty pleased with the results of the experiment, all said and done...if indeed this world is the way he planned it to be for us.
Despite all its warts, an ape-man has been shown how to reach for the stars and get there...pretty impressive...
I only use the terms as a mirror off of those who use the terms. I have no use for the terms in any other capacity as I do not judge what is 'perfect' and 'imperfect' because I see nothing in the Creation which clearly points to either as actual real things.We've got to get clear in how you are using these terms 'perfect' and 'imperfect'.
I am certainly happy for us to drop such notions, but suppose it is polite and useful to continue making mention of them as long as you are doing so.
The question is, am I reflecting back at you what how you are using these terms 'perfect' and 'imperfect'?
If you think I am am not, and feel such ideas have merit and thus should be included in argument, feel free to clarify.
We don't require the distraction of semantics to muddy our talks, do we?The only way I can agree with your statement above is if we take 'imperfect' to simply mean "not morally perfect (in its prescriptive sense).
In the simplest of terms, if one sees an imperfection (as clearly you do) and writes of it as such, the other (in this case me) reflects that back to you for further clarification.
If "not morally perfect" is something you find to be imperfect, then I can go along with that to flesh it out.
In the mean time, I will continue to understand the mythology of free will shows even with free will, we are still imperfect. ("Imperfect" as measured by those who believe in the mythology and defend it.)
I said: "The main point being that clearly the mythology itself shows us an idea of a Creator who either isn't perfect OR is (perhaps) perfect and purposefully created imperfect beings. The mythology itself leans toward the idea that this being created the imperfect on purpose."
You replied;
Not sure at this point this signals headway...we live in hope...So, in the third sense of 'imperfect' above, yes, Christianity says God purposefully created imperfect beings.
William wrote: ↑Tue Dec 29, 2020 10:27 pm
He may be perfect in the sense that he was more than capable of doing so...the question might then be "should he have done so?" and for that answer one needs to uncover his purpose.
The claim being that the Christian Bible mythology does the job of uncovering his purpose...nothing of any substance in 2000 years of Christian occupation clearly shows us that Christianity is doing that job...
The list is too long for me to bother informing you. I am slightly puzzled in a curious way by your seeming lack of ability to succinctly critique the history of Christendom...but never to mind...others may benefit from my words...I am not sure what you mean in the second part.
I was wondering yesterday when thinking on our conversation, as to how you may view animals - are they robots, or do they have free will or perhaps somewhere in between...do animals naturally (robotically) love The Creator and indeed, does this christian idea of god require that they do or do not...and if not, what makes the human animal so much more remarkable to this god that he has to have humans love him for who (and indeed what) he is?As to whether God should have done so, I think that creating 'imperfect' (third sense above) creatures is a better thing for a Creator to do then to create morally perfect (in the second sense above) beings because the latter aren't personal beings with the ability to love while the former is, and personal beings with the ability to love are better than having robots in spite of the evils that may occur.
They are mythological places believed to be real. (They cannot be real until they are experienced.) They are neutral to each other in that neither can affect the other (with good or with evil) - your idea suggests that evil is stronger than good, and unless evil is separated from good, everything will eventually become evil.You appear to understand my view of heaven and hell as neutral places, which they are not. Heaven, by definition, is those places which have no corruption in it. Hell, by definition, is those places which have corruption. Without this distinction, then we just have one realm that is full of corruption, i.e., simply a Hell and no Heaven for eternity.
That seems like a huge assumption on your part...and in relation to your idea of god, shows a being who is frightened of evil to the point that he believes he can be infected by it...so the whole operation (your gods purpose) is to rid himself of that threat.
To me that comes across as clearly a human idea that has been given undeserved/unmerited divine status...with no accompanying evidence... just wordy claims...
I write this because observing the creation I cannot identify anything therein which shows me a Creator scared of (his) own shadow...except when observing human-kind, who have been known to jump at such things....
William wrote: ↑Tue Dec 29, 2020 10:27 pm
If humans were created as morally perfect, then they would not be as good ('perfect') as they could have been created. Having free will is better than being morally perfect robots.
This produces an image of a Creator who is not satisfied with his creations because they are all simply robots and cannot love him of their own free will, so he sets about creating an environment [science] where he can produce creatures with free will.
Do you not think it sensible that your god first created robots and found nothing to fulfill his need (to be loved by his creation) so he created free will critters to compensate?That is not the image because it assumes the Creator first made robots and then beings with free will, which I have not claimed. I spoke of the choice between the two.
The question to then ask is "What difference would it make if the god has never created robots?" Perhaps the answer you provide might give us clarity...
What text? I only write of Christian mythology in the only way it can be mentioned - generally. To do anything else with the script is to immerse oneself in the distracting web of different Christian interpretations.Where does the text show a surprised God?
If I take into account that the god was sorry for creating all this and sought to wipe the slate clean only to be surprised that one human being (Noah) offered potential and so continued on with the experiment, am I to be chastised for reading too much into that? If so, then we can agree together that this god cannot be surprised and knows exactly what is going to happen. No changing horses mid-stream...can he be surprised or not?
It can be though, don't you agree?Interference isn't necessarily "hurrying things along".
William wrote: ↑Tue Dec 29, 2020 10:27 pm
In interfering - perhaps unwittingly, perhaps not - he tampered with the results so couldn't trust that those who personally witnessed him actually loved him for who he was/is or because they feared what would happen to them if they did not love him.
So we are going with the idea of a god who can never be surprised?Where does the text show this? God is presented in the Bible as knowing our deepest thoughts. Or where is the logical argument that this is the only logical interpretation one could have?
I am using science to critic the imagery the text provides. The text tells us that on occasion the god interfered in human goings on for the specific purpose of changing the course of history - the storyline as it were - to better suit his agenda...in scientific terms this equates to the scientist fudging the results. That is the critique of the text.
Why would anyone expect the text to 'show' anything other than what is plainly recorded in said text?
The text itself isn't everything. It is simply a part of everything else. One has to step out of it in order to get the best vantage in which to observe it as it is, in its place. It may appear to you that I am "reading things into the text which are not there" when what I am actually doing is seeing the text for what it is saying, in relation to the wider reality the text is involved within.Where does the text show this? You seem to be reading that into the text instead of out of it.
- The Tanager
- Savant
- Posts: 5057
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
- Has thanked: 45 times
- Been thanked: 154 times
Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.
Post #252I did respond to that. I rejected your assumption that humans didn't have the ability to know good from evil, according to the text.
You don't move from being a 'robot' to being a creature with free will once you've made the wrong choice. You are either in one state or the other regardless of any choices you've actually been faced with.William wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 1:25 pmAs I pointed out to Tam, it is the ONLY way in which to create beings of free will...who will actually act that out in order that the results can be studied...so without the fabled couple eating the fruit, they would not have been able to react as if they knew the consequences of free will. They would still be - as you refer to that state - "Robots".
Nothing I've said requires God requiring them to eat the fruit. Evil is the opposite of good. You know one and you know the other. They already knew what both good and evil were. They hadn't experienced making an evil choice yet. Their first experience of choosing for themselves what is good and evil is why the tree is named that.William wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 1:25 pmSo I can ascertain from that reasoning, that the god proposed by Christian Mythology requires that this happens. It may be considered 'evil' not do what this god commands, but if they hadn't of done it, they would not know that. So your statement that they knew what god says is 'good' swings against that mythology. Otherwise the tree would have been named "The Tree of the knowledge of evil" (since the pair of freshly created humans somehow already know what good is.)
Why do you think we can't know good or evil until we experience both? I know child abuse is bad without having abused a child or being abused myself. Free will does not require the experience of both good and evil actions.William wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 1:25 pmSo what is it that this god really wants? Robots or free will creatures? He obviously cannot have both and according to your interpretation of the mythology Eve making her own decision based upon what she thinks of as 'good' even though she obviously cannot possibly know what either good or evil is until she experiences both for herself.
According to your argument, her experience with this god before that fateful event has given her some knowledge of what is good, but how can she understand that if there is no counterpart in which she can experience the difference? And without that, how can she truly be a creature with actual free will?
Robots can't choose. Trusting someone is a choice. The act of trusting does not transform them into a person; it simply shows what is already true (as would mistrusting).
I'm asking you to follow out the critique process. The choice is either to gift a being free will, giving them the possibility of experiencing love or to enslave their will, giving them no possibility of experiencing love but making it so they cannot commit evil either. I think the better choice includes love because that is real freedom, real personality while the robotic option, in spite of its lack of evil, has no real personality. If you think my view still worth critiquing, then why am I wrong?William wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 1:25 pmIn relation to me in this real world situation, I myself have no judgement to make on the mythology. My task is simply to critique points you and other Christians make in defense of all of your combined interpretations of the mythology.The choice is to either gift a being free will, giving them the possibility of experiencing love, or to enslave their will, giving them no possibility of experiencing love but making it so they cannot commit evil either. What do you think the better choice and why?
I do not think "not morally perfect" is an imperfection. I don't think humans were made imperfect. I don't see having free will as an imperfection. So, I clearly do not see an imperfection, using my terms. So, now what?William wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 1:25 pmWe don't require the distraction of semantics to muddy our talks, do we?
In the simplest of terms, if one sees an imperfection (as clearly you do) and writes of it as such, the other (in this case me) reflects that back to you for further clarification.
If "not morally perfect" is something you find to be imperfect, then I can go along with that to flesh it out.
I said I could use "imperfect" in a sense I don't normally and then agree that humans were made "imperfect" in that way. I did that because you seemed to think my mythology commits me to thinking humans are imperfect in spite of what I actually believe.
Animals are non-moral beings.William wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 1:25 pmI was wondering yesterday when thinking on our conversation, as to how you may view animals - are they robots, or do they have free will or perhaps somewhere in between...do animals naturally (robotically) love The Creator and indeed, does this christian idea of god require that they do or do not...and if not, what makes the human animal so much more remarkable to this god that he has to have humans love him for who (and indeed what) he is?
That is not what my idea suggests at all. I do not think evil is stronger than good. My idea suggests that good and evil must logically be separate things. They can't come together and exist in the same place. It's logically impossible. God is not frightened of evil. He can't be infected by it. He's not trying to rid Himself of that. He's trying to redeem evil into good.William wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 1:25 pmThey are mythological places believed to be real. (They cannot be real until they are experienced.) They are neutral to each other in that neither can affect the other (with good or with evil) - your idea suggests that evil is stronger than good, and unless evil is separated from good, everything will eventually become evil.
That seems like a huge assumption on your part...and in relation to your idea of god, shows a being who is frightened of evil to the point that he believes he can be infected by it...so the whole operation (your gods purpose) is to rid himself of that threat.
To me that comes across as clearly a human idea that has been given undeserved/unmerited divine status...with no accompanying evidence... just wordy claims...
I write this because observing the creation I cannot identify anything therein which shows me a Creator scared of (his) own shadow...except when observing human-kind, who have been known to jump at such things....
No, it's not sensible. God is omniscient. He would know what creating robots would produce without experimentation.
