Is forgiveness without a price a virtue?

[Justin108]

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

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

[The Tanager]

Sorry for just now answering, I missed your question back in the day...

My definition of belief depends on the topic, or tone. As it relates to religious belief, I define it as holding true a set of dogmas that have zero empirical data or evidence to back them up.

No problem on missing it earlier. So, are you saying atheism is not a belief because (1) it holds true a set of dogmas that have some empirical data and evidence to back it up or (2) lacks a set of dogmas entirely or (3) something else?

The definition (or one of them anyway) of atheism is "lack of belief".

So plugging in your definition for belief you are saying that one definition of atheism is the lack of [holding true a set of dogmas that have zero empirical data or evidence to back them up]. But I'm asking how does this lack show itself. Is it lacking because the set of dogmas involved do have evidence to back it up or is it lacking because there is no set of dogmas concerning the issue?

[The Tanager]

1. Does the Christian God reject people for beliefs they have no control over?

If the arguments in favor of Big Foot are rational arguments, then you should (according to the logic you have demonstrated so far) be able to choose to believe in Big Foot. If you cannot choose to believe in Big Foot despite the rational arguments, you cannot make the claim that I have a choice in believing in the Christian God as that would make you a hypocrite. If you can't choose what you believe then why do you insist I can?

Okay, so I can choose to believe in Big Foot. I choose not to, but I could choose to believe. Some people do choose to believe. How does this help your argument?

Then why should I believe you? Why should I take your word that you cannot choose to believe in fairies yet you refuse to take my word that I cannot choose to believe in the Christian God?

You don't have to. If you don't want to believe me there, fine. I'm not making an argument that rests on my belief (about whether I have control over my belief in fairies) being true. Your critique concerning the Christian God in this section, however, does rest on your belief (about whether we have control over our beliefs) being true, so you need to give us reasons to believe you.

It won't because you'd be lying. You've been saying over and over that you do not have control over your disbelief in fairies. If you changed your story now, it would just make you a liar.

Can I prove that I don't have control over my disbelief in fairies? No. So, I wouldn't press it if someone wanted to challenge me on that front. I talked of it here because you also agree you don't have control over your disbelief in fairies. We had some common ground that didn't affect our disagreement. We could both be wrong. It's not changing my story, it's just saying that I'm not sure it's that big of a deal, so I'll grant you whichever way you want to go on this issue for the sake of our discussion.

My point is you cannot hold a belief that is outside of your control and then insist that my belief is within my control. That's hypocritical.

It's not. I'm saying that my personal experience regarding beliefs where only one rational alternative exists meshes with your personal experience: I don't seem to be able to choose the irrational belief. You believe that and I am saying I will agree with you, so there is no need to argue for that; we are on common ground there.

Where we disagree is whether Christianity falls into that category or not. In this section your main critique rests on Christianity falling into that category, so you have the burden to prove Christianity does fall into that category. To ask me to prove otherwise or your critique is sound is to shift the burden. And if you want to maintain this critique, shifting the burden is an irrational way to do it.

In section 2, I hold the burden to show Christianity does not fall into that category to back up my claim. Which section do you want to pursue: 1 or 2?

And if you fail to make a rational argument then you can no longer claim that I have a choice in believing in the Christian God. Can we agree on that?

I thought we had already agreed to that, so, yes.

[The Tanager]

2. Radical claims require radical evidence

How should I know if any of these are indeed facts? I'm no historian. The best I can do is listen to what other historians say and even then, all I can do is assume they know what they're talking about.

It seems to me that the majority of scholarship points to these things being the better explanations than their alternatives. But we could also look at their cases for and against, which I've been willing to do, to make us feel more secure in the belief that they are better explanations than their alternatives.

I'm trying to make sure that if we go into step 2 and you see that the logic there is a rational possibility, that you don't just say something like "okay, but we have no reason to believe the facts the case is built upon are remotely true, so you still haven't shown this is a rational argument." Not because I think you don't have the right to think that, but that if you do think that I would be wasting your time with step 2. So, hypothetically, if you deemed that my analysis in step 2 was rational would your view of step 1 still mean that you don't think it is a rational argument overall?

[The Tanager]

3. The Effect of Sin

What? No. Not "true but improbable", just "improbable". Neither you nor I know whether Christianity is true.

I was misunderstanding you, then. So, (assuming your logic of probability) I think you have a false dilemma. I think there should at least be a trilemma that says either Christianity's view of created human nature is incoherent, false or true but improbable.

(A) I was originally responding to your critique of incoherence and you haven't shown Christianity to be incoherent.