Christianity cannot be discussed generally in that sense. You aren't writing of it generally in that sense. You are using specific interpretation(s) of Christianity in your critiques of what I say, many interpretations that I do not hold (putting you in danger of critiquing strawmen). Now, maybe I should hold a different interpretation from the text, but I don't. The question becomes what you take as a your task here: to argue what my Christian interpretation should be or to critique my Christianity based on what my interpretation is. I'm fine with either.
My reading of the Bible is that God is not surprised, even when a surface reading of a story like Noah seems to contradict that. Do you want to discuss the Noah story or focus on the bigger picture of my "Christian mythology"?
My reading of the Bible is that God doesn't occasionally interfere for the purpose of changing the course of history to better suit his agenda. Do you want to talk about a specific text that you think shows otherwise, so you can learn why I disagree or focus on the bigger picture of my Christian mythology, free will and all that?
Yes.
- Clownboat
- Savant
- Posts: 9378
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
- Has thanked: 906 times
- Been thanked: 1259 times
Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.
Post #253Is there a way for you to demonstrate to us that you in fact have been corrupted by a Satan (or some other voice)?The Tanager wrote:Satan isn't necessary as a corrupting influence. Without Satan, some other voice would try to corrupt us and we use our voice to corrupt others regardless.
Perhaps you have, but is it fair to then project your corruptness on to the rest of humanity? I don't find that fair myself. What if you and select others are the only ones corrupted? If a person is corrupt, they should own it and do what they can to better themselves. Blaming it on a Satan or other voices is to not take responsibility and is a seemingly uneeded crutch.
This is very odd to me since you are the one blaming a Satan and 'other voices'.You appear too ready to not blame humans as though they have no ability to overcome outside influences;
This claim is hard to swallow with all your corruption claims.I have a higher picture of humanity than that appears to present.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
- The Tanager
- Savant
- Posts: 5057
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
- Has thanked: 45 times
- Been thanked: 154 times
Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.
Post #254I have continually talked about it being our human responsibility in this thread. Others are saying that my worldview is inconsistent with that and that God would be to blame if my worldview were true. After what you quoted of my post I immediately said: "Still, we aren't forced to listen to the corrupting voices..." That's the complete opposite of blaming it on Satan or other voices. We should own our choices because they are ours.Clownboat wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 9:23 amIs there a way for you to demonstrate to us that you in fact have been corrupted by a Satan (or some other voice)?Satan isn't necessary as a corrupting influence. Without Satan, some other voice would try to corrupt us and we use our voice to corrupt others regardless.
Perhaps you have, but is it fair to then project your corruptness on to the rest of humanity? I don't find that fair myself. What if you and select others are the only ones corrupted? If a person is corrupt, they should own it and do what they can to better themselves. Blaming it on a Satan or other voices is to not take responsibility and is a seemingly uneeded crutch.
Whether you agree with my assessment of the extent of human corruption or not is up to you, I'm not trying to prove it true. I'm defending my worldview against specific critiques, ones that have accepted certain Christian teachings as true and then tried to show contradictions within the teachings themselves. I don't like having too many conversations going on at once, but would love to return to this issue later with you, if you would still wish.
Do you still think I am blaming Satan and 'other voices'? I actually did, and believe, the complete opposite.
So, of these two:
1. Humans have no control over their actions, but are rather determined to act in specific ways because of outside influences.
2. Humans have control over their actions in the midst of outside influences.
You think (1) is a higher picture of humanity than (2)? Or vice versa?
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14164
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 911 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
- Contact:
Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.
Post #255According to the text, there was a fruit of a tree which gave the pair the ability to know good and evil. Are you saying that the text is telling us that the pair already knew good and evil and the tree was simply a prop?The Tanager wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 3:43 pmI did respond to that. I rejected your assumption that humans didn't have the ability to know good from evil, according to the text.
William wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 1:25 pmAs I pointed out to Tam, it is the ONLY way in which to create beings of free will...who will actually act that out in order that the results can be studied...so without the fabled couple eating the fruit, they would not have been able to react as if they knew the consequences of free will. They would still be - as you refer to that state - "Robots".
Again, one has to wonder then how the forbidden fruit or the tempting serpent had anything to do with the process. In regard to the serpent, do you think that it too was a creature with free will?You don't move from being a 'robot' to being a creature with free will once you've made the wrong choice. You are either in one state or the other regardless of any choices you've actually been faced with.
William wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 1:25 pmSo I can ascertain from that reasoning, that the god proposed by Christian Mythology requires that this happens. It may be considered 'evil' not do what this god commands, but if they hadn't of done it, they would not know that. So your statement that they knew what god says is 'good' swings against that mythology. Otherwise the tree would have been named "The Tree of the knowledge of evil" (since the pair of freshly created humans somehow already know what good is.)
Nothing you've said explains how free will creatures are going to know the difference without experiencing those differences for themselves.Nothing I've said requires God requiring them to eat the fruit.
Therefore it was not the fruit of the forbidden tree which gave them any knowledge of either. They were created that way in the first place.Evil is the opposite of good. You know one and you know the other.
So yes - it certainly appears to be that you are arguing the fruit of the tree itself was simply a prop used to tempt out any evil that was within them.They already knew what both good and evil were. They hadn't experienced making an evil choice yet. Their first experience of choosing for themselves what is good and evil is why the tree is named that.
The script however, does not convey any such thing as you propose in your argument. You accused me of reading things into the script but it appears you are doing so yourself.
William wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 1:25 pmSo what is it that this god really wants? Robots or free will creatures? He obviously cannot have both and according to your interpretation of the mythology Eve making her own decision based upon what she thinks of as 'good' even though she obviously cannot possibly know what either good or evil is until she experiences both for herself.
According to your argument, her experience with this god before that fateful event has given her some knowledge of what is good, but how can she understand that if there is no counterpart in which she can experience the difference? And without that, how can she truly be a creature with actual free will?
Is this a case of child abuse? Why is it that religious folk argue minor mistakes in the same breath as they argue heinous crimes?Why do you think we can't know good or evil until we experience both? I know child abuse is bad without having abused a child or being abused myself. Free will does not require the experience of both good and evil actions.
I would argue that your knowledge of the evil of child abuse comes from your exposure over time to the subject rather than something you intuitive know to be wrong and that if you had been brought up in a different culture where knowledge of the problems of such abuse went unrecognized, you would have a different opinion.
Point being, one acquires knowledge which one is not born with...and the text regarding the mythology clearly speaks to that...
I think your knowledge of what being a robot is like is limited by your knowledge of what having free will is like. You cliam that the god wanted free will creatures to trust him seems at odds with the story. Trust him to do what exactly? To place them into a situation where there was a chance they would fail to trust him? Apparently that is what happened, and clearly in today's world, anyone placing their children purposefully in the way of harm - just to test their ability to trust you - would be considered child abuse. Why is it that you defend this god and blame the children for making poor choices when placed within a situation whereby they actually needed to be coxed into making said poor choices?Robots can't choose. Trusting someone is a choice. The act of trusting does not transform them into a person; it simply shows what is already true (as would mistrusting).
William wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 1:25 pmIn relation to me in this real world situation, I myself have no judgement to make on the mythology. My task is simply to critique points you and other Christians make in defense of all of your combined interpretations of the mythology.The choice is to either gift a being free will, giving them the possibility of experiencing love, or to enslave their will, giving them no possibility of experiencing love but making it so they cannot commit evil either. What do you think the better choice and why?
I am not critiquing whether you are right or wrong - and I would suggest that you do not take it personally when I critique the storyline and different interpretations Christians have about it.I'm asking you to follow out the critique process. The choice is either to gift a being free will, giving them the possibility of experiencing love or to enslave their will, giving them no possibility of experiencing love but making it so they cannot commit evil either. I think the better choice includes love because that is real freedom, real personality while the robotic option, in spite of its lack of evil, has no real personality. If you think my view still worth critiquing, then why am I wrong?
From what I can gather of your own interpretation, you have very distinct ideas of what robots are and wish to use this to try and make your overall argument appear rational.
My own view is that robots are far more suited to this environment than free will beings could ever be and I think a robot could be programmed to act in a nurturing manner which could be seen as loving.
Therefore, I naturally wonder why humans were created if robots are obviously better suited to said environment, following your arguments concerning this.
In that, it appears you are arguing the god had some void in which he wanted filled -because he lacked free will critters which could potentially love him regardless of what position he paced them in...which seem to be rather unrealistic request.
William wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 1:25 pmWe don't require the distraction of semantics to muddy our talks, do we?
In the simplest of terms, if one sees an imperfection (as clearly you do) and writes of it as such, the other (in this case me) reflects that back to you for further clarification.
If "not morally perfect" is something you find to be imperfect, then I can go along with that to flesh it out.
If you think "not morally perfect" is NOT an imperfection and humans were made perfect, then this leads one to think that your argument is that humans were made perfect except they were not morally perfect, which appears to be a contradiction.I do not think "not morally perfect" is an imperfection. I don't think humans were made imperfect. I don't see having free will as an imperfection. So, I clearly do not see an imperfection, using my terms. So, now what?
Either humans were created perfect or they were not, but mixing things up only muddies the waters. You want your cake and to eat it too?
To be clear, which argument are you going with. Humans were made perfect or not? Presently you seem to be arguing that 'yes they were made perfect although they were not morally perfect".
What you actually believe is of no particular interest to me unless it shows your willingness to contradict said beliefs in order to try and make them rational things to believe in. Either humans were created perfectly or they were not.I said I could use "imperfect" in a sense I don't normally and then agree that humans were made "imperfect" in that way. I did that because you seemed to think my mythology commits me to thinking humans are imperfect in spite of what I actually believe.
If they were not, then they were purposefully created imperfect. The god in question wasn't concerned with creating perfect robots but rather imperfect beings which he could then (somehow) watch become prefect when they used their free will to love him with. That appears to be the essence of your argument.
William wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 1:25 pmI was wondering yesterday when thinking on our conversation, as to how you may view animals - are they robots, or do they have free will or perhaps somewhere in between...do animals naturally (robotically) love The Creator and indeed, does this christian idea of god require that they do or do not...and if not, what makes the human animal so much more remarkable to this god that he has to have humans love him for who (and indeed what) he is?
What does that mean in context of your argument? Are "non-moral beings" 'robots'? It appears to me that if you believe humans are different from animals because we are "moral beings" then one could argue that moral beings are less intuitively natural in terms of how they interact with their environment. Clearly humans are the only 'animal' which use their abilities to act out against their enviroment even to the point of destroying said environment rather than nurturing it.Animals are non-moral beings.
Are you arguing that 'moral beings' are the reason for this being the case?
William wrote: ↑Wed Dec 30, 2020 1:25 pmThey are mythological places believed to be real. (They cannot be real until they are experienced.) They are neutral to each other in that neither can affect the other (with good or with evil) - your idea suggests that evil is stronger than good, and unless evil is separated from good, everything will eventually become evil.
That seems like a huge assumption on your part...and in relation to your idea of god, shows a being who is frightened of evil to the point that he believes he can be infected by it...so the whole operation (your gods purpose) is to rid himself of that threat.
To me that comes across as clearly a human idea that has been given undeserved/unmerited divine status...with no accompanying evidence... just wordy claims...
I write this because observing the creation I cannot identify anything therein which shows me a Creator scared of (his) own shadow...except when observing human-kind, who have been known to jump at such things....
And yet here we exist within an environment where BOTH co-exist. So does your argument include the illogical choice of this god to place these separate things together?That is not what my idea suggests at all. I do not think evil is stronger than good. My idea suggests that good and evil must logically be separate things.
This then suggests that the god was trying to use good to influence evil to choose to become good...which itself changes the reasons you have been giving in relation to the mythology. How can one change evil into good when so obviously the story is teaching how influential evil is over the minds of free will beings?They can't come together and exist in the same place. It's logically impossible. God is not frightened of evil. He can't be infected by it. He's not trying to rid Himself of that. He's trying to redeem evil into good.
And yet the storyline clearly shows that the god needed experimentation in relation to creating free will beings - his omniscience didn't appear to reach into that mystery OR he knew exactly what would occur and decided to give it a go anyway...No, it's not sensible. God is omniscient. He would know what creating robots would produce without experimentation.
Apparently Christians generally disagree with that assessment, otherwise why are there so many of them trying to engage us with their particular differing interpretations as being the TRUE interpretation to follow?Christianity cannot be discussed generally in that sense.
I am surprised you have not noticed that I am specifically critiquing your particular interpretation as it unfolds - as you clarify (as you must) - as it is becoming apparent that your particular beliefs move away from the general ... shall we say 'traditional' interpretations which Christianity has injected into the world over the past 2000 years...You aren't writing of it generally in that sense. You are using specific interpretation(s) of Christianity in your critiques of what I say, many interpretations that I do not hold (putting you in danger of critiquing strawmen). Now, maybe I should hold a different interpretation from the text, but I don't. The question becomes what you take as a your task here: to argue what my Christian interpretation should be or to critique my Christianity based on what my interpretation is. I'm fine with either.
I am fine with going along with your idea that the god can never be surprised, and any "surface reading" which suggests otherwise is merely a writers error.My reading of the Bible is that God is not surprised, even when a surface reading of a story like Noah seems to contradict that. Do you want to discuss the Noah story or focus on the bigger picture of my "Christian mythology"?
As I have noted, there is literal no good reason to get caught up in the individual webs of interpretations. If you believe this god has no agenda and does not interfere with the experiment then I am happy to put that down to writers error rather than argue about your personal beliefs on such text. In that, I prefer to let the Christians argue with each other than involve myself in that. That is why there is the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma forum.My reading of the Bible is that God doesn't occasionally interfere for the purpose of changing the course of history to better suit his agenda. Do you want to talk about a specific text that you think shows otherwise, so you can learn why I disagree or focus on the bigger picture of my Christian mythology, free will and all that?
- The Tanager
- Savant
- Posts: 5057
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
- Has thanked: 45 times
- Been thanked: 154 times
Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.
Post #256If they didn't know what good meant, then how could Eve have seen that the fruit was "good for food" in 3:6? I think the story is clearly about them rejecting what God says is good/evil and deciding for themselves what good is. The reasons given for Eve's choice in 3:6 are (1) it looks good to eat, (2) is aesthetically pleasing, and (3) promises wisdom apart from God. The couple decides for themselves what is good. So, the name could refer to knowledge in the sense of deciding good/evil for themselves. It could also refer to their first experience of evil, knowing evil in an experiential way for the first time. The same term for knowledge is used in 4:1 to describe Adam and Eve having sex, experiencing a knowledge of the other, when they clearly intellectually knew about the other previously.William wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 2:55 pmSo yes - it certainly appears to be that you are arguing the fruit of the tree itself was simply a prop used to tempt out any evil that was within them.
The script however, does not convey any such thing as you propose in your argument. You accused me of reading things into the script but it appears you are doing so yourself.
Humans are made with free will. The tree and serpent (who I think did have free will) is an opportunity (among many others) for them to trust God or decide for themselves what is good for them to do.William wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 2:55 pmAgain, one has to wonder then how the forbidden fruit or the tempting serpent had anything to do with the process. In regard to the serpent, do you think that it too was a creature with free will?You don't move from being a 'robot' to being a creature with free will once you've made the wrong choice. You are either in one state or the other regardless of any choices you've actually been faced with.
Why do I need to? You made the claim that one can't know the difference without actually experiencing the difference. That is your positive claim to support. In spite of that I did share a counter example of how I know child abuse is bad without having experienced either side of it myself.
I could have used any number of examples, so don't let the heinousness of child abuse sidetrack you. I didn't say they had the intuitive knowledge of all good and evil. The text speaks about God making such-and-such and calling it good. God directly tells them not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil because they will die; clear implication is that to eat it would be bad. Adam and Eve know this by God telling them it. They have that knowledge, even when they start to see that the fruit is pretty, looks delicious, and might be a path to wisdom apart from listening to God. They ignore the knowledge they had.William wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 2:55 pmIs this a case of child abuse? Why is it that religious folk argue minor mistakes in the same breath as they argue heinous crimes?
I would argue that your knowledge of the evil of child abuse comes from your exposure over time to the subject rather than something you intuitive know to be wrong and that if you had been brought up in a different culture where knowledge of the problems of such abuse went unrecognized, you would have a different opinion.
Point being, one acquires knowledge which one is not born with...and the text regarding the mythology clearly speaks to that...
Trust His (omniscient) word of what is good for them to do. It is logically impossible for God to give them free will, yet keep them from a situation where there is a chance they fail to trust Him. It's not like God has a choice to put them in that situation or not, once He gives them free will, they will necessarily come up against such situations. In those situations they can succeed or fail.William wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 2:55 pmI think your knowledge of what being a robot is like is limited by your knowledge of what having free will is like. You cliam that the god wanted free will creatures to trust him seems at odds with the story. Trust him to do what exactly? To place them into a situation where there was a chance they would fail to trust him?
He is not testing their ability to trust Him. Having free will logically requires them having such opportunities or it can't be free will. They can't exist and not have such opportunities, logically speaking.
They didn't need the serpent's coaxing. Eve added her own coaxing to the serpent's. The serpent didn't say the fruit was good for eating and pretty.
I don't have a full-orbed ontology of robots that I'm using to make any argument. The use of "robots" is a very specific point; it's an analogy after all.
What environment are you talking about?
Something being programmed to act as though they were loving is different than actually being loving. I define to love as something like: to will the good of someone or something. Anything that is programmed cannot will anything, at least not in a useful meaning of the word "will".
I don't know why you think I'm arguing God has a void that we fill. I am a Trinitarian, where God Himself already has love present within the three Persons. God can eternally experience love whether other creatures were created or not. It would be good for other creatures (their own good, not that being which already exists in love) to join that community. But robots can't be a part of that community. Robots could co-exist beside them, but they wouldn't be a part of the loving community because they are incapable of truly loving (whatever their actions may look like). So, God creates beings with free will, who can become a part of that community. But, those beings, logically, are able to choose to not be a part of that community.William wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 2:55 pmTherefore, I naturally wonder why humans were created if robots are obviously better suited to said environment, following your arguments concerning this.
In that, it appears you are arguing the god had some void in which he wanted filled -because he lacked free will critters which could potentially love him regardless of what position he paced them in...which seem to be rather unrealistic request.
I said humans were not made imperfect, which is different than saying they were made perfect. Some atheists nowadays will say they are simply not theists in using that term, not that they actually believe God does not exist. But, perhaps, you feel those examples are semantics.William wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 2:55 pmIf you think "not morally perfect" is NOT an imperfection and humans were made perfect, then this leads one to think that your argument is that humans were made perfect except they were not morally perfect, which appears to be a contradiction.
Either humans were created perfect or they were not, but mixing things up only muddies the waters. You want your cake and to eat it too?
To be clear, which argument are you going with. Humans were made perfect or not? Presently you seem to be arguing that 'yes they were made perfect although they were not morally perfect".
I don't have a problem in saying humans were made 'perfect,' if that term is properly understood. In that sense 'perfect' means something different for a human than it does a dog, a tree, or a planet. A perfect human must either (1) have free will or (2) be prescriptively morally perfect. I think the better option is (1).
To avoid confusion perhaps I should say that humans were made 'good,' but not 'morally perfect,' where 'good' does not refer to moral 'goodness'? I'm open for using a different term if it is better.
In that sense of 'imperfect,' yes, God created imperfect beings. In this sense, humans are neither morally perfect nor morally imperfect; they start off morally neutral because they haven't had to make any moral choices yet. They have no "batting average," metaphorically speaking; it's neither 1.000 nor .000. So, of course, in this understanding, the humans can become perfect (or imperfect).William wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 2:55 pmWhat you actually believe is of no particular interest to me unless it shows your willingness to contradict said beliefs in order to try and make them rational things to believe in. Either humans were created perfectly or they were not.I said I could use "imperfect" in a sense I don't normally and then agree that humans were made "imperfect" in that way. I did that because you seemed to think my mythology commits me to thinking humans are imperfect in spite of what I actually believe.
If they were not, then they were purposefully created imperfect. The god in question wasn't concerned with creating perfect robots but rather imperfect beings which he could then (somehow) watch become prefect when they used their free will to love him with. That appears to be the essence of your argument.
God knows that none will bat 1.000, though. God sets about getting them to a point where they can start "getting a hit" every future at-bat, though. But, with these terms, humans will never become 'perfect,' but that's perfectly fine. That requires them trusting God at every turn. Christianity says that requires Jesus' Incarnation, death, and resurrection.
It's irrelevant to my argument, as far as I can tell. You can be a robot and face moral decisions or be a robot and not face any moral decisions. Animals are the latter kind.
I think I understand what you are saying. Yes, I think non-human animals are instinctual in how they act. I do think many animal instincts are self-centered (for self or family group), which could cause damage to the environment and other creatures, though.William wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 2:55 pmIt appears to me that if you believe humans are different from animals because we are "moral beings" then one could argue that moral beings are less intuitively natural in terms of how they interact with their environment. Clearly humans are the only 'animal' which use their abilities to act out against their enviroment even to the point of destroying said environment rather than nurturing it.
Are you arguing that 'moral beings' are the reason for this being the case?
What do you mean that they co-exist? They aren't in the same "location" at the same time. Yes, they both exist on Earth, but that doesn't mean they are not logically separate things.
That doesn't change anything I've said. God made things 'good'. Part of them being 'good' is that they had free will (rather than be a robot). God tried to influence them and help them to choose good. They use their free will to become evil (whether influenced by others or not). God still tries to influence them and help them to choose good. His ultimate answer to helping them is Jesus.William wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 2:55 pmThis then suggests that the god was trying to use good to influence evil to choose to become good...which itself changes the reasons you have been giving in relation to the mythology. How can one change evil into good when so obviously the story is teaching how influential evil is over the minds of free will beings?
Leaving the unneccessary tangent of God's relationship to time aside, yes, He knew exactly what would occur and decided to give it a go anyway. What's the problem with that?