(B) If your critique is that it is false because it is improbable, then I think you are being irrational since probability doesn't determine truth/falsity.

(C) If you are saying we don't know which of the three is correct, so it would be reasonable to go with the most probable (that the Christian view of created human nature is false), I agree with the logic, but I would say that you are wrong on the probability.

This is not changing my story because I earlier assumed your label of 'improbable' to be true for the sake of argument because I didn't think it affected the argument you were making, but you apparently weren't actually making that argument (B). You are arguing for (C).

My support against falsehood being the most probable would involve (i) what I've said about free will as it pertains to going against the odds (I'll quote the part of my last post you didn't respond to):

The odds of winning a contest of some sort are staggeringly low in one sense, but in another sense I have an equal likelihood to everyone else to actually win it. That's why I am wary of probability when trying to come to the truth of the matter. The numbers on a dice all being a six is improbable when we lay out all the possible outcomes. So what? Tell me people chose what it was going to say and tell me it was always a 6 and I say, okay, that makes sense because I understand free will has nothing to do with mechanistic odds and so defying the odds isn't actually improbable.

and (ii) other arguments for the Christian God that would (supposedly) establish the view that the created nature of humans is what we've been saying it is (i.e., going through section 2).

[The Tanager]

4. An analysis of one analogy of the Christian solution

Yes. YOU are getting up the cliff. God isn't. So God isn't violating the no-getting-up-the-cliff rule. God is not surrendering. He is simply helping you surrender.

Yes, but it's how God pushes us. Just pushing us up against our will is not us surrendering, God would be negating our free will. God doesn't want that. We need God to surrender for us. But God can't surrender anything in His divine nature. But God can push us without Him surrendering anything. Yes...by negating our free will. God must push us without negating our free will. But we won't surrender our will. So God must surrender it without negating our free will. And God can't surrender anything if it's not in His nature to surrender. But if God took on a created human nature, then God could surrender for us.

You could not make a coherent argument for why it was logically necessary for God to become human, and so your claim that it was logically necessary is baseless. I suggest we close this portion of the debate until you can come up with one such argument. One that does not rely on tautologies or inconcrete analogies.

Like I said, we have both had opportunities to share what we think of the attempt. I just don't care to keep rhetorically repeating my thoughts on that. It wouldn't weaken my argument, but it definitely doesn't strengthen my conclusion to do that. If you want to do it again, knock yourself out.

[Justin108]

If the arguments in favor of Big Foot are rational arguments, then you should (according to the logic you have demonstrated so far) be able to choose to believe in Big Foot. If you cannot choose to believe in Big Foot despite the rational arguments, you cannot make the claim that I have a choice in believing in the Christian God as that would make you a hypocrite. If you can't choose what you believe then why do you insist I can?

Okay, so I can choose to believe in Big Foot. I choose not to, but I could choose to believe.

Ok then do it. Be a believer in Big Foot for a week.

Then why should I believe you? Why should I take your word that you cannot choose to believe in fairies yet you refuse to take my word that I cannot choose to believe in the Christian God?

You don't have to. If you don't want to believe me there, fine. I'm not making an argument that rests on my belief

Yes but you are criticizing my claim yet making a virtually indistinguishable claim yourself. You cannot demand I prove that I cannot believe in the Christian God then claim that you cannot believe in fairies. It's hypocritical.

Can I prove that I don't have control over my disbelief in fairies? No. So, I wouldn't press it if someone wanted to challenge me on that front.

Then how do you expect me to prove that I cannot choose to believe in the Christian God?

My point is you cannot hold a belief that is outside of your control and then insist that my belief is within my control. That's hypocritical.

It's not. I'm saying that my personal experience regarding beliefs where only one rational alternative exists meshes with your personal experience: I don't seem to be able to choose the irrational belief. You believe that and I am saying I will agree with you, so there is no need to argue for that; we are on common ground there.

Where we disagree is whether Christianity falls into that category or not. In this section your main critique rests on Christianity falling into that category, so you have the burden to prove Christianity does fall into that category.

I don't believe these categories exist at all so I have no such burden. I believe beliefs are automatic, as they are for me. All beliefs.

And if you fail to make a rational argument then you can no longer claim that I have a choice in believing in the Christian God. Can we agree on that?

I thought we had already agreed to that, so, yes.

Then I suggest we abandon section 1 until you prove that there are rational arguments for the Christian God.

[Justin108]

2. Radical claims require radical evidence

How should I know if any of these are indeed facts? I'm no historian. The best I can do is listen to what other historians say and even then, all I can do is assume they know what they're talking about.