Emphasis mine. Maybe I don't understand your use of discussing Christianity 'generally'? General and particular are opposites to me.William wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 2:55 pmApparently Christians generally disagree with that assessment, otherwise why are there so many of them trying to engage us with their particular differing interpretations as being the TRUE interpretation to follow?Christianity cannot be discussed generally in that sense.
You are the one who said you were talking about Christian mythology generally, rather than dealing with the "distracting web of different Christian interpretations." I said you are critiquing a particular interpretation and that your critiques are based off of particular interpretations. I don't think my interpretations are non-traditional ones. Maybe they are the ones you are familiar with, but that is different than being "traditional" Christianity.William wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 2:55 pmI am surprised you have not noticed that I am specifically critiquing your particular interpretation as it unfolds - as you clarify (as you must) - as it is becoming apparent that your particular beliefs move away from the general ... shall we say 'traditional' interpretations which Christianity has injected into the world over the past 2000 years...
First off, calling it a writer's error is just another way to say that your interpretation is correct and mine wrong. That is "getting caught up with individual webs of interpretations" while skirting your burden to support your interpretation. You say you don't want to get caught up in that, so don't.William wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 2:55 pmAs I have noted, there is literal no good reason to get caught up in the individual webs of interpretations. If you believe this god has no agenda and does not interfere with the experiment then I am happy to put that down to writers error rather than argue about your personal beliefs on such text. In that, I prefer to let the Christians argue with each other than involve myself in that. That is why there is the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma forum.
So, for the purposes of our discussion: (1) God is not surprised and (2) to clarify, I don't think God is involved in some kind of experiment to find out information at all. I think God does have an agenda (bring free will beings into a loving community with Himself) and is constantly engaging His creatures towards that agenda.
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14164
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 911 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
- Contact:
Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.
Post #257The Tanager wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 6:12 pmWilliam wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 2:55 pmSo yes - it certainly appears to be that you are arguing the fruit of the tree itself was simply a prop used to tempt out any evil that was within them.
The script however, does not convey any such thing as you propose in your argument. You accused me of reading things into the script but it appears you are doing so yourself.So the tree turns out to be simply an unnecessary prop written into the plot.If they didn't know what good meant, then how could Eve have seen that the fruit was "good for food" in 3:6?
Or the story is a human explanation for why humans suffer life and then die, in relation to the idea of being created and existing within such a creation.I think the story is clearly about them rejecting what God says is good/evil and deciding for themselves what good is. The reasons given for Eve's choice in 3:6 are (1) it looks good to eat, (2) is aesthetically pleasing, and (3) promises wisdom apart from God.
The point being is that if they don't experience it they cannot know it. Certainly knowing intellectually about sex could have been achieved by simply studying the interactions of animals and understanding their own forms where similar. But that is only part of the recipe of knowing about anything.The couple decides for themselves what is good. So, the name could refer to knowledge in the sense of deciding good/evil for themselves. It could also refer to their first experience of evil, knowing evil in an experiential way for the first time. The same term for knowledge is used in 4:1 to describe Adam and Eve having sex, experiencing a knowledge of the other, when they clearly intellectually knew about the other previously.
If you want to go that way, what examples prior to this are we given in the mythology that tell us plainly that the pair had intellectual knowledge of good and evil? What in the command of the god suggests that they understood the implications of eating the fruit?
One could argue that they knew what death was by witnessing it happen to other animals, in the same way you argue that they knew about sex. But that is still incomplete knowledge.
William wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 2:55 pmAgain, one has to wonder then how the forbidden fruit or the tempting serpent had anything to do with the process. In regard to the serpent, do you think that it too was a creature with free will?You don't move from being a 'robot' to being a creature with free will once you've made the wrong choice. You are either in one state or the other regardless of any choices you've actually been faced with.According to the mythology, Eve did not know enough. She did not know that touching the fruit was not forbidden, yet she seemed to have (wrong) knowledge that it would cause her harm. We are not informed as to how she came about this knowledge, but obviously the Serpent saw a way to tempt her, by convincing her to touch the fruit.Humans are made with free will. The tree and serpent (who I think did have free will) is an opportunity (among many others) for them to trust God or decide for themselves what is good for them to do.
But even when both had touched and eaten of the fruit, they did not die - which - if the god had been telling the whole truth, they should have.
Because you made the claim that they knew the difference.Why do I need to?
Obviously nature shows us that we know no thing until we experience it. We can know things about things, but that is different, as it is incomplete knowledge.You made the claim that one can't know the difference without actually experiencing the difference. That is your positive claim to support.
I critiqued that claim.In spite of that I did share a counter example of how I know child abuse is bad without having experienced either side of it myself.
William wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 2:55 pmIs this a case of child abuse? Why is it that religious folk argue minor mistakes in the same breath as they argue heinous crimes?
I would argue that your knowledge of the evil of child abuse comes from your exposure over time to the subject rather than something you intuitive know to be wrong and that if you had been brought up in a different culture where knowledge of the problems of such abuse went unrecognized, you would have a different opinion.
Point being, one acquires knowledge which one is not born with...and the text regarding the mythology clearly speaks to that...Actually the story presents a being claiming to be their creator. They have no way of even knowing this is the truth. Your belief in this intuitive knowledge the pair possessed does not dovetail nicely into the mythology. Indeed, if they knew things intuitively, what need was there for a being claiming to be their creator to present himself to them and give them instructions regarding what to do and what not to do?I didn't say they had the intuitive knowledge of all good and evil. The text speaks about God making such-and-such and calling it good. God directly tells them not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil because they will die; clear implication is that to eat it would be bad. Adam and Eve know this by God telling them it.
As far as what the being deems as 'good', it depends upon the purpose for what the being set the creation up to achieve. It is 'good' for the placement of other beings of limited knowledge...which of course is not necessarily good for those other beings.
I submit that they had the choice to ignore this knowledge you claim they had because it was not something they felt could be wholly trusted. Your own argument says as much anyway. They did not wholly trust this being calling himself their creator and perhaps they had adequate reason not to.They have that knowledge, even when they start to see that the fruit is pretty, looks delicious, and might be a path to wisdom apart from listening to God. They ignore the knowledge they had.
William wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 2:55 pmI think your knowledge of what being a robot is like is limited by your knowledge of what having free will is like. You claim that the god wanted free will creatures to trust him seems at odds with the story. Trust him to do what exactly? To place them into a situation where there was a chance they would fail to trust him?It is still a form of abuse. We ourselves have come to know that if a parent exposes their children to danger, it would be no sensible defense which could let that parent off on the grounds that the child had been warned and it was the child's fault for using its free will to do something it had been told not to, even that the parent knew the dangers and placed the child in harms way. Would you argue that the parent was in the right and exhibiting love? If not, why are you arguing that this god is in the right?Trust His (omniscient) word of what is good for them to do. It is logically impossible for God to give them free will, yet keep them from a situation where there is a chance they fail to trust Him. It's not like God has a choice to put them in that situation or not, once He gives them free will, they will necessarily come up against such situations. In those situations they can succeed or fail.
You are changing horses.... If it wasn't about trusting the god, why did you write that Eve chose not to trust omniscient wisdom's idea of what is good for her to do? Why did you write they did not trust His (omniscient) word of what is good for them to do?He is not testing their ability to trust Him.
But the opportunities only presented themselves when trust in the truth of this god word failed them.Having free will logically requires them having such opportunities or it can't be free will. They can't exist and not have such opportunities, logically speaking.
Therefore it has to be equally logical that no actual 'sin' was committed. No wrong was done. It was all quite natural. If it wasn't about trusting the god then what was it about?
If we removed the Serpent from the story, are you saying that they still would have chosen to eat the forbidden fruit? If 'yes' then why have the Serpent involved? If 'no' then it is logical to conclude that the Serpent was necessary to get them to make the poor choice.They didn't need the serpent's coaxing. Eve added her own coaxing to the serpent's. The serpent didn't say the fruit was good for eating and pretty.
In today's day an age we know what robots are. In that we can understand your use of the analogy in order to make the distinction. If one were to program a robot to make bad choices it would be the programmers fault. If we were to place sentient creatures into a dangerous environment and withhold full knowledge from them, and they were harmed because of their ignorant choices, it would be the fault of the creator of said environment for not making sure the creatures where fully informed.I don't have a full-orbed ontology of robots that I'm using to make any argument. The use of "robots" is a very specific point; it's an analogy after all.
This Universe.What environment are you talking about?
My point is that the environment is better suited to robots programmed to nurture said environment. Certainly better suited than the free will human beings this mythology has a god creating and placing in said environment.Something being programmed to act as though they were loving is different than actually being loving. I define to love as something like: to will the good of someone or something. Anything that is programmed cannot will anything, at least not in a useful meaning of the word "will".
William wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 2:55 pmTherefore, I naturally wonder why humans were created if robots are obviously better suited to said environment, following your arguments concerning this.
In that, it appears you are arguing the god had some void in which he wanted filled -because he lacked free will critters which could potentially love him regardless of what position he paced them in...which seem to be rather unrealistic request.Your argument naturally goes in that direction. Right from the start of our interaction you made it clear that the god created beings with free will who could use that to trust in him and love him. What other reason would the god create something other than to fill a void? The void in this regard is that no beings capable of free will existed and so they were created? If this is not what you mean then please inform me as to what the god was motivated by to do so, as otherwise I cannot see the logic of your argument.I don't know why you think I'm arguing God has a void that we fill.
This is not logically love in action. Billions suffer on the planet in order that a tiny, tiny percentage of those might become part of a community which is solely focused upon a being claiming to have created them? The rest are consigned to an eternity of hell? That is the general consensus of Christianity. Perhaps you do not agree with that consensus? Or are you are okay with this because you see it all as a 'loving act'?I am a Trinitarian, where God Himself already has love present within the three Persons. God can eternally experience love whether other creatures were created or not. It would be good for other creatures (their own good, not that being which already exists in love) to join that community.
What is it that you can actually point to and prove "This is truly loving"?But robots can't be a part of that community. Robots could co-exist beside them, but they wouldn't be a part of the loving community because they are incapable of truly loving (whatever their actions may look like). So, God creates beings with free will, who can become a part of that community. But, those beings, logically, are able to choose to not be a part of that community.
William wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 2:55 pmIf you think "not morally perfect" is NOT an imperfection and humans were made perfect, then this leads one to think that your argument is that humans were made perfect except they were not morally perfect, which appears to be a contradiction.
Either humans were created perfect or they were not, but mixing things up only muddies the waters. You want your cake and to eat it too?
To be clear, which argument are you going with. Humans were made perfect or not? Presently you seem to be arguing that 'yes they were made perfect although they were not morally perfect".How is that 'different'? Is there some state in between which is neither perfect or imperfect?I said humans were not made imperfect, which is different than saying they were made perfect.
No actual atheists say they believe that god(s) exist/that they exist within a creation. Agnostics can say they have no beliefs in relation to that question. Atheists are firm in regard to their position on the matter.Some atheists nowadays will say they are simply not theists in using that term, not that they actually believe God does not exist. But, perhaps, you feel those examples are semantics.
In that you would be open to saying beings can be good without them also being moral. Do you think that is the case?I don't have a problem in saying humans were made 'perfect,' if that term is properly understood. In that sense 'perfect' means something different for a human than it does a dog, a tree, or a planet. A perfect human must either (1) have free will or (2) be prescriptively morally perfect. I think the better option is (1).
To avoid confusion perhaps I should say that humans were made 'good,' but not 'morally perfect,' where 'good' does not refer to moral 'goodness'? I'm open for using a different term if it is better.
William wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 2:55 pmWhat you actually believe is of no particular interest to me unless it shows your willingness to contradict said beliefs in order to try and make them rational things to believe in. Either humans were created perfectly or they were not.I said I could use "imperfect" in a sense I don't normally and then agree that humans were made "imperfect" in that way. I did that because you seemed to think my mythology commits me to thinking humans are imperfect in spite of what I actually believe.
If they were not, then they were purposefully created imperfect. The god in question wasn't concerned with creating perfect robots but rather imperfect beings which he could then (somehow) watch become prefect when they used their free will to love him with. That appears to be the essence of your argument.In that sense, one can then take the argument that this god created imperfect beings and placed them in an imperfect environment but that the beings and the environment were perfect for each other in relation to why the god created the imperfect states of both beings and environment.In that sense of 'imperfect,' yes, God created imperfect beings. In this sense, humans are neither morally perfect nor morally imperfect; they start off morally neutral because they haven't had to make any moral choices yet. They have no "batting average," metaphorically speaking; it's neither 1.000 nor .000. So, of course, in this understanding, the humans can become perfect (or imperfect).
As far as Christian mythology goes to explain the human condition and the environment, one could nowadays conclude that it is natural to make up stories which appear 'good' in order to explain somethings which appear 'evil' but equally natural not to actually believe those stories are real (true) but rather, are simply methods adopted to help explain what (then) was unknown. Analogies, but nothing more than that. They are meant to serve a purpose but are also meant to be abandoned as more and more actual truth surfaces through continued human interaction with and learning from the environment of nature.God knows that none will bat 1.000, though. God sets about getting them to a point where they can start "getting a hit" every future at-bat, though. But, with these terms, humans will never become 'perfect,' but that's perfectly fine. That requires them trusting God at every turn. Christianity says that requires Jesus' Incarnation, death, and resurrection.
So in your opinion, animals (which are not human) are robots?It's irrelevant to my argument, as far as I can tell. You can be a robot and face moral decisions or be a robot and not face any moral decisions. Animals are the latter kind.
Also, can you give an example of a robot that can face moral decisions?
William wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 2:55 pmIt appears to me that if you believe humans are different from animals because we are "moral beings" then one could argue that moral beings are less intuitively natural in terms of how they interact with their environment. Clearly humans are the only 'animal' which use their abilities to act out against their environment even to the point of destroying said environment rather than nurturing it.
Are you arguing that 'moral beings' are the reason for this being the case?Can you give some examples as to those kinds of animals? Also, it appears crystal clear to me that the nature of our environment allows for what you refer to as 'damage' as part of its overall makeup. It is not a dualistic thing (ie 'good and evil') so much as a singular thing which envelops both creativity and destruction as a part of its natural makeup.I think I understand what you are saying. Yes, I think non-human animals are instinctual in how they act. I do think many animal instincts are self-centered (for self or family group), which could cause damage to the environment and other creatures, though.
Is it logic which separate them though? It appears to me that for the most part, such concepts are anchored firmly in human emotion, which we all should appreciate is seldom connected with logic.What do you mean that they co-exist? They aren't in the same "location" at the same time. Yes, they both exist on Earth, but that doesn't mean they are not logically separate things.
We also understand that what is considered 'good' for some is considered 'evil' for others, so it is in that sense that I write that these concepts do indeed co-exist if they are not judged (from a purely emotive position) but simply accepted as part of the natural order of all things in this universe.
Indeed, isn't that the way you are trying to argue for the logic of your gods own choices in relation to said creation?
William wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 2:55 pmThis then suggests that the god was trying to use good to influence evil to choose to become good...which itself changes the reasons you have been giving in relation to the mythology. How can one change evil into good when so obviously the story is teaching how influential evil is over the minds of free will beings?Is Jesus really any gods 'ultimate answer'? How is it that evil was so easily able to infiltrate Christianity and be used in that way, if Jesus was the ultimate answer?That doesn't change anything I've said. God made things 'good'. Part of them being 'good' is that they had free will (rather than be a robot). God tried to influence them and help them to choose good. They use their free will to become evil (whether influenced by others or not). God still tries to influence them and help them to choose good. His ultimate answer to helping them is Jesus.
I could understand it more in terms which would have the god saying "yes I take responsibility for my part in this unfolding adventure and rectify that in Jesus - all is forgiven and no need for an eternity of hell for anyone" but that is not the general Christian message and you yourself believe that an eternal hell is the best answer this god could come up with in relation to what to do about free will creatures who chose to reject what can only be honestly referred to as unsubstantiated claims made by a variety of religious institutions over the centuries.
How is that a 'good' thing when one can figure out far better 'ultimate' ways of ensuring free will beings get to experience the actual love of a creator through the creator himself rather than through mediums claiming to speak on behalf of the creator?
Why do you think it an 'unnecessary tangent' when logically it has to be part of the question needing answering?Leaving the unnecessary tangent of God's relationship to time aside, yes, He knew exactly what would occur and decided to give it a go anyway. What's the problem with that?
As to 'what is the problem with that?' There is no problem as long as everyone gets out of it what they want to. It only becomes a problem when notions such as eternal torment and suffering become a part of that story (as per Christian mythology). One simply knows intuitively that injustice is being served should that be an actual state individuals are consigned to.
William wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 2:55 pmApparently Christians generally disagree with that assessment, otherwise why are there so many of them trying to engage us with their particular differing interpretations as being the TRUE interpretation to follow?Christianity cannot be discussed generally in that sense.I only write of Christian mythology in the only way it can be mentioned - generally rather than particularly. To do anything else with the script is to immerse oneself in the distracting web of different Christian interpretations.Emphasis mine. Maybe I don't understand your use of discussing Christianity 'generally'? General and particular are opposites to me.
I critique the particular where I see inconsistency, changing of horse in mid-stream (shifting goalposts) trying to have ones cake and eat it too, etc...in an individual Christians interpretations of said general script.
William wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 2:55 pmI am surprised you have not noticed that I am specifically critiquing your particular interpretation as it unfolds - as you clarify (as you must) - as it is becoming apparent that your particular beliefs move away from the general ... shall we say 'traditional' interpretations which Christianity has injected into the world over the past 2000 years...I follow the logic that "There are no true Christians" (One true Scotsman fallacy) in relation to individuals calling themselves 'Christians' and simply deal with them as individuals. My mention of generalities occurs when I identify similar/same beliefs coming through.You are the one who said you were talking about Christian mythology generally, rather than dealing with the "distracting web of different Christian interpretations." I said you are critiquing a particular interpretation and that your critiques are based off of particular interpretations. I don't think my interpretations are non-traditional ones. Maybe they are the ones you are familiar with, but that is different than being "traditional" Christianity.
William wrote: ↑Sat Jan 02, 2021 2:55 pmAs I have noted, there is literal no good reason to get caught up in the individual webs of interpretations. If you believe this god has no agenda and does not interfere with the experiment then I am happy to put that down to writers error rather than argue about your personal beliefs on such text. In that, I prefer to let the Christians argue with each other than involve myself in that. That is why there is the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma forum.Let me clarify then - I am not interpreting anything but simply taking the script as it is presented. When someone has written that the god was sorry for creating free will beings (as per your free will argument) and you have written in effect that the god is never surprised, I am content to go along with you and conclude that the story is poorly worded if it gives the impression the god was surprised (and thus 'sorry') as the god cannot be 'sorry' for creating free will beings as the god cannot have been surprised by their actions.First off, calling it a writer's error is just another way to say that your interpretation is correct and mine wrong. That is "getting caught up with individual webs of interpretations" while skirting your burden to support your interpretation. You say you don't want to get caught up in that, so don't.
So, for the purposes of our discussion: (1) God is not surprised and (2) to clarify, I don't think God is involved in some kind of experiment to find out information at all. I think God does have an agenda (bring free will beings into a loving community with Himself) and is constantly engaging His creatures towards that agenda.
In principle I see no problem with this, other than how badly written the mythology is as it clearly isn't that clear. I suppose that is the exact reason why there are so many Christians with differing interpretations but I reject any notion (veiled or otherwise) that it is my fault I don't understand any particular Christians personal interpretations of said mythology.
I critique as I see the holes in said mythology and respect any curtesy of clarification which the individual provides me with.
- The Tanager
- Savant
- Posts: 5057
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
- Has thanked: 45 times
- Been thanked: 154 times
Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.
Post #258What do you mean? Could it have been something else that elicited the first disobedience? Yes, it's not necesssary in that sense. But there has to be something. Does that mean it wasn't actually eating fruit from a specific tree? No.
The story does not present itself to be taken that way, though.
Those are two different concepts, though. And incomplete knowledge is different, still, from not having enough knowledge. I'm not arguing they previously had 'complete' knowledge. I'm saying they had enough to know what was the good/right thing to do.
3:3. Eve knows that God said they would die if they ate the fruit. That's clearly knowing the implications. The alternative would be that God basically said the equivalent of "eat the fruit and you will schnarkle." "What is schnarkle," Eve later asked Adam.William wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:12 amIf you want to go that way, what examples prior to this are we given in the mythology that tell us plainly that the pair had intellectual knowledge of good and evil? What in the command of the god suggests that they understood the implications of eating the fruit?
God never forbids touching the fruit, nor does He say doing so would lead to death; Eve adds that bit in 3:3. From the context of the story, the death being talked about is spiritual and becoming mortal, Adam and Eve know this, and it does happen.William wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:12 amAccording to the mythology, Eve did not know enough. She did not know that touching the fruit was not forbidden, yet she seemed to have (wrong) knowledge that it would cause her harm. We are not informed as to how she came about this knowledge, but obviously the Serpent saw a way to tempt her, by convincing her to touch the fruit.
But even when both had touched and eaten of the fruit, they did not die - which - if the god had been telling the whole truth, they should have.
The text doesn't say the humans doubted God was the creator; it doesn't address that question directly. It does not say they doubted God's statement about death. It shows them choosing the fruit's aesthetics, mouth-wateringness, and the chance of knowing good and evil apart from God over God's statement to not eat it and the consequence being death.
Please look again at the bolded parts above. I just said it isn't intuitive knowledge (the first bolded part) and that they knew it by God telling them (the second bolded part).William wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:12 amYour belief in this intuitive knowledge the pair possessed does not dovetail nicely into the mythology. Indeed, if they knew things intuitively, what need was there for a being claiming to be their creator to present himself to them and give them instructions regarding what to do and what not to do?I didn't say they had the intuitive knowledge of all good and evil. The text speaks about God making such-and-such and calling it good. God directly tells them not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil because they will die; clear implication is that to eat it would be bad. Adam and Eve know this by God telling them it.