It seems to me that the majority of scholarship points to these things being the better explanations than their alternatives. But we could also look at their cases for and against, which I've been willing to do, to make us feel more secure in the belief that they are better explanations than their alternatives.

This will be a waste of time. I won't change my position. I will not call these facts because I don't know what happened.

[Justin108]

3. The Effect of Sin

What? No. Not "true but improbable", just "improbable". Neither you nor I know whether Christianity is true.

I was misunderstanding you, then. So, (assuming your logic of probability) I think you have a false dilemma. I think there should at least be a trilemma that says either Christianity's view of created human nature is incoherent, false or true but improbable.

No. It's either contradictory, or it's improbable. "False and improbable" and "true but improbable" are both part of "improbable". You are creating an arbitrary third category.

(B) If your critique is that it is false because it is improbable, then I think you are being irrational since probability doesn't determine truth/falsity.

When did I say it's false because it's improbable?

(C) If you are saying we don't know which of the three is correct...

Please explain why you added a third category?

so it would be reasonable to go with the most probable (that the Christian view of created human nature is false), I agree with the logic, but I would say that you are wrong on the probability.

Then you're back peddling because you admitted that everyone "choosing oatmeal" (as our analogy was at the time) was "staggeringly low". If you're going to change your mind on this then I'm just going to stop discussing this with you.

This is not changing my story because I earlier assumed your label of 'improbable' to be true for the sake of argument because I didn't think it affected the argument you were making, but you apparently weren't actually making that argument (B). You are arguing for (C).

There is no "assuming for argument sake" in your claim. You openly claimed that "The odds of everyone choosing oatmeal are staggeringly low".

If your response is going to be "oh no I messed up, let me just change everything I've said" then I'm done. Frankly, I don't see the point of discussing section 3 any further. I have nothing else to say on the matter.

[Justin108]

But God can push us without Him surrendering anything. Yes...by negating our free will.

How does this negate our free will? If I ask "please God, push me" then it is not a negation of my free will.

And God can't surrender anything if it's not in His nature to surrender.

God can't surrender his own will. That does not mean he cannot surrender the will of others... If you insist that he cannot surrender the will of others, prove it. If you can't, your argument is empty.

- God can't kill himself
- but God can kill others

By that same logic
- God can't surrender his own nature
- but God can surrender the nature of others

Give me a logical reason for why God cannot surrender the will of others without negating their free will.

You could not make a coherent argument for why it was logically necessary for God to become human, and so your claim that it was logically necessary is baseless. I suggest we close this portion of the debate until you can come up with one such argument. One that does not rely on tautologies or inconcrete analogies.

Like I said, we have both had opportunities

And every time you tried, I managed to poke so many holes in your arguments. You've had opportunities and you failed every one of them.

It wouldn't weaken my argument

You don't have an argument. You have a claim. You claim that it is logically impossible for God to surrender our will, but you failed to demonstrate that claim.

[The Tanager]

1. Does the Christian God reject people for beliefs they have no control over?

Ok then do it. Be a believer in Big Foot for a week.

The only way I can answer right now is hypothetically because you haven't even tried to prove that belief in Bigfoot is a rational alternative. But even if you did, (and I said this a long time ago) why are you using choice in this way? Choice is not something done without any consideration of the evidences.

Yes but you are criticizing my claim yet making a virtually indistinguishable claim yourself. You cannot demand I prove that I cannot believe in the Christian God then claim that you cannot believe in fairies. It's hypocritical.

Why did I make that claim? Here's why: You made the claim that is the title of this post. And in defense of that you argued that God-belief is the same as fairy-belief (which has become Bigfoot-belief). We both agreed that we didn't seem to have control over our fairy-(dis)belief. I granted that part of your critique. If that is being hypocritical, then go ahead and prove we have no control over fairy-belief, too. If you want me to prove it, then I will say I can't and gladly drop that claim because I only mentioned it to make your case easier and to get at our real disagreement.

Then how do you expect me to prove that I cannot choose to believe in the Christian God?

I don't expect you to, but you were trying to make a rational critique that depends on it being true. Certainly you can drop your critique as unsupported. It wouldn't mean Christianity is true, but just that you made a critique that didn't stand up rationally.

I don't believe these categories exist at all so I have no such burden. I believe beliefs are automatic, as they are for me. All beliefs.

Then your burden is to show that beliefs are automatic. If you think you have done that, then we have each had our say there and we can move on, because we would disagree.

Then I suggest we abandon section 1 until you prove that there are rational arguments for the Christian God.

Okay.