I agree 'good' is relative in that way. I'm not sure what you are saying in the second part, though. What do you mean good for the placement of other beings but not good for those other beings?
The text doesn't show that they have adequate reason to.William wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:12 amI submit that they had the choice to ignore this knowledge you claim they had because it was not something they felt could be wholly trusted. Your own argument says as much anyway. They did not wholly trust this being calling himself their creator and perhaps they had adequate reason not to.
It comes down to whether one thinks free will is better than robotic moral perfection. The difference between God and a parent is that for God to intervene, He must do away with free will, while parents intervening in their kids life does not.William wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:12 amIt is still a form of abuse. We ourselves have come to know that if a parent exposes their children to danger, it would be no sensible defense which could let that parent off on the grounds that the child had been warned and it was the child's fault for using its free will to do something it had been told not to, even that the parent knew the dangers and placed the child in harms way. Would you argue that the parent was in the right and exhibiting love? If not, why are you arguing that this god is in the right?
I'm not changing horses. You seemed to be saying the reason God did it was to test their ability to trust Him, like some kind of experiment God did to gain knowledge. I have continually disagreed with that, as I'm doing here. Did you mean something else?William wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:12 amYou are changing horses.... If it wasn't about trusting the god, why did you write that Eve chose not to trust omniscient wisdom's idea of what is good for her to do? Why did you write they did not trust His (omniscient) word of what is good for them to do?He is not testing their ability to trust Him.Apparently that is what happened, and clearly in today's world, anyone placing their children purposefully in the way of harm - just to test their ability to trust you - would be considered child abuse.
That's two sides of the same coin. You seem to be treating these as separate things.William wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:12 amBut the opportunities only presented themselves when trust in the truth of this god word failed them.Having free will logically requires them having such opportunities or it can't be free will. They can't exist and not have such opportunities, logically speaking.
How could an omniscient being logically be wrong about it being sin or not?
I think they had the chance to always make the right choice, with or without the serpent trying to deceive them. I think they could make the wrong choice with or without the serpent, whether it was eating the fruit or something else. The serpent is involved because the author believed it actually went down that way or as a personification of the inanimate temptation.William wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:12 amIf we removed the Serpent from the story, are you saying that they still would have chosen to eat the forbidden fruit? If 'yes' then why have the Serpent involved? If 'no' then it is logical to conclude that the Serpent was necessary to get them to make the poor choice.
That depends on what you mean by "full knowledge". They had "enough" knowledge to avoid the harm. I think that puts the fault on the creature (although the Creator is responsible for the creature having the ability to be at fault).William wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:12 amIf we were to place sentient creatures into a dangerous environment and withhold full knowledge from them, and they were harmed because of their ignorant choices, it would be the fault of the creator of said environment for not making sure the creatures where fully informed.
Do you mean that the environment would fare better? If so, then I agree. But I think God desires a loving community of free will beings over a perfect environment and that He is making the better choice.
God was motivated by love to include other beings in that love for their good.William wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:12 amYour argument naturally goes in that direction. Right from the start of our interaction you made it clear that the god created beings with free will who could use that to trust in him and love him. What other reason would the god create something other than to fill a void? The void in this regard is that no beings capable of free will existed and so they were created? If this is not what you mean then please inform me as to what the god was motivated by to do so, as otherwise I cannot see the logic of your argument.I don't know why you think I'm arguing God has a void that we fill.
If free will exists, then Hell must logically exist as a possible "destination" (whether any person ends up "there" or not). As to what happens "in" Hell, I lean towards annihilationism (for Biblical and philosophical reasons). It is not the majority view of Hell among Christians, but I think that is more for cultural reasons (although I could be wrong). Regardless of that, annihilationism is a traditional Christian understanding present from early on.William wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:12 amThis is not logically love in action. Billions suffer on the planet in order that a tiny, tiny percentage of those might become part of a community which is solely focused upon a being claiming to have created them? The rest are consigned to an eternity of hell? That is the general consensus of Christianity. Perhaps you do not agree with that consensus? Or are you are okay with this because you see it all as a 'loving act'?
I use love to mean "willing the good of another." Using that definition, robots cannot love because they cannot will; they have their actions determined by outside factors. I think my point logically follows from this. If you don't agree with the definition, then we are simply talking about different concepts. I'm fine in changing the terminology, if you want to do that, as long as we are talking about the same concepts.William wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:12 amWhat is it that you can actually point to and prove "This is truly loving"?But robots can't be a part of that community. Robots could co-exist beside them, but they wouldn't be a part of the loving community because they are incapable of truly loving (whatever their actions may look like). So, God creates beings with free will, who can become a part of that community. But, those beings, logically, are able to choose to not be a part of that community.
Morally neutral. This approaches moral perfection/imperfection like a batting average or completion percentage (i.e., in a descriptive way).
Yes, where 'good' means something different than 'moral goodness'. I'm fine using a different term as well. Perhaps humans can be 'ideal' without being morally perfect. I'm not sure what the best term to use is to avoid as many confusions as possible (and that probably depends on everyone in the conversation and the history of terms in their encounters and usage).
The environment could only be described as 'imperfect' in this sense, if it is a moral being itself. But then it really is a "being" and not an "environment". I'm definitely not making this argument (just making that clear, if it isn't).William wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:12 amIn that sense, one can then take the argument that this god created imperfect beings and placed them in an imperfect environment but that the beings and the environment were perfect for each other in relation to why the god created the imperfect states of both beings and environment.In that sense of 'imperfect,' yes, God created imperfect beings. In this sense, humans are neither morally perfect nor morally imperfect; they start off morally neutral because they haven't had to make any moral choices yet. They have no "batting average," metaphorically speaking; it's neither 1.000 nor .000. So, of course, in this understanding, the humans can become perfect (or imperfect).
Of course one could. Whether one should conclude this conclusion is true is another question.William wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:12 amAs far as Christian mythology goes to explain the human condition and the environment, one could nowadays conclude that it is natural to make up stories which appear 'good' in order to explain somethings which appear 'evil' but equally natural not to actually believe those stories are real (true) but rather, are simply methods adopted to help explain what (then) was unknown. Analogies, but nothing more than that. They are meant to serve a purpose but are also meant to be abandoned as more and more actual truth surfaces through continued human interaction with and learning from the environment of nature.
Yes, robots that don't face moral decisions.
Perhaps "decision" isn't the best word, I don't know. Let's say the moral "decision" is to abuse a child or not. A robot that is programmed to abuse the child is "facing a moral decision," although perhaps better language could be used.
I'm simply thinking of things like a lion eating a zebra, or, vaguely, of some animal that may do actions which damage the environment but help them survive. Perhaps there is no such animal that inadvertently damages the environment?William wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:12 amCan you give some examples as to those kinds of animals? Also, it appears crystal clear to me that the nature of our environment allows for what you refer to as 'damage' as part of its overall makeup. It is not a dualistic thing (ie 'good and evil') so much as a singular thing which envelops both creativity and destruction as a part of its natural makeup.
I agree that damage is built into the environment. For instance, I'm not sure Earth could be habitable without the weather patterns that can bring suffering on humans. I would say that this isn't an issue of good versus evil at all, rather than being both good and evil.
I don't think good and evil are anchored in human emotion (although human thoughts of what is good and evil often are), but in God's nature (a nature which is logical).William wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:12 amIs it logic which separate them though? It appears to me that for the most part, such concepts are anchored firmly in human emotion, which we all should appreciate is seldom connected with logic.
We also understand that what is considered 'good' for some is considered 'evil' for others, so it is in that sense that I write that these concepts do indeed co-exist if they are not judged (from a purely emotive position) but simply accepted as part of the natural order of all things in this universe.
Indeed, isn't that the way you are trying to argue for the logic of your gods own choices in relation to said creation?
I'm not sure why you think I'm trying to argue in that way. Perhaps I've misunderstood something?
I think Jesus is the ultimate answer. Evil infiltrates Christianity because Christians (just like everyone else) have free will, stubbornly holding onto their desire to determine good/evil for ourselves. Becoming like God is a process that we continually fight, yet God leads us one step at a time.
What are these better ways? I'm open to considering them.William wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:12 amI could understand it more in terms which would have the god saying "yes I take responsibility for my part in this unfolding adventure and rectify that in Jesus - all is forgiven and no need for an eternity of hell for anyone" but that is not the general Christian message and you yourself believe that an eternal hell is the best answer this god could come up with in relation to what to do about free will creatures who chose to reject what can only be honestly referred to as unsubstantiated claims made by a variety of religious institutions over the centuries.
How is that a 'good' thing when one can figure out far better 'ultimate' ways of ensuring free will beings get to experience the actual love of a creator through the creator himself rather than through mediums claiming to speak on behalf of the creator?
For our purposes, I don't think it matters if God knows what will happen and chooses to go through with it or whether God makes a choice (knowing all the possibilities) and sees what happens and timelessly reacts to those happenings. If you see an affect I don't, then share and I'll share my thoughts.William wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:12 amWhy do you think it an 'unnecessary tangent' when logically it has to be part of the question needing answering?Leaving the unnecessary tangent of God's relationship to time aside, yes, He knew exactly what would occur and decided to give it a go anyway. What's the problem with that?
William wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:12 amLet me clarify then - I am not interpreting anything but simply taking the script as it is presented. When someone has written that the god was sorry for creating free will beings (as per your free will argument) and you have written in effect that the god is never surprised, I am content to go along with you and conclude that the story is poorly worded if it gives the impression the god was surprised (and thus 'sorry') as the god cannot be 'sorry' for creating free will beings as the god cannot have been surprised by their actions.First off, calling it a writer's error is just another way to say that your interpretation is correct and mine wrong. That is "getting caught up with individual webs of interpretations" while skirting your burden to support your interpretation. You say you don't want to get caught up in that, so don't.
First, that is still doing it. "Taking the script as it is presented" is rhetoric for "my interpretation is the simplest or clearest or author-intended one." Just because it is the first impression you get doesn't mean the story is poorly worded. You come from a different culture than the author (as do I) and there is danger for us reading our culture and expectations and worldview into the text when they aren't there. Errors that arise because of that isn't the author's fault. I'm fine with you critiquing holes as you see the mythology and open to clarifications, but it is your fault in claiming your impression is the clear reading of the text when you haven't accounted for the possible cultural differences.William wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:12 amIn principle I see no problem with this, other than how badly written the mythology is as it clearly isn't that clear. I suppose that is the exact reason why there are so many Christians with differing interpretations but I reject any notion (veiled or otherwise) that it is my fault I don't understand any particular Christians personal interpretations of said mythology.
I critique as I see the holes in said mythology and respect any curtesy of clarification which the individual provides me with.
Second, and more importantly, I didn't argue that God was sorry for creating free will beings. I have said that God was sorry that free will beings use it for evil, but in spite of that God is still not sorry He created free will beings.
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14164
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 911 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
- Contact:
Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.
Post #259The Tanager wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 1:22 pmNo. What I mean is that it was something else already within the pair which required a trigger, to which the tree was the prop which caused that something else to become an external reaction.What do you mean? Could it have been something else that elicited the first disobedience? Yes, it's not necesssary in that sense. But there has to be something. Does that mean it wasn't actually eating fruit from a specific tree? No.
It is a story. Mythology presents itself through stories as real events which actually happened, but that is mythology.The story does not present itself to be taken that way, though.
Which is why I argue in return that the fruit of the tree was simply a prop to bring out what was already in them....to reveal that. But to whom? Certainly not to the god (who knows all this about the pair already since he is omniscient)...Those are two different concepts, though. And incomplete knowledge is different, still, from not having enough knowledge. I'm not arguing they previously had 'complete' knowledge. I'm saying they had enough to know what was the good/right thing to do.
William wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:12 amIf you want to go that way, what examples prior to this are we given in the mythology that tell us plainly that the pair had intellectual knowledge of good and evil? What in the command of the god suggests that they understood the implications of eating the fruit?2:15-18 the god took Adam (therefore from somewhere else) and placed Adam in the Garden and instructed Adam not to eat of a particular tree. After the instruction (how long after - the story does not inform us) the god created Eve as a companion. There is no mention of the god instructing Eve regarding the forbidden fruit, so we can assume that Adam was the one who informed Eve.3:3. Eve knows that God said they would die if they ate the fruit. That's clearly knowing the implications. The alternative would be that God basically said the equivalent of "eat the fruit and you will schnarkle." "What is schnarkle," Eve later asked Adam.
God never forbids touching the fruit, nor does He say doing so would lead to death; Eve adds that bit in 3:3.
3:3 shows us one of two things...either Eve added to the command or Adam did when he instructed Eve regarding the command. Either way, clearly the command was added to and clearly the Serpent saw a way in which it could entice Eve because if it could get her to simply touch the fruit and no harm came to her, it would be easy enough to convince her that eating the fruit would not harm her either....
In my opinion, it is more likely Eve was repeating to the Serpent what she had been instructed by Adam regarding the fruit of the tree.
William wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:12 amAccording to the mythology, Eve did not know enough. She did not know that touching the fruit was not forbidden, yet she seemed to have (wrong) knowledge that it would cause her harm. We are not informed as to how she came about this knowledge, but obviously the Serpent saw a way to tempt her, by convincing her to touch the fruit.
But even when both had touched and eaten of the fruit, they did not die - which - if the god had been telling the whole truth, they should have.It is one thing to understand the pair had knowledge of physical death processes as they would have witnessed the death of animals in their environment.From the context of the story, the death being talked about is spiritual and becoming mortal, Adam and Eve know this, and it does happen.
There is nothing which tells us they understood what a 'spiritual death' was about. Certainly the god is not shown to differentiate and simply said that they 'would surely die'.
The text doesn't say the humans doubted God was the creator; it doesn't address that question directly.
I did not claim that it did. What I wrote was that they had no way of being able to know whether that was the truth of the matter.
It does not say they doubted God's statement about death.
The story clearly shows that they did doubt. That doubt was amplified in Eve when she decided to touch the fruit and no harm (death) came to her.
The story clearly shows that the death the god spoke of was not going to be instantaneous, but rather, slow and drawn out with lots of suffering before that final breath...the story clearly shows that they were not fully informed as to the way in which this death would come to them but the way the god chose to word it, there was room for them to assume the death would be fairly quick.It shows them choosing the fruit's aesthetics, mouth-wateringness, and the chance of knowing good and evil apart from God over God's statement to not eat it and the consequence being death.
William wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:12 amYour belief in this intuitive knowledge the pair possessed does not dovetail nicely into the mythology. Indeed, if they knew things intuitively, what need was there for a being claiming to be their creator to present himself to them and give them instructions regarding what to do and what not to do?I didn't say they had the intuitive knowledge of all good and evil. The text speaks about God making such-and-such and calling it good. God directly tells them not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil because they will die; clear implication is that to eat it would be bad. Adam and Eve know this by God telling them it.Okay then, we can agree to drop the idea of 'intuitive knowledge' as relative to this argument?Please look again at the bolded parts above. I just said it isn't intuitive knowledge (the first bolded part) and that they knew it by God telling them (the second bolded part).
I mean that it is a good place to place the beings but not necessarily because it is going to work out good for those beings. Like prison.I agree 'good' is relative in that way. I'm not sure what you are saying in the second part, though. What do you mean good for the placement of other beings but not good for those other beings?
William wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:12 amI submit that they had the choice to ignore this knowledge you claim they had because it was not something they felt could be wholly trusted. Your own argument says as much anyway. They did not wholly trust this being calling himself their creator and perhaps they had adequate reason not to.That is what I am saying.The text doesn't show that they have adequate reason to.
William wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:12 amIt is still a form of abuse. We ourselves have come to know that if a parent exposes their children to danger, it would be no sensible defense which could let that parent off on the grounds that the child had been warned and it was the child's fault for using its free will to do something it had been told not to, even that the parent knew the dangers and placed the child in harms way. Would you argue that the parent was in the right and exhibiting love? If not, why are you arguing that this god is in the right?Why? Why does one have to be 'better' than the other? Would it not depend on circumstance?It comes down to whether one thinks free will is better than robotic moral perfection.
I think it more appropriate in this particular environment (The Universe, but Earth specifically) that robots are the better option than beings of flesh and blood. It make more logical sense, the robots won't experience harm but only harmony, so in that way it is 'better'.
Interesting side note then. IF love does not intervene THEN parents (etc) who do so, are not acting from love....but as we have already agreed, the god in the story does indeed intervene, so when he does, is free will somehow suspended while that is going on?The difference between God and a parent is that for God to intervene, He must do away with free will, while parents intervening in their kids life does not.
William wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:12 amYou are changing horses.... If it wasn't about trusting the god, why did you write that Eve chose not to trust omniscient wisdom's idea of what is good for her to do? Why did you write they did not trust His (omniscient) word of what is good for them to do?He is not testing their ability to trust Him.Apparently that is what happened, and clearly in today's world, anyone placing their children purposefully in the way of harm - just to test their ability to trust you - would be considered child abuse.I am trying to follow your argument regarding 'trust'. You seem to be saying that the god had no desire for the pair to trust him while at the same time you seem to be saying that they failed to trust the god...how can the pair fail in something that the god did not require from them in the first place? How can 'sin' have occurred?I'm not changing horses. You seemed to be saying the reason God did it was to test their ability to trust Him, like some kind of experiment God did to gain knowledge. I have continually disagreed with that, as I'm doing here. Did you mean something else?
William wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:12 amBut the opportunities only presented themselves when trust in the truth of this god word failed them.Having free will logically requires them having such opportunities or it can't be free will. They can't exist and not have such opportunities, logically speaking.?That's two sides of the same coin. You seem to be treating these as separate things.
The idea of sin is chronologically presented after the fact. The god himself makes no mentioned that the pair 'sinned'. What is mentioned is that the god asks them "who told you that you are naked?" and the question appears to be designed to get them to think about what the answer might be. This is followed by the rhetorical question "have you been eating the forbidden fruit"How could an omniscient being logically be wrong about it being sin or not?
In both cases, the god (being omniscient) would have already known the answers so the questions are for the pair to find the answer to the first question for themselves.
As it develops, we are not informed that the pair had any answer to the first question.
William wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:12 amIf we removed the Serpent from the story, are you saying that they still would have chosen to eat the forbidden fruit? If 'yes' then why have the Serpent involved? If 'no' then it is logical to conclude that the Serpent was necessary to get them to make the poor choice.Good. That is what you think went down. However, the story-teller(s) deemed it necessary to place this Serpent being into the storyline as an animate intelligent object in which Eve could and did interact with. To say that the Serpent is not a necessary (in that way) component of the story (from a book which is traditionally regarded as "inspired by the god" no less) because it so obviously implicates the god in ways which give the appearance the god is not as good as Christians believe, is simply a matter of convenience rather than any honest attempt to get to the nitty gritty of the matter. Taking away from the word is no less dangerous than adding to it.I think they had the chance to always make the right choice, with or without the serpent trying to deceive them. I think they could make the wrong choice with or without the serpent, whether it was eating the fruit or something else. The serpent is involved because the author believed it actually went down that way or as a personification of the inanimate temptation.
William wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:12 amIf we were to place sentient creatures into a dangerous environment and withhold full knowledge from them, and they were harmed because of their ignorant choices, it would be the fault of the creator of said environment for not making sure the creatures where fully informed.What I mean by 'full knowledge' (in relation to outcome) is simply elaboration of what would actually happen. To say "you will surely die" is not untruthful in and of itself. To say "you will surely suffer a long life and then die" is a good example of what I am meaning by being being fully informed. Having full knowledge.That depends on what you mean by "full knowledge". They had "enough" knowledge to avoid the harm. I think that puts the fault on the creature (although the Creator is responsible for the creature having the ability to be at fault).
Again, (and despite your thinking the Serpent may be an analogy of an inanimate temptation rather than an actual real being) the god could have warned the pair from interacting with The Serpent, as without that being, the chance of Eve focusing her attention on the tree and the fruit would have most likely been zero.
My point still remains relevant. If the environment was perfect for humans to be placed there, then there must have been something about the being the god created, which had him make that choice.Do you mean that the environment would fare better? If so, then I agree. But I think God desires a loving community of free will beings over a perfect environment and that He is making the better choice.
On top of that, is the problem of the contradiction of an omniscient being having to make choices. Also, an omniscient being cannot have free will as everything is already known (mapped out) and he is simply going along with that - so therefore an omniscient being is more a robot than a free will individual, according to your stated understanding of the difference between robots and free-will beings.
William wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:12 amYour argument naturally goes in that direction. Right from the start of our interaction you made it clear that the god created beings with free will who could use that to trust in him and love him. What other reason would the god create something other than to fill a void? The void in this regard is that no beings capable of free will existed and so they were created? If this is not what you mean then please inform me as to what the god was motivated by to do so, as otherwise I cannot see the logic of your argument.I don't know why you think I'm arguing God has a void that we fill.How can this be so? The god is not a free will being so to make other beings who did have free will is to make something different which could ONLY partake of that love for their good IF they stopped having free will...but HAD to have free will in order to choose that transition...but inevitably the free will must transform into love.God was motivated by love to include other beings in that love for their good.
In this I am not saying such an experiment is WRONG (evil etc). I am saying that as far as experiments go, THAT is the only way to explain this one, given the parameters Christian Mythology present to us in regard to their particular (and generally shared) idea of a god.
William wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:12 amThis is not logically love in action. Billions suffer on the planet in order that a tiny, tiny percentage of those might become part of a community which is solely focused upon a being claiming to have created them? The rest are consigned to an eternity of hell? That is the general consensus of Christianity. Perhaps you do not agree with that consensus? Or are you are okay with this because you see it all as a 'loving act'?Understandable. Only, why wax poetic about it. Why not just say "you will suffer a long life and then die and be dead forevermore" and be done with that?If free will exists, then Hell must logically exist as a possible "destination" (whether any person ends up "there" or not). As to what happens "in" Hell, I lean towards annihilationism (for Biblical and philosophical reasons). It is not the majority view of Hell among Christians, but I think that is more for cultural reasons (although I could be wrong). Regardless of that, annihilationism is a traditional Christian understanding present from early on.
William wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:12 amWhat is it that you can actually point to and prove "This is truly loving"?But robots can't be a part of that community. Robots could co-exist beside them, but they wouldn't be a part of the loving community because they are incapable of truly loving (whatever their actions may look like). So, God creates beings with free will, who can become a part of that community. But, those beings, logically, are able to choose to not be a part of that community.Still my question is suitable so requires an answer from you. We cannot know to what extent a robot can evolve and so why assume they cannot eventually develop self awareness and will etc...sentience.I use love to mean "willing the good of another." Using that definition, robots cannot love because they cannot will; they have their actions determined by outside factors. I think my point logically follows from this. If you don't agree with the definition, then we are simply talking about different concepts. I'm fine in changing the terminology, if you want to do that, as long as we are talking about the same concepts.
If the state of "morally neutral" is a real thing, should we not all move to that platform/position as the reasonable thing to do under the circumstances?Morally neutral. This approaches moral perfection/imperfection like a batting average or completion percentage (i.e., in a descriptive way).
You are simply describing the currently and continuing state of humanity. Perhaps the state of 'morally neutral' is as near to 'moral goodness/perfectly moral' as we can achieve, under the circumstances.Yes, where 'good' means something different than 'moral goodness'. I'm fine using a different term as well. Perhaps humans can be 'ideal' without being morally perfect. I'm not sure what the best term to use is to avoid as many confusions as possible (and that probably depends on everyone in the conversation and the history of terms in their encounters and usage).
William wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:12 amIn that sense, one can then take the argument that this god created imperfect beings and placed them in an imperfect environment but that the beings and the environment were perfect for each other in relation to why the god created the imperfect states of both beings and environment.In that sense of 'imperfect,' yes, God created imperfect beings. In this sense, humans are neither morally perfect nor morally imperfect; they start off morally neutral because they haven't had to make any moral choices yet. They have no "batting average," metaphorically speaking; it's neither 1.000 nor .000. So, of course, in this understanding, the humans can become perfect (or imperfect).A being is - by nature - 'an environment' so differentiating one from the other can only ever muddy the waters and may be a product/side effect of being a non-morally neutral organism...by act of free will no less...The environment could only be described as 'imperfect' in this sense, if it is a moral being itself. But then it really is a "being" and not an "environment". I'm definitely not making this argument (just making that clear, if it isn't).
William wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:12 amAs far as Christian mythology goes to explain the human condition and the environment, one could nowadays conclude that it is natural to make up stories which appear 'good' in order to explain somethings which appear 'evil' but equally natural not to actually believe those stories are real (true) but rather, are simply methods adopted to help explain what (then) was unknown. Analogies, but nothing more than that. They are meant to serve a purpose but are also meant to be abandoned as more and more actual truth surfaces through continued human interaction with and learning from the environment of nature.Isn't that really what argument/debate/discussion/talking gives opportunity toward? What say you regarding this question?Of course one could. Whether one should conclude this conclusion is true is another question.
So why can't humans be robots designed who can face moral decisions?Yes, robots that don't face moral decisions.
If the robot has no free will programed into it, the robot is not making decision it is simply following instruction - going along with the program. There is no morality involved in the robots actions at all. If offence has occurred, then it is the programmer who indirectly used the robot to abuse the child. Why destroy the child? To put it out of its misery?Perhaps "decision" isn't the best word, I don't know. Let's say the moral "decision" is to abuse a child or not. A robot that is programmed to abuse the child is "facing a moral decision," although perhaps better language could be used.
William wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:12 amCan you give some examples as to those kinds of animals? Also, it appears crystal clear to me that the nature of our environment allows for what you refer to as 'damage' as part of its overall makeup. It is not a dualistic thing (ie 'good and evil') so much as a singular thing which envelops both creativity and destruction as a part of its natural makeup.A lion might damage a zebra but zebras continue. Understand that in the same light as 'culling' - it controls population and helps keep balance - all quite natural and nothing one could seriously deem as 'good' or 'evil' - certainly not 'evil'.I'm simply thinking of things like a lion eating a zebra, or, vaguely, of some animal that may do actions which damage the environment but help them survive. Perhaps there is no such animal that inadvertently damages the environment?
Inadvertently? If animals are robots they run on programs and those programs cannot be deemed anything but purposeful as indeed they prove to be.
If our garden dwelling parents had not of eaten of the forbidden fruit, would we be able to say "this isn't an issue of good versus evil at all, rather - it is neither good or evil." or at the very best - it is 'good'. Certainly not anything working against itself...even if we can be taught to see it in that light...I agree that damage is built into the environment. For instance, I'm not sure Earth could be habitable without the weather patterns that can bring suffering on humans. I would say that this isn't an issue of good versus evil at all, rather than being both good and evil.
William wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:12 amIs it logic which separate them though? It appears to me that for the most part, such concepts are anchored firmly in human emotion, which we all should appreciate is seldom connected with logic.
We also understand that what is considered 'good' for some is considered 'evil' for others, so it is in that sense that I write that these concepts do indeed co-exist if they are not judged (from a purely emotive position) but simply accepted as part of the natural order of all things in this universe.
Indeed, isn't that the way you are trying to argue for the logic of your gods own choices in relation to said creation?That contradicts the assertion that the Christian god "is good and in him there is no evil". "Good and Evil are anchored in the god's nature", you declare?I don't think good and evil are anchored in human emotion (although human thoughts of what is good and evil often are), but in God's nature (a nature which is logical).
I think you are arguing from the position that good and evil are real things rather than imagined things, but that your argument also contradicts that position...I'm not sure why you think I'm trying to argue in that way. Perhaps I've misunderstood something?
It appears plainly to me that you are consistently arguing that free will needs to be abandoned but you also seem to contradict this by saying god does not want robots. My antidote for being in such a position was to be able drop the notions altogether through understanding that free will is the key which - once turned - is of no use to me anymore...it has served its purpose.I think Jesus is the ultimate answer. Evil infiltrates Christianity because Christians (just like everyone else) have free will, stubbornly holding onto their desire to determine good/evil for ourselves. Becoming like God is a process that we continually fight, yet God leads us one step at a time.
William wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:12 amI could understand it more in terms which would have the god saying "yes I take responsibility for my part in this unfolding adventure and rectify that in Jesus - all is forgiven and no need for an eternity of hell for anyone" but that is not the general Christian message and you yourself believe that an eternal hell is the best answer this god could come up with in relation to what to do about free will creatures who chose to reject what can only be honestly referred to as unsubstantiated claims made by a variety of religious institutions over the centuries.
How is that a 'good' thing when one can figure out far better 'ultimate' ways of ensuring free will beings get to experience the actual love of a creator through the creator himself rather than through mediums claiming to speak on behalf of the creator?Well firstly I now see that you believe that 'hell' is simply short hand for "you will suffer a lifetime and then be destroyed forever" - which is a better way than the traditional belief general claimed by Christians.What are these better ways? I'm open to considering them.
Can I think of an even better ways? If memory serves me well enough, I have already discussed these in some detail with you in the past. I will think on ways in which to word that concept as succinctly as possible and along with that data which I think passes for at least circumstantial evidence which support the concept...
William wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:12 amWhy do you think it an 'unnecessary tangent' when logically it has to be part of the question needing answering?Leaving the unnecessary tangent of God's relationship to time aside, yes, He knew exactly what would occur and decided to give it a go anyway. What's the problem with that?Another possibility is that an omniscient being can also create an illusion for itself which allows it to eternally create things which appear to be new...and literally places a piece of its own awareness into those creations in order to personally experience said things as 'new' whilst at the same time not (at least initially) knowing it has done so at least not the part of itself which it places into said illusion/simulations...For our purposes, I don't think it matters if God knows what will happen and chooses to go through with it or whether God makes a choice (knowing all the possibilities) and sees what happens and timelessly reacts to those happenings. If you see an affect I don't, then share and I'll share my thoughts.
William wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:12 amLet me clarify then - I am not interpreting anything but simply taking the script as it is presented. When someone has written that the god was sorry for creating free will beings (as per your free will argument) and you have written in effect that the god is never surprised, I am content to go along with you and conclude that the story is poorly worded if it gives the impression the god was surprised (and thus 'sorry') as the god cannot be 'sorry' for creating free will beings as the god cannot have been surprised by their actions.First off, calling it a writer's error is just another way to say that your interpretation is correct and mine wrong. That is "getting caught up with individual webs of interpretations" while skirting your burden to support your interpretation. You say you don't want to get caught up in that, so don't.William wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:12 amIn principle I see no problem with this, other than how badly written the mythology is as it clearly isn't that clear. I suppose that is the exact reason why there are so many Christians with differing interpretations but I reject any notion (veiled or otherwise) that it is my fault I don't understand any particular Christians personal interpretations of said mythology.
I critique as I see the holes in said mythology and respect any curtesy of clarification which the individual provides me with.But I have accounted for those...and will continue to do so. There is no fault on my part, at least none you have exampled.First, that is still doing it. "Taking the script as it is presented" is rhetoric for "my interpretation is the simplest or clearest or author-intended one." Just because it is the first impression you get doesn't mean the story is poorly worded. You come from a different culture than the author (as do I) and there is danger for us reading our culture and expectations and worldview into the text when they aren't there. Errors that arise because of that isn't the author's fault. I'm fine with you critiquing holes as you see the mythology and open to clarifications, but it is your fault in claiming your impression is the clear reading of the text when you haven't accounted for the possible cultural differences.
I can agree that any story told is subject to the mind of the individuals interpretation but in that, if we are to discuss stories, we contend with it and have to do so in the most honest way possible in order to read as little into the actual wording as we can. (The priciple of Occam's Razor)
This is precisely why I do not trust Christianity's many differing interpretations of another cultures mythology, whilst also remembering that cultures are always stealing ideas from one another so I best avoid taking any culture too seriously while I am involved in the critiquing of its (various) belief systems reflected in their - often - poorly thought out analogies. Essentially I am being truthful in pointing out that the wording in the stories isn't helpful...
I didn't say specifically that you had argued that...Second, and more importantly, I didn't argue that God was sorry for creating free will beings.
My argument in return, critiques your position on the matter. How can an omniscient being ever feel the emotion of sorrow for something it simply knew would be the outcome of his own actions?I have said that God was sorry that free will beings use it for evil, but in spite of that God is still not sorry He created free will beings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocho_(crocodile)
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 6002
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6627 times
- Been thanked: 3222 times
Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.
Post #260The text doesn't say a lot of things, but that doesn't stop people filling in all the gaps with their own versions of what happened and why. Naturally all of that is based on their biased opinions and preconceived ideas of what the story is supposed to say. How can you be sure that you are not doing that yourself?The Tanager wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 1:22 pm The text doesn't say the humans doubted God was the creator; it doesn't address that question directly. It does not say they doubted God's statement about death. It shows them choosing the fruit's aesthetics, mouth-wateringness, and the chance of knowing good and evil apart from God over God's statement to not eat it and the consequence being death.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.